ACommunicationReleaseListPerhaps.ivysubs

Clearing Archive Roboposter roboposter at lightlink.com
Wed Dec 30 06:06:01 EST 2015


**************
The following message were first sent to the list ivy-subscribers, 
a private Internet list available to all who subscribe to the 
(on paper) clearing tech magazine, International Viewpoints.
They form pat of a longer thread. The contributors below
come from Austria, Italy and USA (For data on the magazine
see http://home8.inet.tele.dk/ivy/ or write the editor: ivy at post8.tele.dk)
(Grade 0, Zero, is the Church of Scientologys designation for 
processes dealing with communication)
*************

Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 07:30:31 -0800
To: "" <ivy-subscribers at lightlink.com>
Subject: IVySubs: Grade O
From: "Chloe " <inquisitor at hush.com>
Sender: owner-ivy-subscribers at lightlink.com

**  ivy-subscribers relaying  **

I have noted the recent conversation about out-grade zero. I disagree.

At issue was the discussion of sex on this board.

There are other factors that fashion the discussion of any one subject
that have nothing to do with grade 0.

Grade 0 addresses the willingness to deliver or receive or observe a
communication on any subject. 

Other factors include:

appropriateness: it's been an ethics cognition of mine, that communication
is for the creation of effect; therefore it behoves one to put attention
on the effect to be created rather than on dumping out what you want
to say! There is the TR factor: observing that a person is ready to receive
a comm - or a specific type of comm.

case on life: if a person having personal problems at home, insisted
on talking at work about those problems, that person would end up with
production problems and alienated co-workers and bosses. This is a special
category of "appropriateness". I am willing to have people venture forth
statements about difficulties they are harboring with the possibility
I can help in some way, or point them in the right direction. I wouldn't
want that kind of comm to take over the comm line tho. I'd be willing
to venture forth some of my difficulties and upsets in the possibility
someone else will pick up on it and give me a hand up. Elsewise, that
comm belongs in session or in an ethics handling. 

Dev-t: Another type of inappropriate. The fact that I've done Grade 0
doesn't imply I am required to accept unwanted comm. 

Compulsion: Compulsive conversation on any topic is dev-t.

For any "hot" topic you might want to test for appropriateness by first
venturing forth a light comm that might get attacked. Then you know where
your audience is at, and can approach the subject in an acceptable manner.
(This is presuming the effect you want is bring about a pro-survival
discussion. It is also possible, you WANT to cause a melee. In which
case this step may be irrelevant.)

Well, that's my 2 bits!

Chloe

*****************************

From: "Luca" <l.terzi at flashnet.it>
To: <ivy-subscribers at lightlink.com>
Subject: for Cloe Re: IVySubs: Grade O
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 20:50:13 +0100


**  ivy-subscribers relaying  **


Whist the theoretical issue you are making, Cloe, finds myself absolutely in
agreement, it happens that this is a list of processors and/or of people
pursuing personal enlightenment: searchers in other words.

Such being the case, a very fundamental topic of aberrations could and
actually should be discussed more deeply and thoroughly than it actually
is.

I personally don't care much, because I have found a way which I find
"reasonable".
While "reasonable" is an awful concept in a scientological environment
indeed, after having had social intercourse with some hundreds (at least) of
scientologists and ex-scientologists, I standardly drop sex as a subject,
because the Church has indoctrinated almost all to such a bigotry that it
is MUCH easier to drop altogether the subject that to discuss it.
One has to put such an amount of "distinguos" before to say the most simple
thing about the subject, that, my god, drop it!!!!
Americans have it even worse than the usual European Scientologist, but they
are sitting in a all-permeating mediatic dichotomy of "sex and violence"
against "purity and pattycake attitude".

As there are plenty of others subjects to discuss I am not much interested
in discussing it with people who are afraid of it.

But I would point out that in session the vast majority of sessions does
concern ..... What? Eh? I didn't hear well the word...

:-)

I had to pursue research on the topic after leaving scientology, to be able
to handle bits of case that otherwise would be solid like rock.
Wilhelm Reich for instance (of whom LRH had a big respect) did a very
thourough research on it.
The standard HCOB in the church, instead, is a fake HCOB of LRH named Pain
and Sex (beginning 80s) which establishes once and for all that sex is
caused by implants, when in my opinion, since the first cell, is the evident
basic pulsion of all living and livingness.
What happens is that all the media USE sex to leverage social implants, and
that should be looked thoroughly into, but sex in itself is a rather pure
and appropriate living force. before the media the same mechanics was used
by the various Churches...
Now is spring: just look at a blooming apple tree.
I suggest a recent book by Susan Blackmore entitled "The meme machine"
(Oxford press).
[Meme:  an idea, behavior, style, or usage that spreads from person to
person within a culture
Merriam Websterr Collegiate Dictionary)]
While Dr Blacmore is a neat materialist, her analysis is a very interesting
one (theory of the evolution)(she speaks almost nothing of sex, but I find
it very pertinent to this thread).
I found it very instructive.
And this is my little bit.
ARC
Luca

----- Original Message -----
From: "Chloe " <inquisitor at hush.com>
To: <ivy-subscribers at lightlink.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 4:30 PM
Subject: IVySubs: Grade O
      [snipped - see above]
************************

From: Heidrun Beer <concern at atnet.at>
To: ivy-subscribers at lightlink.com
Subject: Re: for Cloe Re: IVySubs: Grade O
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 07:17:30 GMT

**  ivy-subscribers relaying  **


On Wed, 26 Mar 2003 20:50:13 +0100, Luca wrote in
<002301c2f3d0$eabe1c70$298e0001 at plutovpuzqwn76>:

>**   ivy-subscribers relaying   **
>Whist the theoretical issue you are making, Cloe, finds myself absolutely in
>agreement, it happens that this is a list of processors and/or of people
>pursuing personal enlightment: searchers in other words.


I think the matter could be summarized this way:

LRH groups theta beings into basically two categories: "Theta the 
Problem" and "Theta the Solver". He is not specific about the methods 
used to solve the problem(s) here. It is more a general attitude or 
basic configuration of a person which will lead to the selection of 
adequate tools as part of the solution.

I always thought that processors, and generally the people on this list 
belong to the "Theta the Solver" group, whereas taboos in general 
and specifically irrationality in sex issues would be an indicator 
of the "Theta the Problem" group. Like the red rash is an indicator
for measles which gives an immediate first warning.

It is always a danger that a problem is contagious and a person or
persons from the solver group wander into the problem group because
they have not taken care of protecting themselves.

I don't think that Ivy-subscribers can be considered a typical
public group. If that were the case, of course we would have to be
careful to not further restimulate an already badly restimulated
topic.

But in my reality, Ivy-subscribers is a group of solvers who communicate
about how to solve the problems of the theta universe in its 
present time condition. It is a very specific group of healers, 
not a mixed public group. A meeting place where doctors talk cures, 
well separated from the public areas in a hospital.

Watching taboos in general and touchiness in sexual matters becoming 
part of the behaviour rules in this group is like watching a 
measles outbreak in a hospital canteen. It is no longer a safe place
and in fact the solvers are in the process of becoming part 
of the problem!

If I am certain of my immunity, I still can spend my time there
without getting sick, but I doubt that it will be a very efficient
solver group from there on. So if some of the doctors decide 
to find themselves a non-contaminated hospital, they
cannot be blamed.

Heidrun Beer

Workgroup for Fundamental Spiritual Research and Mental Training
http://www.sgmt.at

**
Home Page: http://home8.inet.tele.dk/ivy/ - with extensive links to FZ!
** 

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed Dec 30 06:06:01 EST 2015 
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/ivysubs/ACommunicationReleaseListPerhaps.ivysubs
Send mail to archive at lightlink.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning, but 
not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith   Clean Air, Clear Water,    Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959       A Green Earth, and Peace,  Internet, Ithaca NY
homer at lightlink.com  Is that too much to ask?   http://www.lightlink.com


More information about the Clear-L mailing list