************************************************************************ The following first appeared in the private email list IVy-subscribers, which is available to all those who subscribe to the printed magazine, International Viewpoints. ************************************************************************ Why I don't trust Phil Spickler by Phil Spickler 23 Aug 00 Before I get into this very important posting, I'd like to ask a tech question: has anybody had any luck running Hello's and OK's on hemorrhoids? All replies will be treated confidentially, if requested. What follows might be considered a viewpoint about viewpoints, in the course of which I hope to answer that burning question as to why I don't trust Phil Spickler. Of the many freedoms that might be considered to be inalienable to human beings, or beings, or what have you, we are of the opinion that the freedom to assume a viewpoint, as well as the freedom to discard a viewpoint, is about as good as it gets when we talk about someone regaining their marbles or recovering their greatest potentialities. Although I think everyone knows what the word "viewpoint" means (or "point of view"), perhaps I should drag out my 26-lb. unabridged dictionary and spend a few thousand words defining "viewpoint" and all the other words that append to that definition from defining it, until finally we just chuck the idea and I mail each person on the IVy list an unabridged dictionary plus all the information on word clearing and how to solo the Primary Rundown so that everyone on the IVy list, whether active or passive, will be superliterate and I'll never have to say the same thing twice in order to make a point (I mean a point of view) known and communicated. But anyhow and howsomever, just imagine (and all I'm doing is asking you to imagine) what it would be like if you could assume ANY viewpoint, existing or yet to be created, as well as letting go of any viewpoint. Just imagine what that would mean. All right: people that can do that have probably had some experience assuming and un-assuming viewpoints, and found that they could do so without dying or going insane. Unfortunately, the history/time track, the experiences most people have had, make it difficult to assume new viewpoints and let go of old ones. In fact, lots of folks are in the business of proving that they have one viewpoint, it's the right viewpoint, any other viewpoint is wrong, and that you couldn't jar their current viewpoint with a 50-megaton H-bomb. In fact, lots of folks are proud of having viewpoints that are rigidly cast in concrete and are rigidly maintained as defensive and offensive weapons in the war of words and worlds. Now I know there isn't anybody on the IVy list like that, but if there were, they might get a kick out of what I was saying. They might even learn something about viewpoints. A study of the theory of engrams and other physical, mental, and spiritual misadventures is also a study of how viewpoints get formed by other-determined cause points and what makes some people so very rigid and self-protective about the few viewpoints that they actually do possess. Now when theta, or mind essence, is feeling free, one of the things it can easily do is put on and take off viewpoints with ease and rapidity. But, as a a person gets slower and thicker, the resistance to change, change of mind, change of viewpoint, gets slower and tougher, and is certainly one of the things we connect up with aging and aged bodies and illness. People with young bodies generally, if you watch them at play, are very quick and easy to assume and discard viewpoints, as well as creating and uncreating viewpoints. Kids getting together to play might say "I'll be the good guy and you be the bad guy," and then a little later they might change the roles and someone might say, "I'll be the bad guy -- you be the good guy for awhile." Try to play around with adults and so-called mature people that way, and you might have some trouble, as fixed beingnesses and fixed viewpoints are gradually plastered together under the person's title, and from then until they're pushing up daisies they pretty much stick to seeing things a certain way. And of course we get a very low tolerance for the viewpoints of others, being unwilling to try out other viewpoints quickly and easily; and then that nasty Phil Spickler starts up one of his Service Fac contests in hopes of generating a few cognitions about viewpoint. He's such a great guy, but I don't trust him. And I'll tell you why I don't trust him: he's the kind of guy who thinks it's really OK to mock up and un-mock up viewpoints, to change his mind when he darn pleases about something, and worst of all to encourage others to do the same. You just can't pin down that dirty SOB, and I guess this proves how untrustworthy he is. He's sometimes like a chameleon -- makes you think he's in agreement with his surroundings, only to turn around and write something diametrically different, without even getting your permission. What a rat! Well, just take this set of viewpoints for an example of why I don't trust the guy and don't think you should either. Viewpoint 1: Ron Hubbard was a bad guy who promised a lot and then betrayed that promise. Ron Hubbard has been known to be mean and violent with members of the human species, human beings that is, and put human beings through all kinds of physical unpleasantnesses and sometimes also mental and spiritual ones, as well as using these human beings as pawns PAWNS, mind you ) in the games he wished to play against organizations and countries on Planet Earth. What an awful guy! -- even though these so-called human beings are supposed to be immortals, coverting around in human bodies and pretending to be destructible. Well, that darn untrustworthy Phil is liable the next day to assume Viewpoint 2: L. Ron Hubbard is the best thing that ever hit this planet, and he actually woke up a few of the sad excuses for beings in this planetful of sound-asleep humanly unpleasant and murderous fools that call themselves Homo sapiens. They would naturally see anybody that was actually up to playing the game of Life the way we might expect someone to play if they had even the slightest or remotest consciousness of being an immortal as being dangerous (to low-toned human beings) and quite evil. Yes, when you take the tone level of most human beings, who as human beings have a tough time getting up to Tone 4, but as beings on the thetan or spiritual-being tone scale are actually parked at around Protecting Bodies -- well, it's almost axiomatic to say that the viewpoint of lower-toned beings or human beings looking up the tone scale, well, the higher they look, the more dangerous and the more threatening it seems to be. But in fact, if as a being you really are up around Tone 20 or 22, the things that concern the doctor-and-drugstore tone level of the average human being look like trying to play a game of rugby against a team from the Old Folks' Home, and to the old folks, those ruggers would look like dangerous and evil people. Well, the point I'se trying to make for anybody who's still hanging around is, I can take either one of those viewpoints, or even better, hold both of them at the same time. Don't be jealous --- you wouldn't want to be the kind of unpredictable rat that Phil Spickler is, would you? One of the best arguments I've ever heard of for becoming an auditor, and I feel sorry for anybody that's never had that experience, is that it gives you a chance to fully appreciate the extraordinary possibilities for creating and uncreating viewpoint, and how when someone regains that freedom for some sector of their universe, what a joyous awakening it is. Folks that are philosophically and perhaps unknowingly firmly stuck and implanted with an eternal case of morals, namely Right and Wrong, and the absolute conviction that these things are immutable, have trouble with the idea of people changing their minds and changing their viewpoints, even though history points out that the worst things in one century and in one location are the best things possible in another century in another location. So this is somewhat of my viewpoint about viewpoints; however, I could change my mind about it and have other viewpoints about viewpoints as another point of view. Now I know that everybody that understands English, even if it isn't their first language, in reading this can understand it. It may crash against that fortress of fixed viewpoint of what is right and what is wrong that is sustained by that fixed notion of ego or "who I am," but believe you me, at any given moment you're just one viewpoint away from a greater freedom. Now as I started out, people that can change their minds easily, as well as their viewpoints, aren't considered reliable by low-toned people who want to put themselves and everybody else into a firm, fixed identity, and then enforce it. And actually, there's a point of view from which living that way is a lot of fun. Lord knows, I've had a good run at it, and certainly enforced it on others at certain points in cosmic history. A lot of this information is to be found in the better writings, teachings, of L. Ron Hubbard, and possibly under different names and different titles in different places in cosmic history. Anyway, I hope I've made it clear as to why I don't trust Phil Spickler, or PJ, or whatever that guy wants to call himself, like "Nobody," and I hope you'll profit from my bad experiences with that fellow. Here's looking you straight in the eye, The most unrepentant penitent -- Fill P.S. There's a viewpoint from which Phil is very trustworthy (should be trusted), but I don't know anybody who holds it.