************************************************************************
The following first appeared in the private email list IVy-subscribers,
which was available to all those who subscribed 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.