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 07:59 PM 5/30/96 +1:00, Koos Nolst Trenite wrote:
>
>>[query]
>> 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.)
>
>You mean insanity defined as having a reality or perceptions
> like psi-phenomena or whatever,
> which are different than what is taught in Kindergarten or
> Primary school.

No, that is not what I mean. What word didn't you understand?

>>[query]
>> 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?
>> 
>
>It makes sense to me that some people believe that
> "all the rest of the world thinks" like themselves.
>
>I have found this to be NOT true at all.
>
>People have very very different ideas and perceptions,
> one to the other.

You are avoiding the question. Why can't you confront?

>> >[Koos]
>> >The reality was that radio-waves did not exist.
>
>> [query]
>> 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.
>> 
>
>The reality was, the agreed upon reality at the time of Marconi,
> was that radio-waves did not exist.

Utter rubbish. Just because some existing phenomenon is not yet known, does not mean that it does not exist. It is the perception and knowledge of reality which changed after Marconi's invention, not reality itself.

>> >[Koos]
>> >Not different with telepathy.
>>
>>[query]
>> You're right. When it can be demonstrated to me, I'll believe it.
>
>I have written many easily followed accounts of this.

Accounts mean nothing. If I were to write an account of having walked through a solid object, is the account good enough "proof" that I had actually accomplished the task? Especially if I could not demonstrate the task to anyone else?

>> 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.
>
>I have no telepathic link with you, nor any interest to establish one.
> Nor am I in the business of telling everyone what they have written
> on their computer-monitors in order that they may then pretend to
> "believe me completely".

In other words: you can't do it. I'm not terribly surprised.

(And, by the way, if you had told me what word I had written on the piece of paper, I would have been extremely impressed, and I certainly would have given a lot more credence to what you say. You claim I would only "pretend" to believe you, which shows that you really don't know very much about me.)

>> >[Koos]
>> >The reality was that the Earth is the center of the universe.
>> >etc. etc.
>
>> [query]
>> 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.
>
>The reality, the enforced reality for many centuries was that
> the Earth is the center,
>I even believe that the agreed upon reality was that the sphere
> was actually flat.

You seem to be using "enforced reality" and "agreed upon reality" to mean that which others call "belief".

You may be able to construct an "agreed upon reality" for yourself wherein you can consume mass quantities of arsenic and strychnine without taking any harm, but that "agreed upon reality" won't do you much good if you drink a bottle of arsenic in actual reality.

>> [query]
>> 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.
>
>There are several definitions.
>
>One is what is agreed upon by "the society" as true.
> This of course very much depends upon one's educational
> level and what different circles one frequents,
> which parts of "society" one frequents,
> and one's desire to learn or absorb new realities.

That is not reality, that is a belief system. What does your dictionary say for the word "reality"?

>You are using these definitions alternately, in order
> to prove yourself right and others wrong who
> have currently a different reality than you have now

No, Koos. I use "reality" to mean one thing only. You are the one who appears to be changing definitions to mean whatever suits you at the moment.

>> >[Koos]
>> >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,

(And by the use of creative editing, you fail to include my response to that. Since you have -- again -- posted this private email to a public forum, I shall repeat it here for the amusement of those others who are reading this:)

>> 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?

Now, please confront the question.

>>[query]
>> You are making claims which contradict the observable properties of the
>> reality in which I (and most people)
>
>"most" people is used most viciously and destructively by you,
> in order to enforce your own reality and destroy those of others.

No, Koos, it's not being used "viciously and destructively" by me. Take a poll (a real one, not one of your magical telepathic sessions), and see how many agree with you and how many seem... skeptical of your claims.

>>[query]
>>  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".
>
>The matter is very simple. Just doing ARC-straightwire
> from the book Self Analysis, and doing New Era Dianetics,
> for instance, will get you there in no time.

So, in other words, you're unwilling to provide any demonstration of the truth of your claims. If you yourself show so little confidence in what you say, why should anyone else?

>But - as I said - you are too big a coward to examine
> my data, because you will not do the very easy steps
> necessary to find out about your own past lives, or
> to increase your perception of others.

Well, since you brought that up again, here's my response to your original statement of it (which again you edited out when bringing this conversation to the world):

>>> 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.

>This then ends the discussion by unwillingness
> to examine data presented, but instead crying for
> more and more data in order to cover up that
> unwillingness.

What data? Koos, all you've done is evade every question, or play semantic games by redefining the words you use in your responses. I've even given you opportunities for you to prove that what you say is valid, but you're unable to do so.

If you don't provide data, how can I examine it?