Scientology claims to possess the only workable mental health technology. These pages, however, show the pathetic mental state to which Scientology drove one of its members. This site is not affiliated with the Church of Scientology.

At 12:40 PM 5/30/96 +1:00, Koos Nolst Trenite wrote:
>
>> If that's true, what definition do you give to those things which are
>> labelled "insanity" by the wog world? (for example, schizophrenia,
>> dissociative identity disorder, megalomania, etc.)
>
>These are words used by those professions that themselves
> can not confront insanity. Therefore they need these
> undefinable words, in order to hide their inability to look
> at people's intentions.

You did not answer the question. I'll rephrase it; perhaps you misunderstood a word. What label would you give to a person who is exhibiting the signs of what wogs (not just psychiatrists) refer to as insanity? (This is not your definition of insanity, but the way the word is used in the wog world.)

It seems to me that if you continually redefine words to have meanings incompatible with those used by the rest of the world, then you are deliberately introducing M/Us by using those words in conversation with a wog. Does that make any sense to you?

>> I disagree. When Marconi invented radio, for example, he did not
>> pull his invention out of a different reality; nor did he alter this
>> reality (except by making more of its preexisting properties known to
>> us).
>
>The reality was that radio-waves did not exist.

Incorrect. Natural radio waves exist in abundance -- for example, from stellar objects such as pulsars. Marconi invented a means of generating and receiving ordered patterns of interference along a wavelength.

>That Jeff Lee believed Marconi, does not mean that others
> also believed Marconi.
>But after some time, some people were willing to accept
> that it was in fact possible to communicate by radio.

And why were they willing to accept it? Because it could easily be demonstrated. If Marconi had continued to make his claims that he was able to communicate over long distances without wires, but could not prove his claim to other people, would he be believed?

>Not different with telepathy.

You're right. When it can be demonstrated to me, I'll believe it. I'll give you an opportunity: since you claim to be able to audit people telepathically, here's a very simple test.

I have written a single word upon a piece of paper and taped it to my monitor. If you can tell me what the word is, I will believe you completely.

>The reality was that the Earth is the center of the universe.
>etc. etc.

No. The belief was that the Earth was the centre of the universe. A mistaken belief does not alter reality. Beliefs may alter the perception of reality, but they do not alter reality itself.

I am beginning to suspect that your definition of "reality" is not the same as my definition of "reality", and that is why our viewpoints seem at such great odds.

>> It is the same continuous and contiguous reality as it was before,
>> not two different realities with discrete beginning and ending
>> points.
>> 
>> However, if Marconi had claimed that he could communicate over long
>> distances without wires, but could not demonstrate it -- if his
>> "reality" was useless outside his own mind -- he would probably have
>> been labelled insane, would he not?
>
>I think you are trying an attempt to prove me wrong and that
> what I write is only in my own mind, and that it is of no use
> to anyone else, and that I did not create any effect.
>
>I consider this an insanity of yours,

Koos, if I were to claim that 2+2=5, and you said that you didn't believe that (and asked to see proof of why I arrived at that sum), would you be insane?

You are making claims which contradict the observable properties of the reality in which I (and most people) spend our lives. I am open-minded, but before I can believe such a thing, I want to see evidence of it, or at least hear a plausible explanation of it. And when the claims I hear do not make sense to me, I say so.

> as you are not
> willing to examine my data -

I'm perfectly willing to examine your data. That's why I'm asking for more data on the things which don't make sense to me.

If I didn't want to examine your data, I'd simply dismiss you as a lunatic, and delete your messages without even reading them.

> you can't even audit -

I can't build a computer chip, but I see that they work, and I use them every day.

> but ARE trying to accept the data presented or created by others
> whose life seems to depend on having to hide or disprove
> what I found out.

You know nothing of whose data I accept and whose data I reject. Data which is arrived at by gnostic means alone is highly suspect to me until I can find corroborative evidence of its veracity. That applies to you, to Scientologists, and to critics of Scientology. And in fact to every other person on this planet.

>> >Past lives, etc. Well, what can I say.
>> 
>> I suppose that's something that one must experience for oneself; it's
>> pretty hard to prove to another.
>
>These are very easy to prove. I think almost any library
> has material on that.
>You can also go and look at your own past lives, but you
> have been too big a coward to do so up to now.

Then tell me, since you seem to be the expert in these areas, and have in the past mentioned this sort of thing in the transcripts of your telepathic auditing, who was I in my past lives? Tell me some details about them, and I will see whether the details you provide are accurate or not.

>I suppose it is very impolite to say that simple truth.

Not impolite, it's just an attempt to push my buttons by using emotional hooks (such as the word "coward"). Had you really been attempting to lead me to truth, you might have been more helpful in telling me how to "look at my own past lives".

OSA was unable to find any buttons, Koos, and you haven't found any either. It's a pity you have to try and resort to that sort of thing, rather than dealing honestly with other people.