Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Three misunderstood containers familiar to CofS psychiatrists~1
0 views
Skip to first unread message
Message has been deleted
anonymous...@googlemail.com
May 17, 2008, 7:34:44 PM5/17/08
to
On May 18, 12:30 am, propriety08-chast...@yahoo.com wrote:
> engrams
> secondaries
> locks
>
> Those are words frequently printed or spoken in CofS scriptures~1.2.
>
> ========
> scriptures~1.2
> I.
> = "a body of writings considered as authoritative by some and as
> classically embodying the essence of an era, by another"
>
> II.
> = "a body of writings that:
>
> (1) psychiatrists~1 consider to be demanding submission and
> conformity, yet assenting to any derived meaning that pleases (them),
> explicit permission to choose however they like proceeding from an
> authoritative person who determines all the psychiatrist's~1 moral
> judgments about the meaning of the writings as stable and free from
> flaw
>
> and that...
> (2) this auditor~1 considers to be embodying the essence of the era
> when essential engrams were locked to secondaries in a traditionally
> accepted, and usually prescribed set of contradictions"
> ========
>
> Now, can you guess what kind of "engram", "secondary" and "lock" I'm
> writing about?
>
> Here's some help.
>
> ========
> engram~1.2
> I.
> = "en + gram"
> = "writing provided with a record that was put into it"
> II.
> = "a word made ready for understanding by the use of information
> remaining in permanent form that speakers and their interpreters have
> placed into association with it"
> ========
>
> ========
> engram~2.2
> I.
> = "n_ + gram"
> = "a variable taking on integral values in an equation between (1)
> writing provided with grammar, and (2) record"
>
> II.
> = "a word subject to change in meaning that, by means of a writing of
> value~1.3 that conforms to grammatical rules, accepts in an
> identifying relationship, evidence coming from some truth~2, that
> remains permanent in its essential structure"
>
> +
> value~1.3
> i.
> = "an expression in logic that may replace a variable in a
> propositional function so that the resultant is a true or false
> statement"
>
> ii.
> = "a description that symbolizes propriety of quality judged as
> present according to apparent conformity with the dictates of a
> system of formal principles of deduction. Since its abbreviation is
> liable to vary when used in the point to be maintained in argument,
> the description may serve as its successor in order that the resulting
> product has individual identity with a declarative sentence
> conformable to an original."
>
> III.
> = "a statement representing the peculiar nature arising from a
> configuration of parts in relation to other parts, some of which have
> an effect on the senses of an observer, the possession of the effect
> causing the thing to exist as a symbol of the configuration. The
> configuration is formed in a track traveled by an impulse in its
> movement through the brain, thereby constituting a conclusive image,
> in progress which bears witness to neural activity that is a fairly
> certain symptom of its cause. The image is capable of easy perception
> as if adjacent to that source from which its configuration is derived
> and it complies with the nervous system's governing laws of logical
> abstraction whereby one class is excepted from another in which it is
> naturally included. These laws have the power to make the neural
> activity seem to itself to consist of the configuration of parts that
> caused it.
> Often, a simple spoken sound or written word is conveniently
> substituted for the whole understood image. But since such a word is
> subject to a selection of its interpretation, and since any change of
> that interpretation brings about differences in the part of the
> coherent series of reasons that gives the process of reasoning its
> effectiveness, the image may be kept in a state of validity using a
> series of descriptions that proceed after it in order, according to
> their degree of refinement and conformance to the image from which the
> description arose. Duplicates of the valid image, with sameness of
> essential nature in different instances, may be produced by another's
> intellectual effort, making evident to him the stated judgment of the
> nervous system that constructed the value~1.3"
> ========
>
> ========
> engram~3.4
> I.
> = "a memory trace"
> = "a trace of memory"
> II.
> = "a path that one follows giving the content of something
> remembered"
> III.
> = "a way of thought a person goes after that yields the satisfaction
> in a symbol~1 thought of again"
>
> IV.
> = "a possible decision pursued as a goal motivated by a thou-ought,
> the decision rewarding a person with pleasure when appearing to be
> chosen in response to uncertainty"
> ========
>
> ========
> engram~4.3
> I.
> = "a memory trace"
> = "a trace of memory"
> II.
> = "a path that one follows giving the content of something
> remembered"
> III.
> = "a way of thought a person obeys, that offers ideas coming from the
> neural path some engram~2.2 correlates with when that path is again
> associated with a word in the course of speaking"
> ========
>
> ========
> secondary~1.2
> I.
> = "an engram~4.3 of second value~1.3"
> II
> = "an engram~4.3 that is number two in a countable series of
> values~1.3"
> ========
>
> ========
> secondary~2.2
> I.
> = "an engram~4.3 of second value~1.3"
> = "an engram~4.3 of other value~1.3"
> II.
> = "an engram~4.3 of a value~1.3 that exists as an opposite of another
> value~1.3 within the same word"
> ========
>
> ========
> secondary~3.2
> I.
> = "an engram~4.3 of less than first importance"
> II.
> = "an engram~4.3 less valuable in relationship with some truth~2
> (than another engram~2.2) for the purpose of bringing some truth~1 to
> light"
> ========
>
> ========
> secondary~4.2
> I.
> = "an engram~3.4 serving to assist"
> = "an engram~3.4 having a function in giving (behavior) support"
> II.
> = "an engram~3.4 working to motivate the response of an individual
> member of a species to the whole range of factors constituting its
> environment"
> ========
>
> ========
> secondary~5.3
> I.
> = "an inferior engram~3.4"
> = "a lower engram~3.4"
> = "a backward engram~3.4"
> II.
> = "an engram~3.4, slow to learn and executed in a reverse direction"
> III.
> = "an engram~3.4, not quick in becoming aware of the course in
> truth~1 on which its person is aimed to move, its decisions performed
> in progress that trends towards its destruction"
> ========
>
> I know this is a lot to think about. I'm bringing out this much to
> show several of the possible choices you had whenever you read the
> words "engram" and "secondary".
>
> Let's consider one especially relevant kind of lock~1.
>
> ========
> lock~1.3
> I.
> = "stratagem, difficulty"
> = "stratagem of difficulty"
> II.
> = "an artifice in war for deceiving and outwitting an enemy, who is
> impelled into disagreement with himself, this causing him perplexity
> and requiring skill and perseverance in solving it"
>
> III
> = "an ingenious means to the destroyer of life, that is governed by
> self-interest on both sides of a conflict between the thou-oughts of
> mutually antagonistic engrams~4.3 in one word.
> Here, self-interest adapts itself to seek its own failure,
> overreaching and defeating itself, by seeking to gain too much
> pleasure, more than either one of the engrams~4.3 offers separately.
> The conflict leads the person in a wrong direction by urging a state
> in which consciousness is at variance with surrounding truths~1,
> decisive thinking on what truth~2 is at hand becoming impossible.
> Setting oneself free from a locked-together pair of engrams~4.3
> requires a reason insisting that one persist in the enterprise of
> dianetics~1 in spite of counter influences or discouragement"
> ========
>
> How can the above be combined? One common possibility is that
> essential engrams~4 may be locked~2 to secondaries~(2, 3, 4, 5).
>
> ========
> locked~2.2
> I.
> = "held fast"
> II.
> = "believed to be unable to be separated after being fastened
> together"
> ========
>
> Another possibility is that engrams~4 may be locked~3. to
> secondaries~(2, 3, 4, 5)
>
> ========
> locked~3.
> I.
> = "made fast with a lock~1.3"
> = "caused to be engaged within a lock~1.3"
> II
> = "attracted and held by authority on the inner side of a lock~1.3"
> III.
> = "caused to adhere unconsciously below the surface of a lock~1.3,
> which is then sustained and preserved through the testimony of persons
> in command having the power to influence thought and opinion"
> ========
>
> What might that testimony consist of ?
>
> ========
> testimony~1
> = "testimonial"
> = "a public profession of the healing or uplifting effect of the
> religious experience (of a lock~1.3) upon the life of an individual"
> ========
>
> ?
>
> How long have CofS psychiatrists~1 been providing testimony~1 about
> the "wins" and "benefits" that come from locks~1.3 ?
>
> Locks~1.3 held by a global society could be a pleasing ruse~1.
> ========
> ruse~1.
> I.
> = "our + r_ + use + stratagem, usually intended to deceive"
> = "our + are + use of a stratagem, usually intended to deceive"
> II.
> = "a stratagem of difficulty (a lock~1.3), tending to use an equaling
> in meaning that deprives (us, of a future) by fraud, this due to us
> and inherent in us"
> ========
>
> Who's us?
>
> To show you who that "us" is, by demonstration, the copyrighted
> material that the Church of Scientology has thus far published (as of
> May 2008) is verbal~1.3 in nature.
> ========
> verbal~1.3
> I.
> = "having to do with words rather than substance"
> = "having to be set through code groups rather than ultimate reality"
> II.
> = "consisting of significant units of code text to enter earlier
> than their fundamental aspects"
>
> III.
> = "consisting of brief speech sounds and printed text containing some
> disguised, special meaning in a language system in which arbitrary
> meanings have been assigned to each symbol. From these, most people
> automatically choose and record a superimposing of two or more
> representative images, these described within the outer cover of the
> code text, the action done precisely according to a standard suited to
> personal comfort. It usually happens without their conscious
> intention, and before it occurs to the reader the whole text ought to
> be broken up into its basic supporting truths~2."
> ========
>
> This is the standard that psychiatrists~1 in the CofS are usually
> guided by:
> ========
> standard~2.3
> I.
> = "test"
> = "t_ est"
> = " something most having the shape of the letter T "
> = " something most bearing the shape of the letter T "
> = " a flow of interpretation most suggesting the shape of the letter
> T "
>
> II.
> = "a flow of translation that arises as one, then abruptly splits and
> goes in two opposite ways"
>
> III.
> = "a flow that originates from symbols, converting into:
> (1) an imaginary direction of events leading toward one objective set
> forth pleasurably in consciousness
> (2) a series of behaviors in truth~1 leading toward an objective
> diametrically different from the one implied by the pleasure"
> ========
>
> Why would immediate pleasure be so much more popular than becoming
> aware of the future truth~1 to which one's behavior is leading?
>
> Consider this path:
> ========
> pleasure~1
> I.
> = "plea assure"
> = "secure an allegation of fact"
>
> II.
> = "put an unsupported assertion of event beyond the hazard of not
> receiving"
>
> III.
> = "set an outcome supposed beforehand but not yet not borne out by
> truth~1, to be pleasingly intense enough to overrule the restraining
> domination of the defeated conscious existence of the future who
> doesn't experience it"
> ========
>
> If you want to risk the truth~2 that may come from it, there is a way
> of looking at the whole phenomenon of pleasure and pain that sets
> aside personal and racial desires.
>
> This way attempts to see, while exempting itself from the usual bias
> as to whether any one kind of individual or species (including the
> human) continues to exist on Earth. No, it's not the usual way of
> looking at things but it can shed much light on the nature of pleasure
> and pain.
>
> Here we have four contrasting paths:
>
> 1) pleasure felt about behavior leading to tens of millions of years
> of continuing life
>
> 2) pleasure felt about behavior leading to permanent annihilation
>
> 3) pain felt about behavior leading to permanent annihilation
>
> 4) pain felt about behavior leading to tens of millions of years of
> continuing life
>
> At first glance it may look as if #1 and #3 are the rational
> responses. But strangely, hard as it is to believe, #2 and #4 are
> based upon reason~1.
> ========
> reason~1
> = "a warranted presumption that validates the course of conduct"
> ========
>
> There are two presumptions. One is that any creature habitually
> feeling good about behavior that will end its existence... will
> continue on to end its existence. The second (warranted presumption)
> is that any creature that habitually experiences pain whenever it
> turns towards a path of enduring existence, will turn back towards
> path #2 continuing on to end its existence.
>
> The result of this weeding out process is succeeding generations of
> creatures that tend toward path #1, by turning away from path #3, #2,
> and #4.
>
> There you have the strange reason~1 behind path #2 and #4. The rule
> is that if you gravitate towards path #2 and #4, you're in the midst
> of a kind of near-death experience, for yourself and for your kind.
> It's only a matter of time before you're gone.
>
> Now, isn't that something to feel pleasure about?
>
> If not, then in HCO PL 9 Feb 1974, is printed:
>
> >there is a condition below
> >treason. It is the condition of
> >confusion. The formula of
> >the condition is "find out where
> >you are"
>
> There are many ways to evaluate "find out where you are". Rather than
> ignoring the distinction between its contained engrams~4.3, you could
> spend some time sorting them out.
>
> Here's one I found:
> ========
> "find out where you are"
> I.
> = "penetrate to the identity of ewe at the place in which their true
> character equals (that of someone else) in meaning"
>
> II.
> = "overcome thy resistance and enter to reach the operator that
> leaves unchanged the engram~4.3 of the [silly fellow] on which it
> operates. The engram~4.3 is accurate in delineating his essential
> elements but is inclined to shrink from his attention in the a priori
> form of the fellow's experience of beyond-the-brain truth~1 ---
> because he regards it as identical in logical denotation to a
> secondary~2.2 describing someone else."
>
> +
> [silly fellow]
> I.
> = "a contemptible person exhibiting a lack of judgement"
> = "a contemptuous person unworthy of consideration exhibiting a lack
> of justice"
> = "a contemptuous person unworthy of consideration exhibiting a lack
> of just treatment"
>
> II.
> = "a person unsuitable to reward with approval, respect, or
> sympathetic notice. This silly one publicly shows his lack of
> instigation to give an exposition having its basis in outside-the-
> brain truth~1. He does so by haughtily manifesting a defect of
> distinction between (essential engram~4.3 linked to secondary~2.2) ---
> and scorn for anyone who can see the behavior, in him, that his
> engram~4.3 responds to."
> ========
>
> +++++++
> Glossary
> +++++++
>
> ========
> truth~1
>
> incident I.
> = "actual existence"
>
> incident II.
> = "not counterfeit being in its actuality"
>
> incident III.
> = "material existence that is:
> (1) not serving as the reproduction of a symbolic picture, a picture
> which causes a new version of truth's~1 existence to be experienced by
> someone
> that is:
> (2) the original, the source from which a valid symbolic picture may
> arise
> and that is:
> (3) composed by the existing thing itself under the circumstances
> that have been predestined as necessary in the interaction between the
> nature of the surroundings and that of the truth~1 itself"
> ========
>
> ========
> truth~2
> I.
> = "being as given in the act of experiencing, that conforms to
> reality"
>
> II.
> = "a symbol~1 apportioned during the act of experiencing, without
> regard to the wishes of the recipients, and that presents and
> categorizes an image in agreement with a referred-to aspect of
> truth~1"
> ========
>
> ========
> symbol~1
> I.
> = "something that suggests something else"
>
> II.
> = "experienced existence that puts a different kind of existence
> forward by implication"
>
> III.
> = "existence proven by conscious participation that puts a result of
> truth~1 into a prominent representation coming from truth's~1 state of
> being, entailed as a necessary cause"
> ========
>
> ========
> auditor~1
> I.
> = "one authorized (justified) by an attraction to truth~2 to examine
> and verify the results coming from probing the meaning of a word"
>
> II.
> = "a person, who through the work of the distinguishing quality of
> truth~2 that elicits his admiration, proves himself to be sufficiently
> just to:
> (1) test the tangible effects coming from searching through the
> logical extension of a printed word or speech sound with great
> thoroughness
> to...
> (2) limit the word's act of signifying, by adding a differentia to
> and to...
> (3) build from truth~1 as cause, the truth~2 most matching it in
> kind
> ========
>
> ========
> analysis~1
> I.
> = "breaking up of a whole (abbreviation) into its component parts"
>
> II.
> = "disrupting the continuity (the cohesion) of a word into component
> courses of conduct (of rendition) that the qualities of different
> people suggest. Otherwise, the word, when written, may present itself
> as a convenient simple (common) substitute for an understood whole
> (and hole) constituting a complex unity of experienced
> interpretations."
>
> III.
> = "preventing normal uninterrupted calling forth of a number of
> different stuck-together ways of explaining meaning. These are in a
> written word that is suited to personal comfort as a result of the
> different interpretations that are implied by the word's opposite
> degrees of conformance to a standard. Readers often show a tolerant
> attitude towards a close union of such varied interrelated measures of
> value, especially when they have many parts --- because when these are
> all joined into one inside a word whose inner structure is
> persistently shielded from notice, a person's moral transgressions are
> not easily regarded as in need of forceful correction."
> ========
>
> ========
> spiritual~2
> I.
> = "consisting of spirit"
> II.
> = "having a place in the vital, animating principle giving life to
> physical organisms"
> III.
> = "standing in a where in the motivating fundamental truth necessary
> to give an animal a way of living and maintain it in a state of
> activity"
> IV.
> = "maintaining its position in a location in the regulating personal
> world that must exist to incite a human being to a series of behaviors
> leading in a direction implied by their keeping him in a state of
> repair, preserving him from failure, and sustaining his natural
> function against opposition"
> ========
>
> ========
> psychiatrist ~1
>
> incident I.
> = "a physician specializing in psychiatry"
> = "a physician particularizing in psychiatry"
> = "a person skilled in the art of healing, separating in psychiatry"
> = "an inferior human being skilled in the craft of heeling, detaching
> in psychiatry"
> = "an in - fear - E - er enigmatic mortal existence skilled in the
> wily stratagem of following at the heels of something, disengaging in
> psychiatry"
>
> incident II.
> = "a person that exhibits an incomprehensible mixture of opposed
> qualities, who is capable of causing death, and is in fear of
> something exposing him. He is skilled in a trick that (usually)
> deceives and outwits his enemy. His trick is going after the
> residues (of a treatise) in pursuit of pleasure, thereby releasing
> (himself) from anything that involves (him) in the part of the
> treatise that contains an exposition on the treatment of mental
> disorder"
>
> incident III.
> = "a bodily presence that presents to an auditor's~1 view an
> emotional, gestural, facial response to himself that is the opposite
> to what the auditor~1 expects should come from his behavior, this
> combination of behavior and response telling a lie that is beyond the
> psychiatrist's~1 wish to reach.
> The psychiatrist~1 is capable of causing, in himself or another who
> is sufficiently vulnerable, a state that is without enjoyment of
> anyone's intellectual faculties, and that is impervious to arguments
> and evidence. He is in the habit of feeling a sudden loss of
> enthusiasm for anything that could reveal the frailties of his
> thinking and the unsoundness of his behavior. But he is skilled in a
> mean delusive practice that usually, by stealthy fraud --- ensnares,
> misleads, and deprives his enemy of reasoning power.
> The psychiatrist's~1 trick is setting himself the goal of pursuing
> and reaching the pleasurable point that remains after another part is
> removed from writing (as in a book or article). This removes his
> attention from the effect of any words that could draw (him) in as a
> participant to a setting forth of the meaning of the writing that
> would treat him to a pattern of actions (as insults, annoyances)
> designed to punish and cure a [reactive mind]~1 of its ill health"
> ========
>
> ========
> [reactive mind]~1
> incident I.
> = "a mind marked by reaction"
> = "a person who is the embodiment of attention marked by movement in
> a reverse direction"
> = "a person who is the embodiment of attention marked by a change of
> position that is of guidance of conduct that is opposite to guidance
> of conduct"
>
> incident II.
> = "a person who genuinely exemplifies selective awareness
> characterized by a transformation in its way of viewing its person's
> behavior. The switch is to a contrasting capacity, assumed without
> explicit recognition, that ranks the person very highly in relation to
> the behavior the person is, in truth~1, really carrying out. The
> change derives from directing the translation of a word into a
> performance that is the opposite of the way the same word has been
> chosen to be explained in meaning."
> ========
>
> ========
> dianetics~1
> I.
> = "di + a + net + ics"
> = "the practice of doubling something consisting of a network of
> lines and figures (when on paper) or a network of neural fibers (when
> in one's head)"
>
> II.
> = "the systematic exercise of halving two courses of rendition joined
> together, these existing, potentially, in a stable state on paper as
> two different tracks of explained meaning implying comparison to two
> truths~1 on which each explanation is upheld.
>
> Prior to halving on paper, one of the engrams had a place in
> someone's network of neural fibers as an a priori form, which if
> regarded as identical to the experience of external phenomena
> described by the other engram, will create a misleading impression.
> The separation into halves represents in a sequence that:
> (1) includes practical wisdom resulting from what one has lived
> through
> and that ...
> (2) encourages an orderly explanation of one's statements by pointing
> out their inner relationships that link a pleasurable object to a
> prompted a choice of behavior"
> ========
> engrams
> secondaries
> locks
>
> Those are words frequently printed or spoken in CofS scriptures~1.2.
>
> ========
> scriptures~1.2
> I.
> = "a body of writings considered as authoritative by some and as
> classically embodying the essence of an era, by another"
>
> II.
> = "a body of writings that:
>
> (1) psychiatrists~1 consider to be demanding submission and
> conformity, yet assenting to any derived meaning that pleases (them),
> explicit permission to choose however they like proceeding from an
> authoritative person who determines all the psychiatrist's~1 moral
> judgments about the meaning of the writings as stable and free from
> flaw
>
> and that...
> (2) this auditor~1 considers to be embodying the essence of the era
> when essential engrams were locked to secondaries in a traditionally
> accepted, and usually prescribed set of contradictions"
> ========
>
> Now, can you guess what kind of "engram", "secondary" and "lock" I'm
> writing about?
>
> Here's some help.
>
> ========
> engram~1.2
> I.
> = "en + gram"
> = "writing provided with a record that was put into it"
> II.
> = "a word made ready for understanding by the use of information
> remaining in permanent form that speakers and their interpreters have
> placed into association with it"
> ========
>
> ========
> engram~2.2
> I.
> = "n_ + gram"
> = "a variable taking on integral values in an equation between (1)
> writing provided with grammar, and (2) record"
>
> II.
> = "a word subject to change in meaning that, by means of a writing of
> value~1.3 that conforms to grammatical rules, accepts in an
> identifying relationship, evidence coming from some truth~2, that
> remains permanent in its essential structure"
>
> +
> value~1.3
> i.
> = "an expression in logic that may replace a variable in a
> propositional function so that the resultant is a true or false
> statement"
>
> ii.
> = "a description that symbolizes propriety of quality judged as
> present according to apparent conformity with the dictates of a
> system of formal principles of deduction. Since its abbreviation is
> liable to vary when used in the point to be maintained in argument,
> the description may serve as its successor in order that the resulting
> product has individual identity with a declarative sentence
> conformable to an original."
>
> III.
> = "a statement representing the peculiar nature arising from a
> configuration of parts in relation to other parts, some of which have
> an effect on the senses of an observer, the possession of the effect
> causing the thing to exist as a symbol of the configuration. The
> configuration is formed in a track traveled by an impulse in its
> movement through the brain, thereby constituting a conclusive image,
> in progress which bears witness to neural activity that is a fairly
> certain symptom of its cause. The image is capable of easy perception
> as if adjacent to that source from which its configuration is derived
> and it complies with the nervous system's governing laws of logical
> abstraction whereby one class is excepted from another in which it is
> naturally included. These laws have the power to make the neural
> activity seem to itself to consist of the configuration of parts that
> caused it.
> Often, a simple spoken sound or written word is conveniently
> substituted for the whole understood image. But since such a word is
> subject to a selection of its interpretation, and since any change of
> that interpretation brings about differences in the part of the
> coherent series of reasons that gives the process of reasoning its
> effectiveness, the image may be kept in a state of validity using a
> series of descriptions that proceed after it in order, according to
> their degree of refinement and conformance to the image from which the
> description arose. Duplicates of the valid image, with sameness of
> essential nature in different instances, may be produced by another's
> intellectual effort, making evident to him the stated judgment of the
> nervous system that constructed the value~1.3"
> ========
>
> ========
> engram~3.4
> I.
> = "a memory trace"
> = "a trace of memory"
> II.
> = "a path that one follows giving the content of something
> remembered"
> III.
> = "a way of thought a person goes after that yields the satisfaction
> in a symbol~1 thought of again"
>
> IV.
> = "a possible decision pursued as a goal motivated by a thou-ought,
> the decision rewarding a person with pleasure when appearing to be
> chosen in response to uncertainty"
> ========
>
> ========
> engram~4.3
> I.
> = "a memory trace"
> = "a trace of memory"
> II.
> = "a path that one follows giving the content of something
> remembered"
> III.
> = "a way of thought a person obeys, that offers ideas coming from the
> neural path some engram~2.2 correlates with when that path is again
> associated with a word in the course of speaking"
> ========
>
> ========
> secondary~1.2
> I.
> = "an engram~4.3 of second value~1.3"
> II
> = "an engram~4.3 that is number two in a countable series of
> values~1.3"
> ========
>
> ========
> secondary~2.2
> I.
> = "an engram~4.3 of second value~1.3"
> = "an engram~4.3 of other value~1.3"
> II.
> = "an engram~4.3 of a value~1.3 that exists as an opposite of another
> value~1.3 within the same word"
> ========
>
> ========
> secondary~3.2
> I.
> = "an engram~4.3 of less than first importance"
> II.
> = "an engram~4.3 less valuable in relationship with some truth~2
> (than another engram~2.2) for the purpose of bringing some truth~1 to
> light"
> ========
>
> ========
> secondary~4.2
> I.
> = "an engram~3.4 serving to assist"
> = "an engram~3.4 having a function in giving (behavior) support"
> II.
> = "an engram~3.4 working to motivate the response of an individual
> member of a species to the whole range of factors constituting its
> environment"
> ========
>
> ========
> secondary~5.3
> I.
> = "an inferior engram~3.4"
> = "a lower engram~3.4"
> = "a backward engram~3.4"
> II.
> = "an engram~3.4, slow to learn and executed in a reverse direction"
> III.
> = "an engram~3.4, not quick in becoming aware of the course in
> truth~1 on which its person is aimed to move, its decisions performed
> in progress that trends towards its destruction"
> ========
>
> I know this is a lot to think about. I'm bringing out this much to
> show several of the possible choices you had whenever you read the
> words "engram" and "secondary".
>
> Let's consider one especially relevant kind of lock~1.
>
> ========
> lock~1.3
> I.
> = "stratagem, difficulty"
> = "stratagem of difficulty"
> II.
> = "an artifice in war for deceiving and outwitting an enemy, who is
> impelled into disagreement with himself, this causing him perplexity
> and requiring skill and perseverance in solving it"
>
> III
> = "an ingenious means to the destroyer of life, that is governed by
> self-interest on both sides of a conflict between the thou-oughts of
> mutually antagonistic engrams~4.3 in one word.
> Here, self-interest adapts itself to seek its own failure,
> overreaching and defeating itself, by seeking to gain too much
> pleasure, more than either one of the engrams~4.3 offers separately.
> The conflict leads the person in a wrong direction by urging a state
> in which consciousness is at variance with surrounding truths~1,
> decisive thinking on what truth~2 is at hand becoming impossible.
> Setting oneself free from a locked-together pair of engrams~4.3
> requires a reason insisting that one persist in the enterprise of
> dianetics~1 in spite of counter influences or discouragement"
> ========
>
> How can the above be combined? One common possibility is that
> essential engrams~4 may be locked~2 to secondaries~(2, 3, 4, 5).
>
> ========
> locked~2.2
> I.
> = "held fast"
> II.
> = "believed to be unable to be separated after being fastened
> together"
> ========
>
> Another possibility is that engrams~4 may be locked~3. to
> secondaries~(2, 3, 4, 5)
>
> ========
> locked~3.
> I.
> = "made fast with a lock~1.3"
> = "caused to be engaged within a lock~1.3"
> II
> = "attracted and held by authority on the inner side of a lock~1.3"
> III.
> = "caused to adhere unconsciously below the surface of a lock~1.3,
> which is then sustained and preserved through the testimony of persons
> in command having the power to influence thought and opinion"
> ========
>
> What might that testimony consist of ?
>
> ========
> testimony~1
> = "testimonial"
> = "a public profession of the healing or uplifting effect of the
> religious experience (of a lock~1.3) upon the life of an individual"
> ========
>
> ?
>
> How long have CofS psychiatrists~1 been providing testimony~1 about
> the "wins" and "benefits" that come from locks~1.3 ?
>
> Locks~1.3 held by a global society could be a pleasing ruse~1.
> ========
> ruse~1.
> I.
> = "our + r_ + use + stratagem, usually intended to deceive"
> = "our + are + use of a stratagem, usually intended to deceive"
> II.
> = "a stratagem of difficulty (a lock~1.3), tending to use an equaling
> in meaning that deprives (us, of a future) by fraud, this due to us
> and inherent in us"
> ========
>
> Who's us?
>
> To show you who that "us" is, by demonstration, the copyrighted
> material that the Church of Scientology has thus far published (as of
> May 2008) is verbal~1.3 in nature.
> ========
> verbal~1.3
> I.
> = "having to do with words rather than substance"
> = "having to be set through code groups rather than ultimate reality"
> II.
> = "consisting of significant units of code text to enter earlier
> than their fundamental aspects"
>
> III.
> = "consisting of brief speech sounds and printed text containing some
> disguised, special meaning in a language system in which arbitrary
> meanings have been assigned to each symbol. From these, most people
> automatically choose and record a superimposing of two or more
> representative images, these described within the outer cover of the
> code text, the action done precisely according to a standard suited to
> personal comfort. It usually happens without their conscious
> intention, and before it occurs to the reader the whole text ought to
> be broken up into its basic supporting truths~2."
> ========
>
> This is the standard that psychiatrists~1 in the CofS are usually
> guided by:
> ========
> standard~2.3
> I.
> = "test"
> = "t_ est"
> = " something most having the shape of the letter T "
> = " something most bearing the shape of the letter T "
> = " a flow of interpretation most suggesting the shape of the letter
> T "
>
> II.
> = "a flow of translation that arises as one, then abruptly splits and
> goes in two opposite ways"
>
> III.
> = "a flow that originates from symbols, converting into:
> (1) an imaginary direction of events leading toward one objective set
> forth pleasurably in consciousness
> (2) a series of behaviors in truth~1 leading toward an objective
> diametrically different from the one implied by the pleasure"
> ========
>
> Why would immediate pleasure be so much more popular than becoming
> aware of the future truth~1 to which one's behavior is leading?
>
> Consider this path:
> ========
> pleasure~1
> I.
> = "plea assure"
> = "secure an allegation of fact"
>
> II.
> = "put an unsupported assertion of event beyond the hazard of not
> receiving"
>
> III.
> = "set an outcome supposed beforehand but not yet not borne out by
> truth~1, to be pleasingly intense enough to overrule the restraining
> domination of the defeated conscious existence of the future who
> doesn't experience it"
> ========
>
> If you want to risk the truth~2 that may come from it, there is a way
> of looking at the whole phenomenon of pleasure and pain that sets
> aside personal and racial desires.
>
> This way attempts to see, while exempting itself from the usual bias
> as to whether any one kind of individual or species (including the
> human) continues to exist on Earth. No, it's not the usual way of
> looking at things but it can shed much light on the nature of pleasure
> and pain.
>
> Here we have four contrasting paths:
>
> 1) pleasure felt about behavior leading to tens of millions of years
> of continuing life
>
> 2) pleasure felt about behavior leading to permanent annihilation
>
> 3) pain felt about behavior leading to permanent annihilation
>
> 4) pain felt about behavior leading to tens of millions of years of
> continuing life
>
> At first glance it may look as if #1 and #3 are the rational
> responses. But strangely, hard as it is to believe, #2 and #4 are
> based upon reason~1.
> ========
> reason~1
> = "a warranted presumption that validates the course of conduct"
> ========
>
> There are two presumptions. One is that any creature habitually
> feeling good about behavior that will end its existence... will
> continue on to end its existence. The second (warranted presumption)
> is that any creature that habitually experiences pain whenever it
> turns towards a path of enduring existence, will turn back towards
> path #2 continuing on to end its existence.
>
> The result of this weeding out process is succeeding generations of
> creatures that tend toward path #1, by turning away from path #3, #2,
> and #4.
>
> There you have the strange reason~1 behind path #2 and #4. The rule
> is that if you gravitate towards path #2 and #4, you're in the midst
> of a kind of near-death experience, for yourself and for your kind.
> It's only a matter of time before you're gone.
>
> Now, isn't that something to feel pleasure about?
>
> If not, then in HCO PL 9 Feb 1974, is printed:
>
> >there is a condition below
> >treason. It is the condition of
> >confusion. The formula of
> >the condition is "find out where
> >you are"
>
> There are many ways to evaluate "find out where you are". Rather than
> ignoring the distinction between its contained engrams~4.3, you could
> spend some time sorting them out.
>
> Here's one I found:
> ========
> "find out where you are"
> I.
> = "penetrate to the identity of ewe at the place in which their true
> character equals (that of someone else) in meaning"
>
> II.
> = "overcome thy resistance and enter to reach the operator that
> leaves unchanged the engram~4.3 of the [silly fellow] on which it
> operates. The engram~4.3 is accurate in delineating his essential
> elements but is inclined to shrink from his attention in the a priori
> form of the fellow's experience of beyond-the-brain truth~1 ---
> because he regards it as identical in logical denotation to a
> secondary~2.2 describing someone else."
>
> +
> [silly fellow]
> I.
> = "a contemptible person exhibiting a lack of judgement"
> = "a contemptuous person unworthy of consideration exhibiting a lack
> of justice"
> = "a contemptuous person unworthy of consideration exhibiting a lack
> of just treatment"
>
> II.
> = "a person unsuitable to reward with approval, respect, or
> sympathetic notice. This silly one publicly shows his lack of
> instigation to give an exposition having its basis in outside-the-
> brain truth~1. He does so by haughtily manifesting a defect of
> distinction between (essential engram~4.3 linked to secondary~2.2) ---
> and scorn for anyone who can see the behavior, in him, that his
> engram~4.3 responds to."
> ========
>
> +++++++
> Glossary
> +++++++
>
> ========
> truth~1
>
> incident I.
> = "actual existence"
>
> incident II.
> = "not counterfeit being in its actuality"
>
> incident III.
> = "material existence that is:
> (1) not serving as the reproduction of a symbolic picture, a picture
> which causes a new version of truth's~1 existence to be experienced by
> someone
> that is:
> (2) the original, the source from which a valid symbolic picture may
> arise
> and that is:
> (3) composed by the existing thing itself under the circumstances
> that have been predestined as necessary in the interaction between the
> nature of the surroundings and that of the truth~1 itself"
> ========
>
> ========
> truth~2
> I.
> = "being as given in the act of experiencing, that conforms to
> reality"
>
> II.
> = "a symbol~1 apportioned during the act of experiencing, without
> regard to the wishes of the recipients, and that presents and
> categorizes an image in agreement with a referred-to aspect of
> truth~1"
> ========
>
> ========
> symbol~1
> I.
> = "something that suggests something else"
>
> II.
> = "experienced existence that puts a different kind of existence
> forward by implication"
>
> III.
> = "existence proven by conscious participation that puts a result of
> truth~1 into a prominent representation coming from truth's~1 state of
> being, entailed as a necessary cause"
> ========
>
> ========
> auditor~1
> I.
> = "one authorized (justified) by an attraction to truth~2 to examine
> and verify the results coming from probing the meaning of a word"
>
> II.
> = "a person, who through the work of the distinguishing quality of
> truth~2 that elicits his admiration, proves himself to be sufficiently
> just to:
> (1) test the tangible effects coming from searching through the
> logical extension of a printed word or speech sound with great
> thoroughness
> to...
> (2) limit the word's act of signifying, by adding a differentia to
> and to...
> (3) build from truth~1 as cause, the truth~2 most matching it in
> kind
> ========
>
> ========
> analysis~1
> I.
> = "breaking up of a whole (abbreviation) into its component parts"
>
> II.
> = "disrupting the continuity (the cohesion) of a word into component
> courses of conduct (of rendition) that the qualities of different
> people suggest. Otherwise, the word, when written, may present itself
> as a convenient simple (common) substitute for an understood whole
> (and hole) constituting a complex unity of experienced
> interpretations."
>
> III.
> = "preventing normal uninterrupted calling forth of a number of
> different stuck-together ways of explaining meaning. These are in a
> written word that is suited to personal comfort as a result of the
> different interpretations that are implied by the word's opposite
> degrees of conformance to a standard. Readers often show a tolerant
> attitude towards a close union of such varied interrelated measures of
> value, especially when they have many parts --- because when these are
> all joined into one inside a word whose inner structure is
> persistently shielded from notice, a person's moral transgressions are
> not easily regarded as in need of forceful correction."
> ========
>
> ========
> spiritual~2
> I.
> = "consisting of spirit"
> II.
> = "having a place in the vital, animating principle giving life to
> physical organisms"
> III.
> = "standing in a where in the motivating fundamental truth necessary
> to give an animal a way of living and maintain it in a state of
> activity"
> IV.
> = "maintaining its position in a location in the regulating personal
> world that must exist to incite a human being to a series of behaviors
> leading in a direction implied by their keeping him in a state of
> repair, preserving him from failure, and sustaining his natural
> function against opposition"
> ========
>
> ========
> psychiatrist ~1
>
> incident I.
> = "a physician specializing in psychiatry"
> = "a physician particularizing in psychiatry"
> = "a person skilled in the art of healing, separating in psychiatry"
> = "an inferior human being skilled in the craft of heeling, detaching
> in psychiatry"
> = "an in - fear - E - er enigmatic mortal existence skilled in the
> wily stratagem of following at the heels of something, disengaging in
> psychiatry"
>
> incident II.
> = "a person that exhibits an incomprehensible mixture of opposed
> qualities, who is capable of causing death, and is in fear of
> something exposing him. He is skilled in a trick that (usually)
> deceives and outwits his enemy. His trick is going after the
> residues (of a treatise) in pursuit of pleasure, thereby releasing
> (himself) from anything that involves (him) in the part of the
> treatise that contains an exposition on the treatment of mental
> disorder"
>
> incident III.
> = "a bodily presence that presents to an auditor's~1 view an
> emotional, gestural, facial response to himself that is the opposite
> to what the auditor~1 expects should come from his behavior, this
> combination of behavior and response telling a lie that is beyond the
> psychiatrist's~1 wish to reach.
> The psychiatrist~1 is capable of causing, in himself or another who
> is sufficiently vulnerable, a state that is without enjoyment of
> anyone's intellectual faculties, and that is impervious to arguments
> and evidence. He is in the habit of feeling a sudden loss of
> enthusiasm for anything that could reveal the frailties of his
> thinking and the unsoundness of his behavior. But he is skilled in a
> mean delusive practice that usually, by stealthy fraud --- ensnares,
> misleads, and deprives his enemy of reasoning power.
> The psychiatrist's~1 trick is setting himself the goal of pursuing
> and reaching the pleasurable point that remains after another part is
> removed from writing (as in a book or article). This removes his
> attention from the effect of any words that could draw (him) in as a
> participant to a setting forth of the meaning of the writing that
> would treat him to a pattern of actions (as insults, annoyances)
> designed to punish and cure a [reactive mind]~1 of its ill health"
> ========
>
> ========
> [reactive mind]~1
> incident I.
> = "a mind marked by reaction"
> = "a person who is the embodiment of attention marked by movement in
> a reverse direction"
> = "a person who is the embodiment of attention marked by a change of
> position that is of guidance of conduct that is opposite to guidance
> of conduct"
>
> incident II.
> = "a person who genuinely exemplifies selective awareness
> characterized by a transformation in its way of viewing its person's
> behavior. The switch is to a contrasting capacity, assumed without
> explicit recognition, that ranks the person very highly in relation to
> the behavior the person is, in truth~1, really carrying out. The
> change derives from directing the translation of a word into a
> performance that is the opposite of the way the same word has been
> chosen to be explained in meaning."
> ========
>
> ========
> dianetics~1
> I.
> = "di + a + net + ics"
> = "the practice of doubling something consisting of a network of
> lines and figures (when on paper) or a network of neural fibers (when
> in one's head)"
>
> II.
> = "the systematic exercise of halving two courses of rendition joined
> together, these existing, potentially, in a stable state on paper as
> two different tracks of explained meaning implying comparison to two
> truths~1 on which each explanation is upheld.
>
> Prior to halving on paper, one of the engrams had a place in
> someone's network of neural fibers as an a priori form, which if
> regarded as identical to the experience of external phenomena
> described by the other engram, will create a misleading impression.
> The separation into halves represents in a sequence that:
> (1) includes practical wisdom resulting from what one has lived
> through
> and that ...
> (2) encourages an orderly explanation of one's statements by pointing
> out their inner relationships that link a pleasurable object to a
> prompted a choice of behavior"
> ========
tl;dr
0 new messages