20 February 1996
RI-487i 'Dialogue: On Enemies and Hostility'
from Ambassador for Mankind
Message # RI-487i for Internet
The publication and form of this dialogue
came about on the initiative of CB Willis (CBW:)
who wrote all except what I (KOOS:) wrote.
ON ENEMIES AND HOSTILITY:
A Contemporary Dialogue
Persons of the Dialogue:
KOOS NOLST TRENITE [formerly Plato of Athens, 428-348 BC,
son of Ariston and Perictione, founder of the Academy, and
philosophical advisor to Dionysius II of Syracuse];
currently Ambassador for Mankind (and Ron's Inspector).
C.B. WILLIS [former Mediterranean local, student of philosophy and
friend of Plato]; currently philosophy educator and friend of Koos.
Scene:
Cyberspace on Sun Feb 18 1996, 16:05:55 GMT.
%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%
CBW: [CBW is sharing realizations with Koos
on the subject of enemies and danger from others:]
No self-respecting spirit creates enemies or danger from others.
No self-respecting spirit creates the counter-intention
of ill will in their space.
I respect myself as spirit, therefore I'm going back
to my original predisposition,
which is to see the commonality of spirit,
and let all hearts revolve together,
let all hearts revolve as one.
I create that connection myself.
KOOS: This is a decision to be yourself and to continue being yourself!
It is totally excellent!
CBW: Thank you, Koos,
as I hold your understanding in high regard.
Additionally,
people may create opposition in order to have a game,
like having a good tennis partner, or a friendly debate,
or a left hand and right hand
in oppositional counterpoint on the piano.
But this is not enmity [hostility] or ill will necessarily,
unless the players add ill will;
rather, it's just a game, a simple opposition,
entered voluntarily to play, to exercise strength and skill,
even make music.
The difference is
orientation of the will
and choice of game.
Normal or sane people don't have enemies.
They don't even think in terms of enemies and betrayal.
They think in terms of degree of acquaintance or friendship.
Others may choose to make an enemy of them at times,
but they don't have to go into agreement
and [thereby] create enemies themselves.
Even talk of enemies is highly inflammatory language,
an intense antagonism [2.0 on the tone scale],
and heads south from there
in the direction of non[-optimal] survival.
Enemies steal attention and energy,
as attention is off your regular interests and now on the enemy,
and energy is tied up in now fighting the enemy,
either offensively or defensively,
but diverted from normal higher purposes.
Sometimes having an enemy is used to get others' energy up,
adrenaline rush,
animal instinct,
getting "pumped up",
artificially inflated
because true motivation and energy are not there,
so people go for the substitute.
Having enemies is a _substitute_
for successful creativity
and accomplishment.
KOOS: Now it is also so that one cannot, on a regular basis,
just command others
to also be themselves (as you are being yourself)
and to continue to be themselves.
So, others might still act as enemies out of their own choice,
but certainly NOT any more out of YOUR choice.
The definition of ENEMY is therefore:
"someone who has decided to 'Not be himself' too heavily."
CBW: ... which is to say that a person who creates enemies is, in fact,
his own worst enemy!
KOOS: Very true.
However, we do not make those wrong who
ARE being themselves, and who, therefore,
are able and willing to see those who are NOT being themselves.
He does not create these enemies, but these were and
are enemies by their own choice:
by their own decision to not be themselves.
And there the "game" starts again, and that is:
those
who are in a condition of enemy towards themselves
are accusing
those who ARE being themselves
and who therefore can see enemies as enemies
( namely as individuals who are not being themselves ),
of "creating enemies", while in fact those
who are being themselves only OBSERVE
people who are NOT being themselves, that is,
people who are enemies by their own choice.
We don't want to make people wrong for being themselves,
(by falsely accusing them of "creating enemies") out of the
circumstance that, when they ARE themselves, they can ALSO see
or observe when other people are NOT being themselves!
CBW: I would not want to falsely accuse anyone, and
you, Koos, are correct as usual to exhort against
the ethical mistake of false accusation.
Now let me see if I have this right:
If one can observe that another is NOT being himself,
then we can say that the other is his own worst enemy,
he is an enemy to himself and
he may be an enemy to others, including us.
But we do not need to have an attitude of ill will
or enmity [hostility] toward him,
we do not need to make of him an enemy,
and
we do not need to provoke him into being an enemy to us,
for if we were to do so then surely we would have to say
that we created him as an enemy
in our personal universe [of experience].
KOOS: You are speaking out of my heart, and I believe
you are also speaking out of the heart of others.
[After a moment of contemplative silence,
a gasp of disorientation is heard from CBW...]
CBW: Help, Koos, I'm drowning in a sea of confusion
regarding personal responsibility!
Please be steadfast lest I lose my wits completely and
decide to escape into a fit of "serenity."
Of everyone I know, you have the best chance
of being able to help me climb out of this confusion!
I am willing to be responsible at some level
for what shows up in my personal universe --
[because] my personal universe [of experience]
is my own creation!
And when we _speak_ of _enemies_, we have already gone beyond
a person's behavior,
but we are referring now
to their intentions,
to their character
which likely is the source of their intentions,
to the state of purity or corruption of soul,
related to the question of character and intentions,
most especially orientation of the will,
and we are adding a level of abstraction that evaluates
on top of
the behavior and intention.
KOOS: The abstraction shows
that one can decide solely by oneself
to not be an enemy,
but to be a friend to oneself and towards others, and
that this is entirely one's own decision
no matter what others do or decide.
CBW: In many ways I am back to my original statement:
that no self-respecting spirit would create enemies
or opposition-to-self that includes ill-will.
So my question to you is:
If someone shows up
in your ["your," speaking generally here] universe
who
has decided too heavily to NOT be himself,
to be his own worst enemy and possibly yours too,
HOW did he get into your personal universe [of experience]?
In short, how did you manifest this guy into your local space?
Why is he showing up here rather than outside of your field
of immediate awareness?
Is there something you did to create this enemy?
KOOS: I would like to answer to this now.
He is in the game.
It is my decision to also be in the game.
It is my decision to perceive
the game and the players
in order to have an enjoyable game.
It is my decision that
others should also enjoy the game, and that
my enjoyment of the game is
determined considerably
by also providing joy to others, and
by co-experiencing that joy.
CBW: Now we could say the above is a game also,
but now we get into "choice of games,"
as well as orientation of the will, just in case
someone slips through the fabric of our personal universe
and surprises us as an enemy.
In case of unpleasant surprise,
we do not need to have enmity [hostility],
but we need to recognize their enemy status to themselves.
Meanwhile we can go back and modify our universe design.
KOOS: They are part of our universe.
Therefore it is wise to recognize them as they are.
CBW: Speculating now, if no one created enemies
in their personal universes,
and if no one harbored attitudes of enmity [hostility],
then humanity would have a very different situation
than they historically have had, and still have today,
wouldn't you say?
KOOS: To this I would say:
The dream of a sane civilization
is strived for by many.
One would decide more and more to be one's self
in more and more areas, and
one would increase one's ability
to maintain that state
through study and through auditing,
in an environment
where one is asked to be oneself and
where one is not rewarded for deciding to be an enemy.
In order to maintain a state of being oneself
it is necessary to observe and recognize
to what extent and
in what areas of life
others are being themselves,
or are not being themselves, as the case may be.
CBW: The problem is:
some people are just asking for trouble from others
by antagonizing them (outflow),
and some people are just looking for others to be trouble
by waiting to be victimized (inflow).
These are the people who most obviously "create enemies,"
and these two types are complementary
and "made for each other."
KOOS: It is impossible to maintain a state of being oneself,
unless one observes others and
to what extent and in what areas of life
others are being themselves
or, for whatever reason or out of whatever grief,
others decided it is too painful to be themselves.
CBW: It feels intuitively to me that rehabilitating
their ability to consciously create a universe would be helpful,
but even that would be useless without knowing oneself,
and how one is now, or could be, a friend to oneself,
and how one is now, or could be, an enemy to oneself.
KOOS: Certainly, the desire to be oneself
is a major factor in rehabilitating oneself.
Still someone might have no desire, for instance,
to be a parent,
but he might have a great desire to care for nature.
Therefore, there lies a great danger and harm
in classifying someone as 'not being himself'
IF ONE DOES NOT IMPLY OR STATE
IN WHICH ACTIVITY OR AREA OF LIFE
he obviously is an enemy to himself and to others.
CBW: If a person were to reverse a decision to
to NOT be himself,
then he would decide TO BE HIMSELF,
and in his right mind,
he would not create opposition with ill will
in his personal universe.
I believe this is what L. Ron Hubbard meant when he said
that ETHICS is
removing counter-intention from the environment.
KOOS: L. Ron Hubbard meant originally
'counter-intentions of others
to the desire of someone to improve self'.
He discovered that others would not gain or would lose gains,
if the environment would not approve of
or would oppose improvement.
At almost the same time,
he defined counter-intentions as
"any intention which
opposed any intention of himself",
and
"any intention which
opposed any intention of his group",
and later as
"any intention which does not admire
him and his organization unconditionally".
In other words,
he decided to NOT be himself anymore,
and so became an enemy to himself, around 1966.
By consequence, he did not anymore observe others
as to whether they were being themselves or not.
In this way he CREATED, and still creates "enemies",
where in fact he is himself an enemy.
Remember, someone is solely an enemy
because he has stopped, out of whatever grief,
to be himself towards certain areas of life.
Someone who observed instances or areas
in which L. Ron Hubbard
had decided to not be himself,
was considered by him
to have 'counter-intentions'
to him and to his activities.
CBW: That doesn't mean you have to kill enemies,
that is very very rarely the case
unless immediate life is in danger.
KOOS: This matter has been reasonably well solved
in our present society, I would say.
CBW: Just move them out of your personal universe,
put them on the periphery by intention,
or better yet,
don't create them to begin with.
KOOS: Ideally, one should be or put oneself
in such a mental condition
that one can freely view someone
who is in a state of enemy,
in order to determine one's course of action
towards preventing or minimizing
the harm done to oneself or to others
by a person in such a state
in some area of life.
KOOS: I tell you about an experience of mine:
When I very THOROUGHLY observe that another is in Enemy
or in Treason, he will - at least temporarily - diminish that
condition considerably.
CBW: I can indeed see how this might be so.
KOOS: But it requires a very high level of perceptional force-output
on my part.
CBW: What you describe is akin to the Sufi "way of the glance,"
in that there is power in the
gaze (including purely 'theta gaze')
of an 'initiate'
to transform.
[Sufi = a mystic-devotee in the Islamic tradition]
[Theta gaze = direction of intentionality and
postulation of theta [spiritual substance] and ideas
when a spirit looks at something or someone.
A theta gaze may be done by an embodied spirit
in what may look to the average worldly observer
like a normal gaze,
or a theta gaze may be done by a disembodied spirit,
and would not normally be noticed at all
by the average worldly observer,
but either can be noticed
by another spirit who is aware
of how powerful theta gaze can be for good or ill.
In theta gaze, the physical world drops away
from the looker's sight and
the spiritual world stands revealed.
Theta gaze is both perceptive and creative.
In science, the fact that an observer can change
the results of an experiment is a phenomenon
of theta gaze,
although in crude form,
since most scientists are not yet
aware that they are spirit. (Note by CBW)]
When an 'initiate' looks upon a person,
with all that may involve,
the person may be changed forever
(that is, he may experience eternity).
[Initiate = person who has done
appropriate spiritual preparation
and has been progressively initiated
into a spiritual lineage
that may or may not be represented on earth
in the form of a mystical order, church,
or other organization.
Ultimately all true spiritual orders are
invisible, metaphysical,
owing to the nature of spirit itself,
and are virtually incorruptible
since they are built by true spiritual merit,
unlike their physical counterparts,
where ignorance or other injustices
are possible. (Note by CBW)]
I do wonder how much force is involved however,
in the observation you describe,
and how much is simple intention.
KOOS: Intention, I believe,
was correctly defined by L. Ron Hubbard
as "directed (mental) force".
CBW: Shall we document our exchange of ideas as a dialogue?
KOOS: Dialogue is a rather classic and well-accepted form.
(We have arranged it in this form now,
for the benefit of our readers.)
Koos Nolst Trenite - Ambassador for Mankind
Copyright 1996 by Koos Nolst Trenite and CB Willis
references:
RI-58i 'Fair Game Series - Treatment of Enemies' of 1 Jan 95
RI-444i 'The Practice of "SP-declares"' of 5 Jan 1996
RI-360i '... on Justice & LRH' of 16 Nov 1995
RI-381i 'Koos ... on Scientology's Future' of 25 Nov 1995
RI-10i 'Confronting a Suppressive' of 12 Oct 1994
RI-14i 'SPs in Scientology's Safe Space' of 23 Oct 1994
RI-24i 'Definition of 'PTS' - IMPORTANT' of 19 Nov 1994
RI-53i 'Past Life Criminals and Scn Ethics' of 29 July 1994
RI-90i 'The Intention of a Suppressive' of 9 Oct 1994
RI-0i 'Current Ethics' of 30 June 1994
RI-288i 'The Main Evil Purpose' of 15 Oct 1995
RI-242Ri 'Being There - Freedom to Act' of 22 July 1995
RI-235i 'Handling people with Understanding' of 14 July 1995
RI-471i 'Two Ways of Analyzing Life-situations' of 30 Jan 1996
RI-217i 'Choosing Sides - As Ethics' of 24 Jun 1995
RI-263i 'Two Responses to Being Helped' of 20 Aug 1995
RI-391i 'Cleaning up the Internet further' of 24 Sept 1995
RI-88i 'Restoring the Being by Declaring Him SP' 14 Feb 1995
RI-185i 'Cancelling SP-declares' of 20 May 1995
RI-83i 'The Right to Study and Apply Scientology' of 16 Jun 1994
RI-269i 'How to Handle Irresponsible People. (GOLD!)' 26 Sep 95
RI-50RPi 'RI-xxxi series Archive - The Future' of 28 Dec 1994
Revised and Replaced on 12 November 95
These and other RI-Bulletins can well be obtained here - or
(with WWW-browser) at
ftp://thetics.europa.com/outgoing/adams/RI
(with ftp) at
thetics.europa.com/outgoing/adams/RI
Back to the RI-Bulletin index.