"terapin Ed" <terapin1@msn.com> wrote in message news:1136948246.334953.294470@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> Iko Iko All,
> I am very familiar with scientology and recently have been
> reading about Salvador Dali.
> I am the type of person that finds a facinating subject and reads
> everything I can find on the subject regardless if its pro or con. Its
> the only way to find the truth.
> I moved to Tampa a few years ago and was riding my bycycle on
> the pinnelas trail when I rode through Clearwater and discovered
> scientology. Was blown away by the weird downtown scene, got on the
> internet and pretty much read everything. I read Dianetics, I also
> read A peice of Blue Sky. That said, I found Hubbards theory of a
> logical mind and a reactive mind mildly interesting. I thoght it was
> an interesting theory developed in the 50's when science at the time
> was looking for simple answers to complex problems. Such as Einsteins
> endless search for a Universal theory in Physics to explain everything.
> I think Hubbard thought he found the universal theory of the mind like
> Einstein was searching for in Physics. Of course in the many years
> since Dianetics was published, we have learned so much and the mind is
> a very complicated organ which pretty much makes dianetics obsolete.
> Anyway, its an interesting theory that the so called reactive part of
> the mind causes all the problems.
> Now to part 2. I had the day off recently and went down to St Pete
> to check out the Salvador Dali museum. INCREDIBLE. I was completely
> blown away. The genius of the paintings on display is amazing. His
> early work as adolocent shows an incredible gift. The art student
> expereminting with impressionism, the young adult taking first steps
> into surrealism and then defining and becoming surrealism. The late
> classical and religious works. WOW. Of course I have now dived into
> this subject and am currently reading a biography. When reading about
> Dali, I was struck by his mind techniques that really fly in the face
> of Hubbard. Where Hubbard thought the reactive mind causes all
> problems, Dali was an exact opposit. He developed a technique he called
> "paranoiac critical method" Dali would self induce paranoia to delve
> into unconscious images and irrational associations in his mind. Then
> by critical intervention, becoming lucid and objective, bring these
> ideas to life in his paintings. After reading about this method, which
> is a source of Dali's genius, I thought wow.
> Here is someone delving into the so called reactive mind and creating
> masterpeices.
> I just thought it is an interesting juxtaposition.
> Peace
> Ed
>
> PS is scientology stunting creativity among their celebreties. seems
> most are actors or actresses, definitly not creative. How can you be
> creative and also try to diminish the so called reactive mind.

You are correct. With very few exceptions, the only Scientologists of note work in the performing arts, usually film and musicians. Specifically, people like Tom Cruise, Travolta, et al are *movie stars* rather than actors. Movie stars differ insofar as they play pat stereotyped roles that seldom change very much from film to film. Their respective audience expects this as it contributes to a recognizability factor that propels box office receipts. In contrast to movie stars, bona fide actors are called upon to innovate or create new sorts of roles in novel situations. These are artists.

You cannot be creative in the absence of unconscious emotional resources. Any attempt to rely solely upon immanent or conscious awareness merely recycles the old and the already known and cannot be relied upon for reinvention or novel expression. To create requires drawing upon untapped sources of mystery. Actors do this. Movie stars,as a rule, do not. They rely on the hackneyed, the familiar, the situational cliché, the banal and kitsch.

ewsnead

Go Back