With reference to my previous article titled “A radical new view of the upper Scientology levels”, and with the recent “cat-out-of-the-bag” in a comment section of this blog, I have decided to drop the bomb.
I could have made this a short story or included anecdotes and fluff in order to make it all more interesting. Instead I go for the straight-to-the-point-approach for the sake of brevity, letting your comments do the rest.
- If the theory behind the OT levels as laid out by LRH is true, then we would have a large number of beings turning up for auditing that were ready to run a very different process than the ordinary Bridge (as covered in OT VI material). But we do not see that. Except for some loose rumors, not one single being has been verified as having showed up out of the estimated more than 200 million. This is a discrepancy like no other.
- I am often very conscious when I dream, and I find myself creating scenery and people in order to create a game when I sleep. I create people that I then let run on their own, and from that point on, they are uncontrollable by me in order to make the game real.
- The reactive mind is a collection of stuck viewpoints (engrams) that remain outside of a person’s control until inspected thoroughly. What if there were old, forgotten analytical viewpoints similar to the people of my dreams? Viewpoints that I created and that I no longer take responsibility for and when I through auditing do take responsibility for them, I would conclude that the one creating them was “ME”.
- If the above is the actuality, then one could dispense with all the confidentiality or sci-fi and treat the Bridge as a continuous handling of reactive and analytical viewpoints in order for the person to “collect himself” and “become whole”. The processes would be just the same, but the whole perspective would be dramatically different. It would make the whole Bridge less mystical or intriguing, less controversial or sexy. But it would also make the whole Bridge an exercise in 100% Responsibility.
There are more reasons why I believe this to be a more factual description of what is really going on when doing the Scientology OT levels, but this should suffice to start the discussion.
Note: The readers’ comments contain confidential upper level Scientology material. If you believe that any such material can hurt you (which may be a self-fulfilling prophecy, a sort of reverse placebo), then do not read the comments to this blog post.
Geir Isene - uncut 
Makes much more sence . Thanks Geir.
I take it you don’t want to say what the theory is in the OT VI materials?
There is a specific process to run on such beings. That would suffice for now.
Okay, got it. Just one thing, is that figure of 200 million also beyond what would suffice for now, or am I just being dense about what it relates to?
I didn’t get that. Rephrase?
I guess the figure of 200 million refers to the estimate by LRH himself related to a “large number of beings turning up for auditing.” Duh?
This is an intriguing post, as expected!
No, it’s my own estimate. Any OT VII should get to a figure in that range.
Oh, okay. Just thought maybe some “everybody knows” datum might have gone over my head. Thanks.
I liked the way you state this, Geir. I’d like to add that to me it seems that the ‘fixed ideas’ or ‘considerations’ are linked to associated ‘identities’. Essentially I see it as a ‘valence’ which is associated with the manifestation of the idea. Hence the concept of auditing ‘personalities’ associated with ‘fixed ideas’ seems a natural one to me, whether the individual views these ‘personalities’ as ‘reflective fragments’ or ‘separate entities’, or some other projected structure of mind.
I have certificarts for various Scientology things. Particularly those from Clear up, I consider valueless. I do not think I have the states I am certified for, which are absolutes, which I do not understand as relevant to how I experience daily life. “A collection of stuck viewpoints” descibes very well the things holding me back in life (they include things that I think did not form under pain or unconsciousness). Over the last ten or so years I have been slowly sorting them out, with good results, and using very simple Scientology principles.
I am not on any public bridge, I am on a private path, meant for me and my life.
I hope you see that I am in agreement with Geir. I’d be happy to see people following their own goals. On a private path.
Well done, Geir I am contributing to (rather than just applauding) your well written Blog above.
All best wishess,
Ant
Thanks Ant. You are the grand old man and I admire you for what you have done and for what you continue to do. The IVY e-mail list is excellent.
Like you, I am on my own path – sometimes private, sometimes public. Are you using solo auditing as a means of sorting out the stuck viewpoints?
I always thought I was a figment of someone’s imagination and I have known people that I thought were mine. 😛
hahaha! – there is a weird consistency to what you say… I like it!
Hat … off.
How did you develop you ability to direct your lucid dreams? Was this an organic process that grew naturally over time, or one you chose to learn?
It has been like that since I was a child.
Cool! Richard Feinman could do this to some extent.
Dr. Robert Thurman in a discussion he made regarding his translation of “The Tibetan Book of The Dead” states that being aware in dream states as a vital practice. Tibetan Meditation adepts seem to claim it is an attainable ability.
I believe so too. I am currently exploring the ability to see how far I can take it.
Good luck! Here is the talk referenced above. It’s on iTunes.
“Liberation Upon Hearing in the Between – Living with the Tibetan Book of the Dead” by Robert Thurman, Phd.
I’ve thought about this quite a bit, my wife, an OT VII completion has since decided it was all bunk. I myself think there is some truth to the model, please don’t read that by that I mean I think it’s a valid way to OT or even a valid therapy, as laid out in the CofS but I do believe we are surrounded by life and it may be several different classes of life too and not all under LRH’s single designation. I liked the Knowledgism view of them as spiritual team mates rather than an abberative and necessarily counter productive appendage.
Maybe we did create those viewpoints, or a portion of them. It’s an interesting thought.
I find your explanation much more palatable for the simple reason that it aligns with my own basic postulates and those of early Scientology texts. The “standard” theory is in conflict with these same postulates.
OT VI is NOTs. Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that it is basically addressing DUB-IN.
It is handling the affects of running dub-ins as if they are actual incidents from one’s past. Such dub-ins (lie factory), of course, cannot be run out with normal Dianetic procedure.
.
I think it is simpler than that. It is addressing old viewpoints.
NOTs was developed from sessions given to a very sick Hubbard by David Mayo. Seems like Mayo realized that Hubbard, in his own auditing, was dubbing-in heavily. Mayo, then, had to figure out how to handle that situation.
The above is my supposition from what I have read. It may not be accurate at all.
.
Geir, I think your observations nicely fits with what Mike Goldstein wrote about that matter in his ‘Life after the CoS’ series, particularly with chapter 18-‘Entities’ , scenario #1.
I agree with you on this, Geir. The Upper Levels are simply a path. They are not THE path. They may be beneficial path for you, or they may not. No need for all the secrecy around it.
Possibly the cloaking and mystique happened in order to avoid public ridicule, but that horse has long since bolted the stable, so may as well open the doors. Similar material by Aleister Crowley, Alice Bailey, and other occultists is freely available out there for people to explore if they want to.
Actually, this material is also out there, so in the end, it is all much ado about nothing. (Although I do understand that you are speaking to people who still feel the material should be confidential).
🙂
Regards,
Kim
Re stuck viewpoints:
The OT levels 9-16 as developped by CBR and as delivered in Ron’s Org take care of exactly those (and some related stuff). So you are not the only one thinking of these “created viewpoints”. BTW, LRH mentioned them here and there, just not as a thing to audit.
And this I know. But the CBR bridge still clouds the OT III case in the same unnecessary mystery whereas I propose to look at it simply and only as one’s own past and forgotten viewpoints. Confidentiality dismissed.
I think there should be an OT1, that gets the person to notice the entity case, then NOTS, then a form of OT8 that fully reveals the role of the person in that entity case, then the old OT levels materials that actually drill “operating”.
Problem is that there is something to the OT3 materials, there is embedded cultural (in a spiritual sense) material, that needs to be dealt with. There needs to be that realization that something happened to us, some common thing that we are all dramatizing. OT3 give a being a good look at the common dramatization, and helps to move one out of it to the point that NOTS can run. And OT2 sets him up to run 3..
The mysticism is a useful tool, an acceptable context for understanding FROM THE POINT THE PERSON IS AT THEN. Of course it may seem a bit disingenious in retrospect.
I dont think to many people are up to being fully responsible, or able to “look at it simply and only as one’s own past and forgotten viewpoints.”
Perhaps the solution is a more thorough lower bridge? And a requirement that the person do BOTH SIDES!!!
LRH wrote an advice in the 80’s suggesting people go straight from OT II to NOTs.
Not thinking people are up to taking responsibility is a wild invalidation of anyone. I believe anyone is up to taking responsibility, albeit on a gradient.
As for the rest: I don’t believe the mythos behind OT III is true or real. I think it all handles old stuck viewpoints, and that’s all there is to it.
I didn’t mean to invalidate all of humanity! 🙂
Just point out that what seems obvious to us, is out reality to others.
An “acceptable reality” is workable.
And I don’t mean to invalidate you either, in your search for a simpler, more direct, more true path.
I have a tendency to reactively defend scientology.
But Ron did say that at the end of the bridge, we would have to run out scientology!
Dave Adams,
Your comments about “acceptable reality” and the need for eventually “running out Scientology” reminded me of a couple other points that would fit in here. (I too tend to want to defend Scientology – at least we’re aware of it.:))
One point was LRH talking somewhere about how he had to complicate things a good bit for them to be acceptable – that people just won’t “buy” something that’s simple. (Paraphrased as well as I can recall.)
And the other was something like, if you told someone on Saturn that there existed a planet where you had to SELL people their freedom, they wouldn’t believe that such a planet could exist – but it does, and you’re on it.
The problem is that today there are hardly anyone on that Bridge.
P.S. Bottom line – there may have been “a method to his madness.”
Geir, just being devil’s advocate for the time being. Your viewpoint is appealing and I’m still listening…
You’re right, Geir, hardly anyone on that Bridge. But can we be sure this (your OP) is the Why? There are other possibilities, having to do with corruption of tech and with management.
Don’t get me wrong, I love the notions of simplicity and TRUTH. But what about LRH’s points that acceptable reality and complexity are needed in order to sell freedom – sexy does seem to be what SELLS (everywhere you look, in fact). So, LRH’s approach rings of truth too, workable level of. And, as Dave noted above, there is the eventual remedy of running out Scientology.
Or do you basically think “the ends don’t justify the means,” as the means have ultimate bad repercussions not easily remedied – and what would those be?
The major rap that Scientology gets in the media and among the general public is the sci-fi of the OT levels.
And, as I say in my OP, the evidence points against LRH’s description of what is really going on.
Selling a lie to get people to buy the truth? Seriously.
Yeah, I think it would have to be at least a relative truth.
I know of three people, myself included who happened to not have been anywhere near this planet when the OT III incident took place. I will say that all three of us have very different cases that run very quickly, often too quickly for the usual tech lineup. For instance, one of the three went clear clay-demoing the Axioms of Scn, and the Church was never able to recognize that.
Personally, I have always been able to as-is quicker than most auditors will recognize.
All the differences I have seen make me think there is Something to the OT III incident. Just what, I’m not exactly sure…
It could be that something similair to the OT III incident happened at another time and another place, but it has nothing to do with OT-auditing or NOTS. Perhaps Hubbard first discovered the auditing techniques and realized it worked and after that tried to figure out why it worked. Perhaps then he himself or another person in session got up something similair to the OT III incident and Hubbard thought that was the answer. Then he filled in some of the blanks to make it more complete…
I haven’t done OT-auditing but I sure know it works, having experienced clean OT-space surrounded by some OT VII’s. It doesn’t seem to work for everybody though. Perhaps it requires a thetan with enough awareness, perhaps the auditing isn’t applicable to every case, there could be a number of reasons.
I often get the feeling Hubbard has major points that he is right about and that works, but that he sometimes “fill in the blanks” with made-up stuff.
It could also be that Hubbard really believed in the OT III incident since he wrote a screenplay about it and wanted it up in the cinemas totally contrary to his belief of confidentiality. I get the feeling he wanted to restimulate some people or make them aware of our history.
So I have also some vague feeling that the OT III incident could have happened somewhere and sometime in a similair fashion since Hubbard seemed to be so stubborn about it.
A possibility.
As i understand it, incident ll didn’t happened to us (it happened 2 the Entities).Ron talk about (in a lecture “Theta-lines”) that we entered Earth at different times,some very recent..
Yes, but this is not a particularly radical new viewpoint.
I haven’t done “8” like you but I have always thought that the ep of that would be the realization that much of the entity case was mock ups as vehicles for engrams, valences, or some such.
Here is a thought, individual “spirit” is simply a bit of the universal pool of “stuff” that has decided to individuate. And this individuated bit has had bits individuate from it. Auditing can de-individuate those bits tied up in engrams and such and return “the stuff” to the higher level/closer to the pool of stuff.
Am I making any sense?
In another way of thinking about it is “”God lives within me …..as me”.
You are made up of stuff from the common pool of “stuff”, but consider yourself to be separate. Axioms and all…
Buddhist call this kind of ego, attachment to the world of form.
Its just a thought, a consideration, the game!
Good input.
Now treating any case as one’s own creations and responsibility would dispense with the mysticism and leave it to the person to take his/her own path in the understanding of all this.
Yes well that is the key “problem” (point/counterpoint, dichotomy). You want to stay in the game, but fix it up a bit.
The urge to survive, to maintain a considered identity and package of experiences separate from others, yet not get totally lost in it.
I dont think your ideas in any way invalidate upper levels.
The upper levels are a way of dealing with it, without completely unmocking it so radically that the game is gone.
Consider NOTS, one addresses an apparent reality, the “entities” cease to impinge. It works. Do you have to understand how and why for it to work? No. Is it useful to maintain the mockups that form the context in which it works? Yes.
Scientology is a series of very useful lies. Methods of changing the context, while still operating in that same context. The tech works even though it uses the lies of its bigger context for its structure.
Question is do you want to unmock the whole game and vanish in a moment of sublime realization?
Or stay and play!!
🙂
I want to research what works in the direction of more truth. I find the original explanations by LRH unworkable. I know the processes work, and I now think I know why. As I said, this is far less sexy than space opera and such – but it does explain a few things that the original mythos didn’t and it dispenses with the apparent need/want for confidentiality. At the same time it gives the processes more value methinks.
Truth is over rated. Its the coincidence of consideration. Not something objective, outside the realm of thought.
Make all the truth you want. Its a fun game!
But we got trapped in it by believing it.
🙂
I don’t view it as a trap. I believe viewing it as a trap makes it so.
But thats just the point. The “mysticism” is simple contextual aids. Scientology was created to use the context we are in.
You looking back down at it see it as “less than fully true”. But so what. It works.
Would you have the man off the street just be R-factored that its all consideration? No. You have to work within the “lie” he is living.
Whats the first process on the bridge? Objectives. Making someone mock up walls, over theres, books, bottles, space, time. Its not an intellectual exercise, its “tricks” to move a consideration creator out of the creation/context they are in.
Whats the ep of NOTS? The realization that one can be or is at cause point over a certain phenomenon. Is that the whole truth!? Certainly not. But it is movement in the right direction.
I seem to be solidly in favor of lies, dont I?
🙂
“You looking back down at it see it as “less than fully true”. But so what. It works.”
I don’t buy that. Masking the truth by introducing (unworkable) lies is no way to go about this.
And the mythos and the mysticism does Not work. Witness the reaction it gets on the Net. It is an indication of unworkability. I would go for Occam’s razor here. Simple is beautiful. No need for the sci-fi. KISS.
Were you hindered or aided by the unworkable lies?
— and if you answer would you expound enough to explain your either/or answer? Thanks.
Dave,you are making total sense 2 me:)
I think that the “problem” with NOTS/OT lll is that it is “the body’s case” and every one think it is something they was part of. Then what is such an entity?! I don’t think that matters,it is Theta performing a function and by the way,the whole MEST universe is built that way.(not only those body’s,in my humble opinion).Tr 8 is a hint at this (putting thoughts in to that ashtray;))
nice.
Reading your article, I recollected one case history I had read at http://www.freezoneamerica.org/Goldstein/After/part12.htm (#1). I think that could go together well with the new view of yours. The boy was haunted by an incident that hadn’t been painful, only kind of confusing. But that was enough to bring about an unwanted condition.
Right. This opens the door to explain a wide variety of situations that I couldn’t quite explain before without conjuring all sorts of mystical explanatory vias.
Mike likes to use this as a debunker of dianetics/scientology, but if you read DMSMH is clearly says that the pain can be “spiritual”. There doesnt need to be physical pain for an incident to be engramic.
I went round and round with him on this..
Pain is something contra survival. Pleasure is some thing that aids survival.
Funny how much was in that book in terms of fundamental principles.
Funny how the simple stuff gets made into rules.
🙂
I’m not sure if confusion should be classified as spiritual pain. But I wonder how come that that incident wouldn’t be run out through, like, self-analysis or “recall a time” or a similar simple process.
Think of confusion as non survival. A “suppressor” as DMSMH terms it.
DMSMH defines pain as something non survival. Survival is pleasure.
The problem with that example is that it is the experience of one person and can not be used to deductively reason to a general rule. Mike tries though.
Swings and girls can really mess a guy up!
I think old forgotten viewpoints can also coma back and bite. Hence, op.
MU on my part. What does “op” mean here?
Original Post (my blog post itself)
I don’t think so. Pain is a punishment for not surviving, pleasure for surviving. Someone must work very hard to make his living. It’s pro survival, but not a pleasure at all.
I look at confusion as a cause for possible pain, but not pain itself. Drunk driver can run someone over, however neither him nor his action is pain. But pain will probably be outcome on the part of both the driver and the victim.
So I think confusion wasn’t really interpreted as pain in old Dianetics.
I would suggest you re read the book. (“OLD” Dianetics ) It does not interpret confusion as pain, I did.
But it is an idea consistent with DMSMH. Many people seem to forget that emotional pain can be the anchor of an engram rather than physical pain.
Would not confusion, a negative emotion, be emotionally painful? And embedded with the other elements of an engram, the recording of ALL the perceptions, be a legitimate “hook” to audit?
And thus the boy (in the idenics example) on the swing set who sees the girl looking at him and feeling confused, has an engram. An engram with out physical pain, but one none the less.
But then engram, bank, etc are just models to understand concepts. Not the thing the concept describes.
🙂
I sometimes enjoy confusion.
In context of the example, it was not enjoyable.
Differentiation.
I too can play loki, randomity keeps things interesting.
I’m not an expert, but I think the new trend is veeeery far from Freud’s old Dianetics…
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/a-radical-new-view-of-the-upper-scientology-levels-ok-here-goes/#comment-3939
KHTK takes a similar view of entities as Idenics does. Entities are part of a created explanation for the phenomenon of what happens when one starts to forage through the mind instead of letting it unstack itself through the process of looking.
Foraging the mind leads to all kinds of trouble. Overrun is the most obvious outcome, but one can also drive oneself mad too. Looking per KHTK is the safest avenue. Entities simply provide a via to look at one’s own case. Direct looking as in KHTK is much better, and faster in the long run.
KHTK is free and can be done by oneself without the need for devices, such as, E-meter.
KHTK 12: Comments on Looking
.
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/a-radical-new-view-of-the-upper-scientology-levels-ok-here-goes/#comment-3957
“… Or, stay and play!!”
Ha! Attachment… the root of all stuckness…
.
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/a-radical-new-view-of-the-upper-scientology-levels-ok-here-goes/#comment-3960
Nope! Truth is the exact consideration… it ends in poof!
.
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/a-radical-new-view-of-the-upper-scientology-levels-ok-here-goes/#comment-3966
You cannot run out what you are dubbing-in in present time.
.
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/a-radical-new-view-of-the-upper-scientology-levels-ok-here-goes/#comment-3965
“Entity case” is an alter-ised expression of DUB-IN. In my opinion, there is no entity case. there is only dub-in and you cannot run dub-in the normal way. The only way you can get rid of dub-in is by recognizing its exact nature for what it is. In the absence of that recognition, one simply encounters entitites after entities ad infinitum.
.
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/a-radical-new-view-of-the-upper-scientology-levels-ok-here-goes/#comment-3970
As I have written before, beingness is just the basic viewpoint. Beingness is just a type of viewpoint.
.
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/a-radical-new-view-of-the-upper-scientology-levels-ok-here-goes/#comment-3963
All that you are dealing with are lies anyway. What you think of yourself is a lie too.
.
And this does not bring progress.
What brings progress is simply looking (without speculating) and recognizing exactly whatever is there.
I cannot look for you, nor can you look for me. Besides I am looking at things that are very different from what you are looking at at the moment.
So, just ignore what I am saying. I am saying it just for the sake of saying it and nothing more. It may or may not hit any mark.
.
And I find your speculations on the Unknowable to be a red herring in the progress of philosophy, that’s all.
More research to be done, I say.
Of course. It is a work in progress.
.
One cannot speculate on unknowable. All speculations are because of unknowable.
If there is a speculation then there also must be something unknown or just unknowable.
.
As I said, that is all fine. But where does considering come into play? As considering is different than consideration.
Place two mirrors facing each other. There will be your answer.
.
Of course, considering is different from consideration, just like energy is different from mass. But they can be shown to be equivalent at a more fundamental level. What is that level?
May I request you to fully read the essay Essay #13: The Paradox of Unknowable!
.
Energy is different from mass in a whole different way than considering is different from consideration.
Good view points, You are right, even mine are lies. Only lies can exits that makes the MEST the MEST, solidity. True lie
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/a-radical-new-view-of-the-upper-scientology-levels-ok-here-goes/#comment-3972
True dat!
.
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/a-radical-new-view-of-the-upper-scientology-levels-ok-here-goes/#comment-3973
What is the definition of “workable”. Are Dianetics and Scientology workable?
To me “workable” is defined by that which catches fire and becomes a grass roots movement.
Scientology definition of “workable” is like looking at the base of a mountain and not lifting one’s sight.
.
Looks a bit like a straw man 😉 I wasn’t referring to Dn or Scn. Workable is what evidently gives progress in the eyes of the beholder.
What I said was in response to Dave Adam’s defense of Scientology as “workable.” I wasn’t thinking of the viewpoint you hold.
.
Ah, goodie, then 🙂
I believe I have upset all my admirer’s by constantly pounding on the basis being UNKNOWABLE.
I admit my defeat. 🙂
.
Not really so, but you seem to refuse to acknowledge that your theory is in need of fixing as it does not predict what is visible to one and all – the CONSIDERING. A theory that does not even predict what is currently obvious is less than valuable.
My basic theory is described in these words: “This unknowable would then be nothing more than a carrot to help uncover the considerations, which may be hidden deep in our consciousness. That is more than wonderful.” and that “All our knowledge is made up of considerations.” Either these two datum are incorrect, or the conclusions derived from them are incorrect. Here is an example of how I used these datum yesterday:
In NOTs Series #1, the following statement is made:“When you talk about telepathy, there is a proximity factor. When a thetan is pressed straight up against another thetan very tight, total tactile communication, you get this type of mental transmission.” This appeared to me quite mysterious and didn’t make sense to me. I played around with it for a few minutes.
I looked at the considerations, which underlie the term “thetan.” THETA was initially used by Hubbard as an unknown in the “equation of life.” Well that makes sense. Then what considerations got added to it later? The consideration of individuality was introduced and THETA was changed into thetan. OK. What underlies the consideration of individuality? Well, that would be a specific beingness. What is beingness? It is “existingness” with certain specific characteristics. OK, that seems to sum up as a viewpoint from which those characteristics are viewed and considered specific. Would that mean that beingness and the viewpoint from which that beingness is being viewed are one and the same? It would appear so because there is nothing else there.
Now we go back to the statement in NOTs Series #1. It appears to be saying that when two viewpoints are very, very close to each other they would know the thoughts of each other. That seems to make more sense compared to the original statement as the mystery is now taken out. In fact, it seems to be quite obvious.
Here, the consideration of telepathy presented me with a sense of mystery (unknowable). I was curious to look into that mystery, which was presented to me in the form of certain considerations. I broke each of those considerations down into more basic considerations, and recombined them to resolve that mystery by making them consistent with my existing considerations. It was a process of simplification. In that simplification were discoveries for me.
May be this is what is meant by making the concept your own in Study Tech (my most favorite part of Scientology).
Anyway, I accepted defeat in not being able to get across how I view unknowable. It is basically a carrot that leads us toward greater simplification of considerations.
.
My issue is not with that – only that the theory is lacking a most basic of ingredients.
Vin: I admit my defeat.
Chris: Not by a long shot you don’t – feint only.
Dont you dare! your views are fantastic. One needs to peal lot of the basic before one can see there is a hidden key which can unlock the Universe. And what a Universe that is!.
“I create people that I then let run on their own, and from that point on, they are uncontrollable by me in order to make the game real.”
I get that what you are saying in the above is that in your dream you are compartmenting off a portion of your own mind (or yourself), which now seems to have – or be – a mind of its own. As it is “running on its own” and is “uncontrollable,” is it possible that it could step out of the dream, just as you do?
This might be off on too much of a tangent here, but it relates to the discussion on your earlier thread, having to do with viewpoints “begetting” other viewpoints. (Hope it isn’t too audacious!)
It’s a good tangent 🙂
Was that just a gracious ack for an off-the-wall question, or should I give you a pass on your no-answer drill? 🙂 If the latter, I’ll go for a pass on my TR 3! I’m curious what you make of my speculations…
Well, to answer the question – I guess I could carry the viewpoint around when I wake up. But it would be eternally attached to me.
Okay, if it’s strictly “attached,” that answers it. Operating as another person separate from you in your dream seemed different, but I guess it’s more like a circuit. Thanks!
On your last point, “…..and treat the Bridge as a continuous handling of reactive and analytical viewpoints in order for the person to “collect himself” and “become whole”;
oddly enough, since I first started learning of Scientology in the late 1960s-early 1970s, that what I have always thought Scientology is about.
A continuous work of increasing awareness. Or as Freud put it, a process of “making the unconscious, conscious.”
“When did it ever become something else?” – I ask naively I guess, never having done much of the Bridge,and therefore not the upper levels at all….
I guess I have always viewed it and focused on it being a method, rather than – what? A collection of specific incidents to be addressed. I guess that’s what the ‘upper Bridge’ became? One size fits all?
That’s not to say those specific incidents don’t exist in some or many cases, but it seems ‘listing’ to check whether any particular one ‘reads’ on any particular case at any particular time would be the way to go, utilizing the principle of ‘the mind’s protection’.
Maybe this isn’t the thread for me to post in, not having done any of those levels…..? But I see a whole lot more in Scientology than HoM.
Yes, I believe my view is more in line with the very early Scientology.
Great post, Geir!
Continue your research, you are doing well.
I have seen some other poeple also hinting at this area (as how we create this game and create valences for others).
And this is area that needs more research.
I dislike confidentiality. It is actually confidentiality that harms people, not the OT data.
LRH descriptions of Incident 1 and Incident 2 are very poor and misleading. I believe that they happened, but we have little amount of data about them.
And i think that only a small percentage of people here on earth actually went through Incident 2, most of us we came later to this planet.
I think that handling and grinding entities is unimportant and misleading.
A better and simpler theories and processes should be developed.
Entities have much history pre scio and post modern scio. We can of course invalidate the *narrative* of entities as explained by LRH in scio and look at it more basically, more philosophically i.e. stuck/forgotten viewpoints.
I think both the philosophical aspect is true at a certain reality level and so is the narrative aspect of it from a certain reality level as well.
You could also say that things like NOTs are a creative process, differentiating theta (theta beings) from MEST (body). Or even more basic than this, creating theta beings to then differentiate from MEST body. This also mimics/duplicates the axiom about theta as solver vs theta as problem (MEST).
This has some more information and wider context for entities as well: http://www.arelena.com/content_influences.html
I think the main question though is this: is there a difference in a *viewpoint* (as per the factors) and a *thetan*? It’s true that a being takes a physical viewpoint in the MEST universe (perhaps more than one..!), but does that mean it IS that viewpoint, essentially/fundamentally?
Does the viewpoint exist without the being?
Thank you Infinity!
The most helpful comment and link I have ever read on this subject!
Re. Infinity’s “main question”: The “point” of the viewpont, the point from which things are viewed, is the being, you.
Yes as a continuing selfhelp programme.
Fascinating post Geir
When talking of Identities, it reminded me of Trey Lotz’s ‘About the L’s’ videos he did here (the second of the 3 part series is particularly good):
This got me looking at my earlier auditing from the beginnings of the bridge and into the OT levels, as did this post.
If I look at what intrigued me about some path to greater enlightenment, this yearning has always been with me or a part of me. I can’t say that I came up to a ‘need of change’, it just always was with me.
It appears to me that it is no coincidence that we all ended up looking for a ‘path’, nor is it coincidence that we ended up where we are, or for that matter, in Scientology.
Going back to identities: If one, as he/she moves thru life/lives, adopts different identities to handle a situation, to be more acceptable, to gain agreement, to be able to be, or as a solution to a problem or confusion; one does this as Cause at that point in time.
Whether one adopts or creates an identity to adapt to a non-threatening situation, or, as a solution to a threat or problem, he/she is adding characteristics or qualities to oneself or nullifying characteristics that one natively has.
To me, one can remain in control of some of these identities and dispense with them when they no longer serve the purpose or the game at a later time, or, one goes Effect of his own creation and lives with his ‘new beingness’.
As time goes on, all manner of identities and altered identities get layered on top of one another. It seems that bits of energy/theta get trapped or assigned to watch situations within these identities similar to an early warning system – a certain type of incident pops up and one or many of these identities go into action to preserve oneself and ‘be a solution’ for the apparent threat.
It seems that as these identities peel off in auditing, where one realizes what confusion prompted him to create/consider that identity in the first place, why he thought it would work (essentially getting time, place, form & event); one realizes that many of these identities are no longer workable ‘solutions’, and operating under their influence actually hampers one’s ability to see what is in front of him.
These solution-identities have become so ‘native’ to him over the eons that he does not realize that they are his own creations and that they are still trying to solve a long-gone problem.
The amount of energy and theta he has imbued into these millions of identities one has spread over the track is tremendous. Just consider the amount of energy expended to keep all these identities ready for action, let alone the ones that are continually created.
It seems to me that the ‘high’ or expansiveness one feels when as-ising/realizing the considerations and computations connected with these identities is really the regaining of bits of himself trapped within these identities … they do after all have to continue to be created or set up on automatic so they activate in certain circumstances.
It seems to me that the game we are in is similar to the old King’s Quest computer games of the ’80s.It is a labyrinth. In those games you gathered and used objects in an exact sequence to open a hitherto unseen part of the game. In my case, I am seeking these ‘keys’ to unlock and regain what I once agreed to not-is.
It is a frustrating game at times, but what an adventure!
And once we solve it, no doubt we’ll look and say … “Ahh, that was too easy. Now, let’s create something REALLY difficult.” 🙂
Very good.
My view here seems to more easily explain schizophrenia, btw.
… uh-oh …
Okay Geir, I’ll bite. How does it easily explain schizophrenia and what exactly does that mean?
Split-off viewpoints rather than separate entities.
Are you stating that this major mental illness is a result of a spiritual problem (split off viewpoints)? If so, then the next position from such a claim would be one of the following:
1. The mental illness can be fixed by repairing the split off viewpoints.
2. The mental illness cannot be fixed by repairing split off viewpoints and requires other methods for repair.
3. The mental illness may or may not be repaired by repairing the split off viewpoints.
4. ((INSERT YOUR OWN ANSWER))
Are you really saying, that I should feel free to tell this to a dear friend of mine from college who almost shot his mother’s face off with a sawed off shotgun because he believed she was a spy from Opus Dei out to kill his King James Bible loving butt?
My suggestion? I suggest you spin this as a “spiritual Schitzophrenia” that crosses lifetimes and recommend any real-world Schitzophrenic to hug his medicine bottle to his chest like it is the only chance for him to survive! Here is a suggested mantra for such a one…
“There’s no love like Science…”
“There’s no love like Science…”
“There’s no love like Science…”
I am not advocating a silver bullet for Schitzophrenia, but a proposal on how some cases may be understood. A proposal for research, if you may.
Thanks for the clarification.
“Split-off viewpoints rather than separate entities.”
Yes.
The demons one is possessed by, are ultimately of one’s own creation. Although to the extent ‘implanting’ exists, one has had a LOT of encouragement in creating them.
It is an alternative look at schizophrenia, demonic possession, multiple personality, all that good stuff.
The disowned viewpoints, for all practical purposes, might as well be separate entities at times. That is how they seem.
What I find fascinating is that it is all covered in the very first published book, DMSMH. There they are called ‘circuits’. LRon talks about ‘valence walls’ that keep the different aspects separate.
And it’s referenced in teachings going back thousands of years, but there hasn’t been a ‘unified(agreed upon) theory’ about them.
See Gurdjieff/Ouspensky’s material on the fragmentednature of thehuman personality, the existence of ‘false I’s’ and ‘many I’s’ in each person. See Buddhist materials, early psychoanalytic materials, Georg Groddeck, RD Laing, etc etc.
Not sure your point, Bunkai. You seem to work at masking your meaning, at saying what you’re saying without saying it. Or perhaps you sense a meaning within yourself and struggling to bring it to light?
Which is it?
There can be a long road between theory and application.
There is a reason why a person doesn’t begin their auditing(therapeutic program) with OT7 or OT3 or even the Clearing course.
One must learn to crawl before walking, and learn to walk before one runs. Each person must start where he can start, and not higher.
Start by studying the basic concepts of existing teachings, and be mindful. Make some attempt to understand the evolution of theories
The sky is not falling, hysteria is not yet called for. If you have some ideas about schizophrenia, why not share them?
Geir, I do believe you are onto something. I haven’t done NOTS, but your theory handily explains an anomaly I encountered on OT III. And as you said, it simplifies and aligns the OT levels with the rest of Scientology and Dianetics. Occam’s razor is still the sharpest blade around.
🙂
I’ve been putting some attention on lucid dreaming and had a success this morning. I was in my own dream as myself and momentarily aware of this. I added 1 plus 2 and got 3. Really. For me this was startling enough for me to wake and lay in bed thinking about the experience.
The significance is that my own valence of myself cannot calculate. So for me, I had shown myself that I was awake in my own dream and operating within the dream.
😀
Chis This is your shining star, Go to my blog and read my latest.
Great article on how to Lucid Dream …
http://www.cracked.com/funny-5213-lucid-dreaming/
Interesting article Bunkai. Thanks for posting.
Did you ever read Excalibur Revisited? It’s a bit dense in places, but ultimately helps align a lot of things. And, I think makes a case supporting your premise.
It is online here: http://www.freezoneamerica.org/excal/fr_excal.html
Geir says: “I am often very conscious when I dream, and I find myself creating scenery and people in order to create a game when I sleep. I create people that I then let run on their own, and from that point on, they are uncontrollable by me in order to make the game real.”
My observation is that this is pretty often stated by novelists about characters in their novels.
.
Yep Vinnie,I was going to post about this too. I recall reading that some novelists, screenwriters, and maybe playwrights have had the experience of starting to write only to have the characters take off and assume a ‘life of their own’, as well as introducing new characters and the work to some extent ‘writes itself’.
All I recall Hubbard saying about dreams is that the mind assembles or tries to, unconfronted or ‘unknown’ incidents and tries to bring them to awareness. This makes sense, and it seesmtomethatworking with this content could be a form of ‘creative processing’ that can benefit a person.
In fact, Carl Jung worked in this direction both for himself and with his psychoanalytic clients.
He wrote a nice personal little autobiographical book titled “Memories, Dreams, and Reflections” in which he goes into this theme and the processes involved.
One of Jung’s central theses was the idea of ‘the return of the repressed’, meaning that whatever is repressed or suppressed in a person is always struggling to return to his awareness, to restore balance and integrity to a person’s beingness.
I think these kind of ideas are good complements to KHTK.
This is a fascinating conversation thread for me. Over the years, I never could “believe” the incident 2 story, yet when I did the process, I found it beneficial. This created a continuous conflict within me. The thing I could do to enable me to continue was to put my “suspended disbelief” off to the side and not think about it.
Not the way to spiritual freedom!
I also always thought it quite an omission, that very little has been published/said by LRH on the subject of DREAMS. DREAMING is a fascinating phenomenon experienced by nearly everyone, yet completely ignored as you go up the bridge to Total Freedom.
Just to clarify: Is it your idea that these stuck viewpoints are mostly created during dreaming or that they are created as needs for various identities arise in waking hours as well?
I think stuck or abandoned/Not-is’ed identities are created anytime.
Hi Isene,
I enjoy reading your material. I had a few questions of which this is one (or two): How does, the so-called time-track fit into your unfolding model in regard to your statement:
“stuck viewpoints (engrams) that remain outside of a person’s control until inspected thoroughly. What if there were old, forgotten analytical viewpoints similar to the people of my dreams? Viewpoints that I created and that I no longer take responsibility for and when I through auditing do take responsibility for them, I would conclude that the one creating them was “ME”.”
If past-lives are taken into account as being valid, and if the mind is ever-capable of either recalling or imagining or mocking-up past engrams, what would prevent one from “auditing” out such previously created engrams, forever & ever & ever and a day?
I mean, 75 million years is a lot of time and space to create engrams, by any name. Just one a year would be 75 million. Lol.
I appreciate your thoughts on this if you think the question is worth a reply. It feels valid to me.
Lamoore
Past lives follows as a logical conclusion in my article On Will. And with that comes an enormous possible abandoned viewpoints. I believe it is possible to rise to the point where one would take responsibility for abandoned viewpoints In General and thereby blow that Case.
Thanks Isene. I read your article ‘On Will’ in its entirety and found it to be quite interesting. I think your approach/take is akin to that of Dr. Amit Goswami with his body of work called Quantum Activism. Revolutionary in my book.
Back to the question of the possibility of a shockingly vast number of ‘abandoned viewpoints'(perhaps millions, over any time track) being ‘taken responsibility for’, as a practical matter, or as a philosophically logistical matter (lol), how do you, or have you, reconciled this matter?
I was unable to discern your resolution in the reading of your paper On Will.
I see three possibilities at first glance.
#1. Auditing takes forever.
#2. Viewpoints are limited in essence and are only distinctive in terms of expression. Thus a realization of, or taking responsibility for, any single one, may dissolve the entirety of any multiplicity of the expressions of it.
#3. I’m an idiot and your answer was clearly stated in your paper ‘On Will’.
lamoore
It is not #3 🙂
I see the Being gradually increasing in responsibility and thereby being able to take responsibility for an ever increasing amount of viewpoints. It is accelerating.
Very well. Thank you for your response Isene. Do you imagine it is possible for any one individual to take responsibility for an entire culture or an entire world?
lamoore
I don’t think you can take responsibility for my creations. That is why you don’t see OT abilities on display much.
computer glitch (or my ignorance, lol).
You wrote in a later post than this one that I can’t seem to comment on, or respond to:
“I don’t think you can take responsibility for my creations. That is why you don’t see OT abilities on display much.”
I would ask: Can I take responsibility for ‘my take’ on your creations?
And if so, OT abilities on display would be meaningless.
Save for my own.
You can take responsibility for Your creations only. You can persuade me to take responsibility for mine. And thus you and I can see a cup of coffee disappear. But to make it disappear for any and all, then everybody need to agree.
Wondering among the Stars
Torch the curtains
Flung windows open wide.
And look far, look far beyond
The darkness of the Earthly Night.
I am here,
You have found home
The shimmering Light
In the endless star studded Indigo Night.
Now, in safety you can wonder,
Wonder among the stars.
You are here
You are home.
This is yours
The endless space star studded Indigo Night.
Cog.
Sleep or not to sleep that is a question. Sleep as a spiritual being who do not have a body, considerations or agreements on that item?
So sleep, what is?
Big question.
These concepts just do not feet into my reality. They, never have, never will and the same goes with the habit of eating.
Over the years I have soloed on the subject of sleep, and all the related items connected with that concept in many different sessions and peeled off many different considerations with that my reality level have changed and I could dig into even deeper levels
“Sleep” the subject is on elusive consideration, not only a consideration but on agreement to which every being on planet Earth agrees to therefore it is a collective, a group agreement.
Sleep, we tend succumb to; we do that action after the dark.
We dress the body in night dress, or in buff whatever.
Slide the thing into, under covers, we create very comfortable, safe warm place a nest.
The body tucked away safely the doors are locked the curtains drawn, the alarm activated on the house the alarm clock [heavy anchor point, it ticks [clock] like the heart and is set at the same rate in proximity with the bodies main organ, great connection, on implant in good working order] is set to call the person back if happen to wonder off in the dark [not many have the OT ability left, to do that] all is surrounded, protected by solid walls etc…
My next view point, my reality is written as I seen it in recall a cognition about sleep.
Here, I am home in the spiritual Universe where there are no solid bodies so seeing things, concepts from very different view point is easier.
The reason the original [my view point only] for the so called “sleeping” where the item was born, originated from is very simple.
All pictures which exits are and can only be mocked up in light to be existing to be seen, who could see them otherwise? One can mock up pictures in colour which the eyes can see but it has to be in light.
[ We need little more depth here.]
Let say my body’s mock up just sort of vogue, not solid mock up, it has all the features, colours it is a body. But comes the darkness which is when the light is covered [do forgive the explanation, we all know what is darkness is in considerations.] from the so called sun or the planets moves out of the path of light whichever.
When that happens there is no light what happens to the body?
What happens to that beautiful mock up?
No longer there, it can’t be seen.
The mock up is no longer visible.
The spirits having-ness is gone. Good grief where the hell I have put that bloody thing again, looking around, who has stolen it! Again!
It was mine!
Oh Lord, I cry, my sobs echo across the sky’s. where is my body, it is lost!
Or have I gone blind?
New day arrives in a form of light the sun, but I don’t see my body, it is gone vanished in the darkness dissolved by the cruel hand of dark since it was not solid.
And I did not have eyes!
The light particles which the body was mocked up from dissolved scattered melted away they went back to the original the space where they were gathered from.
Another fact is I was not really anchored to it, the body was just a mock up and now here I was who knows where[ no location in space so I could be billion light years away from the point where the body was mocked up.]
And no body to be had.
Just how many body mock ups I had to do and loose before the tough have come let’s make the thing solid, and let’s put it into a safe place and when the darkness comes it will not steal it away from me again as it has done that so many times before.
If it is solid than the darkness when takes over floods my universe it won’t be able to destroy my fragile universe,
My creations will not vanish in the thin space.
So let’s make a strong box, a vault where no one can touch it.
And when the light comes it will be there again.
What a having-ness! The trill of it all!
Of course I had to put on my identity tag, on the body, register the name, that I am the proper owner too, a name which becomes soli mine to prove that body belongs to me and in the morning “light” no others could claim that thing.
But there is more.
The eyes can see the items. In very different way as the free being see, who has no eyes but a perception seeing the muck up from every direction as it would be a holograph.
In the day light the bodiless being can see in colour since the colours are tiny particles of light, the mock ups are put together from them but in the so called darkness we see only the vogue, misty out lines or a fluff of light, this see through misty things which can be seen are the tiny light particles which were the part of the mock up.
Only the light particles has remained since in every mock up there is a life-force which is like crushed diamonds they can’t be destroyed they remain as misty form in the dark. The cognation given great amount of information on sleep, why the dreams etc…
The nightmares were given to each being so they would not be moving away, off from the body and quietly sneak away in the dark un-noticed un-detected.
But fear was implanted with scary monsters many different varieties, if you will move out into the dark, if you dare to leave your body the incredible monsters will get you. Bogy man!
There are major reasons one dares not to leave the body at night.
I welcome you
To walk by my side
And explore the wanders the magnificence of the endless space,
The star studded blue Indigo Night.
I am here, I am home,
Here, I will remain forever among the stars.
Here, I create, from dust of stars
I weave the darkness into light,
They are the wonders, the magic in the Indigo Night.
Elizabeth Hamre. endlesstringofpearls@gmail.com
🙂
Next time split the comment into several parts.
I think that’s a very interesting viewpoint. Reminds me of why a thetan mocks up and that he never gives up.
I do have 2 questions:
You mentioned Ron wrote that one should go onto NOTs after OT II. That’s interesting. Where did he mention that?
And would you say that one should do it that way?
And 2. question:
You said:
There are more reasons why I believe this to be a more factual description of what is really going on when doing the Scientology OT levels,
I’m curious. What are the othere reasons? 🙂
#1: Marty told me he had read an LRH advice that contained this.
#2:
a) Because it puts the responsibility where it should be; at the being himself.
b) Because it is then more easily understood how a Pre-OT can blow this case purely by inspection
c) Because I have seen nowhere else that one could handle old, Not-Is’ed analytical viewpoints
d) Because it explains better how I came to feel that I became more myself along the way
I see. Thanks for your answer.
I noticed also that a lot people drop their responsibility fully onto other persons regarding their case and future case program (often because they get a lot invalidated of what there level is or that they did not make it and have to redo it etc.). You said you would leave the processes as they are. Do you think it is also better to just audit oneself the way through after OT II (or basically already after Clear)?
I only know that how I did the Bridge actually worked great for me. I have at this time no recommendations for doing it any other way.
Okay.
I do have another question. I guess you know the lecture Anatomy of Theta Body where he talks about the Joiner, basically incidents like a crash smashing thetans together or being stuck on the same picture with their attention. How do you see that in regards with your theory of old viewpoints?
I think that one disattaches oneself from points where attention is still on. Couldn’t it be that one does this with others then, too? Maybe they do have also a body on their own or more than one. In the theta universe it would be all possible as they are all a static.
I guess anything is possible. Except the regime that LRH explains as the background for the OT levels (because we WOULD see returnees… and we don’t).
Thank you Isene.
Each name when I first say it awakes a sound the original energy from which it was created.
Your name has the sound of a running brook.
As the water gently slide over the moss covered rocks.
One can hear the drops of water falling the bobbling, the silvery brilliance shimmers as the rays of the sun touches the surface here and there.
Now and then a dragonfly skims above, on wings of dust, sapphire blue
We live in a beautiful universe where one sound, one word holds so much beauty.
Thank you for posting my cog. Elizabeth Hamre.
You are very welcome 😉
Geir: “Viewpoints that I created and that I no longer take responsibility for and when I through auditing do take responsibility for them, I would conclude that the one creating them was ‘ME’.”
Chris: As I am as-is’ing various viewpoints and following these fractal branches back toward a tree root of “me.”
1. Are you suggesting that there are many “trees?” (many-individuals doctrine).
2. Or, are you suggesting that by the time I work my way back to “me” that “me” is existing as one of many branches of a single “tree?” (one-ness doctrine)
3. Or, you don’t know? – either, neither, both?
At this point in time, I would have to go for #3 🙂
Chris, this kinda continues the discussion from the “Freedom” thread.
I believe the question you ask, about one or many, is moot. Here’s why:
Looking at it from the POV of how one experiences it, it is clear that this ‘ultimate’ state of consciousness can be experienced. Personal accounts abound. In India it has been called ‘samadhi’ for countless years.
‘God-realized’ individuals who have achieved ‘samadhi’ are walking around in India and elsewhere right now.
Even Buddha, in his overall reticence about attributing any positive qualities to Nirvana, did say that it is a state of ‘bliss’.
‘Bliss Consciousness’ is THE big weenie in Indian systems. Just Google for it. It is the goal of Transcendental Meditation and on back through
the Indian traditions.
But one can also sense it in the Christian and Muslim traditions in which the Holy Spirit can descend and permeate and infuse one. In a word, the Gnostic experience. It has been a staple of Sufi ‘poetry’ for hundreds of years, with it’s metaphors of drunkenness, and ‘returning to the root of the root of yourself’.
Try Googling for ‘Subud’, a modern Indonesian version.
So why is it moot, to ask if one retains individuality, or merges in some way with a single primordial consciousness?
Let’s look at Native State, which I believe is a cognate for that Bliss Consciousness.
At Native State, for as long as one remains in it, there is only the awareness of ‘I AM’, or even just ‘AM’. Possibly just prior to AM, is simply ‘BLISS’.
As soon as one drops even a hair down from that state, one then is aware that “I AM ________”. In order to be ‘aware of being aware’, one must have points to view – i.e. points to be aware of. This makes it possible to be ‘aware of being aware’.
So ‘I-ness’ as a limited identity appears and disappears at some threshold up around that level of ‘Samadhi’, ‘Native State’, ‘Bliss Consciousness’ et al.
That’s the ‘experiential’, existential level of it.
There is no way to firmly establish whether one has joined some immense single ‘body of theta’, or one has simply risen up once again, shed the limited identity he was assuming by rising above NOT-KNOW and once again become aware of ‘himself’ as Native State.
Because at that level, one is only aware of a very big ‘AM’.
So I call the question ‘moot’, because either way, it FEELS the same.
At that level of ‘pure infinite potential’, the question of ‘one or many’ doesn’t really
apply.
So the answer is YES.
Thank you Valkov for taking the time to lay that out so succinctly. I do get what you mean, because my glimpses of, and experience of theta freedom is in excess of my reading about it. I will follow up on your suggested reading.
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/a-radical-new-view-of-the-upper-scientology-levels-ok-here-goes/#comment-4071
Now why would that be. The apparency is that there is self-determined will. How did this self-determined will got created?
I have my considerations about this. The question is, “Is self-determinism a created phenomenon?”
.
If it is created, who created it?
From a viewpoint based on this universe, the answer of “who” is unknowable to me. Probably it is the wrong qustion to ask.
.
I will make a blog post that shows why that is not the wrong question. As I say – I see no forward progress in your thinking – I see no real contribution to the resolution of the questions surrounding creation or existence. So far, I have seen no actual results that betters any condition. I see only speculation.
True. I see that ALL knowledge results from speculation.
🙂 Sorry!
Nothing to be sorry about – you just have to acknowledge that there is a difference between speculating and speculation. Then you get out of the hamster wheel.
Knowledge itself is the hamster wheel, and all the philosophers are on it.
.
There are degrees to it.
sorry vinaire have to disagree. not all knowledge is from speculation (or creation, created knowledge). truth is a static and knowing that is an innate thing! look at the top of the chart of attitudes by lrh.
the unknowable mystery of life itself is unfortantely formed from considerations of unknowable, it is the one of the ultimate NOT-IS-NESSES. its fine to NOT-KNOW but to believe in the UNKNOWABLE is a foolish avenue to go down. how does one recognize a truth (whether thats time form place event, consideration or a static,) how does one essentially as-is if one does not have the ability to know the truth?
yes fake “knowledge” exists and is created by some beings for the sake continuing a game. true knowledge, such as the axioms, leads to attaining more truth and as-ising lies to get to more truth ending up at ultimate truth (static).
Infinity, this is a very good post. I believe Vinaire is using the word “unknowable” while actually meaning something like an “unknown” existence which is, as he put it, the basis of consideration. And he is attempting to discover exactly what the nature of that existence is. But this word “unknowable” was just pointed out to him earlier today on another thread and he is still arguing.
I may or may not have precisely duplicated what he is saying, but the main point is that several other posters have been trying to sort the whole thing out with him for quite some time now and it suddenly struck me that – Vinaire is exhibiting MU phenomena! But as I say, “unknowable” doesn’t seem to be the MU.
@Vinaire – I trust you will not take this as inval, as you have been been a Word Clearer (me too) and know the score in this area. I could be wrong in my evaluation, of course, but NO inval is intended at all, I just think we should go for applying the tech on this because discussion will get nowhere if there is an MU. I live on the other side of the planet, but maybe there is someone near you who can help out. You may have a false datum or even a crashing MU and are suffering the effects thereof.
Actually you might even be able to find an MU or false datum, yourself, as you know how to LOOK. 🙂
ARC, Marildi
UNKNOWABLE is unknowable because it does not lie in the dimension of knowledge.
Simple!
.
“UNKNOWABLE is unknowable because it does not lie in the dimension of knowledge.
Simple!”
Unknowable dwells in a place called delusion and lies. Unknowable is a flimsy belief.
The secret behind the mystery of all mysteries is that there is no mystery. The mystery is simply the suggestion/belief/consideration that there is a mystery! It’s elementary.
Remember the story LRH tells about the monastary that is prophesied to collapse and that has a chamber guarding the secret of all mysteries? When a visitor goes to the monastary on the day of prophesied collapse, he gains easy access to the chamber within the chamber of mysteries because the monastary guards are so in grief about the pending doom of the collapse. And when he gets to the inner chamber holding the secret to the mystery and pulls the curtain back there is nothing there and the monastary collapses at that moment!
Unknowable is really just that…all the chambers and the curtains and the myth of it is an elaborate construction! It’s one of those words actually that has so much untruth and NOT-IS implicit within it.
It was not created overnight. It was not created over night. I give you an example.
That will make the explanation a bit easier.
Let’s go back where is no time, when there are no considerations yet. The I, the self, have no concept of self. The “ I am “ what I see and experience.
All is just part of the universe as the cosmos being born. At this moment a comet flying through space I do not consider myself that I am a comet. But I am that comet since I experience that comet.
Since there is no concept of time or space or any such the comets burn out falls apart, gone, here in space I view only space. Therefore I am space the experience. The evolving space the movement of particles.
A star is born[ invisible particles collided , imploded and exploded at the same moment.
Created the different energy which pulled in and changed the content of the surrounding space. Therefore movement was created. I observe=experience that action in that space , i becomes the experience. Of the star being born and as it continual, it’s cycle, still no concept of any time.
Something happening [because of the created movements] in the cosmos new stronger energy formation I experience that it has pulled my attention away from the lesser energy. These actions continue.
The cosmos continue evolve I can experience more at the same time. More action happens there is more randomity.
I perceive more than one creation at the same moment now I have the choice which I want to experience in full. How long it will be till I make the decision which colour shoes I will put on today? Time is not a consideration. Nor is space of self or view. There is nothing more than on experience. A view which one have in the NOW. There is no past or future In other Universe where I write from which is not MEST. There are no viewpoints just experiences. No questions asked since none is needed. [ other universe you ask? Just different experience different view point.]
Nice to see you here Elizabeth. I enjoyed reading your posts on Sylvia’s blog.
Valcov, Do forgive of me giving you a wrong name. I am going blind, not me but the eyes developing cataracts. Past life postulate kicked in. I wanted to practise seeing without eyes way back in China I was on the Path that time and the same now, so i have pulled it in. I am havig fun with this seeing thing. But the eyes and what I see could be two different thing. Usualy is. The operation on the eyes will be in november, till than I will confront what ever so far I have not have about looking, eyes etc. By now I have very good ability regained, but looking with eyes is different. In China when had cataract I had totall ability to “see”. About me being here in Isenes Blog, he allows different view point to be aired. I wanted to write comment not only here but my comments were erased. I was told my reality level was way off, one blog owner said I was to enthusiastic. Of corse both are right, As Isene could add , long winded too. Silvia set up a blog for me, but I love to read other’s view points, considerations,which are not political. Thank you for the welcome!!
Viaire, Thank you for the welcome, I am learning how to fly.
vinire, in which Universe? the Mest U. or the Theta-Spiritual Universe?
The upper levels are an unworkable mess. Even the “lower bridge” needs a little reorganization, IMO, though you CAN get good results with it.
IMO, any auditor worth his salt is not dependent on specific processes to get results. It’s all about the “comm cycle”. Grades processes give an excellent idea of what sorts of processes to run on a given type of charge, but a trained auditor who cannot create the process needed by his client based on his knowledge of theory is an auditor who needs retraining.
To me, all the levels I have done have been very workable with excellent gains.
Have you done the upper levels?
Gomorrhan,
This appears to be ‘Damning with faint praise’.
Isn’t it a pity LRH did such a piss-poor job of it all?
Check out Marty’s latest post:
http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2011/05/09/catching-radical-scientology-spies/
Thanks for sharing that view.
A couple of general notes after posting a link to this blog post on ESMB;
It never stops to amaze me how fanatically anti-OT-levels some people are who have never even done them.
It seems some critics/Ex’es have invested so much time and effort into criticizing the tech and especially the OT levels that they cannot fathom how there could be anything right with it or how anyone could ever have gotten any gains from doing them. It simply ihave to be All Wrong. All gains have to be delusional. All of them. Or placebo. Or a lie. Every one of the reported wins. And it just cannot matter that anyone comes up with any new explanation for how comes the wins are there while doing away with what they originally criticized. Knee-jerk reaction is that anything that validates what they have spent those endless hours criticizing must be shot down immediately. It hovers between funny and pathetic.
ESMB has gone so far south that I believe hanging around there will actually lower a persons intelligence and ability to think critically.
I agree 🙂
There is barely a normal discussion possible. It’s more a fight of being right and making other viewpoints that do not fit in their universe wrong. Reminds me of a lot other people (in and out of the system) – can’t have other viewpoints :))
I also agree.
The majority of ESMB posting are not worth the read. Like you say, there are many who fervently criticize the OT levels or one’s gains without any knowledge whatsoever.
There are a couple of good threads there and some great posts, but the vast majority are a waste of time.
I read that thread Geir, and I am thinking Marty’s latest post maybe relevant:
http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2011/05/09/catching-radical-scientology-spies/
There are some really good threads on that site, and some really bad ones, and some really good commenters as well as the type you are talking about.
I predict in time some intelligent and positive comments will appear on your thread. In the meantime, those with heavy-duty ser-fac defenses have quickly gone on “Red Alert!”
I occassionally visit ESMB myself, but often have to leave to get some fresh air. Lately what’s been refreshing there is that since the banning of a few people and the voluntary departure of Alanzo, pro-tech people post there quite a bit and they just ignore those types you mention, rather than getting into it with them.
In the meantime I’m going to study that thread of Marty’s and see if I can spot the kind of ‘plants’ referred to in it.
Valkov, would you clarify this part of your post (especially, whose thread): “I predict in time some intelligent and positive comments will appear on your thread. In the meantime, those with heavy-duty ser-fac defenses have quickly gone on “Red Alert!”
It’s nothing short of astounding how several posters over at ESMB still didn’t understand the OP here – even after several explanations. It boggles the mind – at least mine.
Geir, You said:
“I guess anything is possible. Except the regime that LRH explains as the background for the OT levels (because we WOULD see returnees… and we don’t).”
I audited PCs on lines and some of them remembered they did a lot on the bridge last life. They could remember details that we found to be true way later on internet with intensive research, details which were during that auditing not available and where the PCs could not have studied them before. They remembered to be a special person …. but on a few PCs it turned out that person was still alive. Of course they got pretty invalidated as being nuts (from those who do not know that datum written in the NOTs materials you are referring to).
I do think some of them do return.
I do think your theory is also correct.
I guess there are just a lot more possibilities (like total dub-in, real connections, old not-ised viewpoints etc.)
And I think it is VERY interesting to explore 🙂
I am NOT talking about returning PCs. I am talking about returning audited-out-entities.
Yes, me too!
I talked about this phenomenon with other auditors, too. There were PCs claiming to be a person they had been with all details recalling. But that person was still alive. AND not only one recalled it but a few more.
There were even little jokes going around about this phenomenon as people did not understand what was going on because they had not studied the NOTs materials.
I have heard rumors – but never a confirmed case. Although LRH talks about dub-ins like that – and one would assume that there would be at least 10 dub-ins for every actual case. And to me that renders the whole scenario less than plausible. To say the least.
Well, yes. That’s what I mean. There are more phenomena to be explored (like dub-in, real own old viewpoints, real connections to other thetans, old commlines etc.).
And there are also audited-out entities who take over another body and do come back.
I agree that this is very rare and should be way more as per the NOTs reference. I encountered at least 2 cases where it is very, very certain that it was a) no dub-in – (too many details turned later out to be correct) and b) that person they meant to have been were still alive.
Of course there were also a lot cases who just had dub-in.
You remember the reference on OT III where he talks about some just leaving to be a daisy flower or whatever … ? Well, that’s also something I can’t quite think with …
But one thing is for sure: it’s an interesting subject where more research is necessary.
Didn’t Ron give some answers to it on 8?
Nope.
And when I say verified case – I mean verified case, in a scientific sense. It continues to astound me that Scientology escapes scientific scrutiny after so many years and a mountain of claims.
I guess that some things are not that easy to verify. How do you want to verify scientifically that you have lived before and exactly where and who you had been? Somebody can always say it was all imagined or you read about it somewhere or dejavu or or or. One case I meant was so detailed about where he lived and with intensive research many details could be proven because other people wrote about it in the internet – way later – luckily.
And how do you want to proove scientifically that you got rid of entities or old viewpoints …. I think one can experience some things which are not all scientifically expainable also because science is not up to a lot things yet. It is also still evolving and finds out more and more about the universe and its laws e.g. the big bang theory.
I do not fight here for one side or the other. I am just interested in exploring phenomena and discuss them and find out more about it. And I think your idea about old viewpoints is very interesting and explains also a lot phenomena. And I am thankfull you wrote about it as it extended my viewpoint. But it does explain not all phenomena.
Just my experience, not only my opinion. As I observed and experienced also other phenomena like with the PCs I was talking about.
I have written a few times about scientific research standards and Scientology. I believe it would be fairly easy to verify past lives – to the point where Occam’s Razor would take over. And also to statistically prove the efficiency of processes – that’s very easy. As for proving or disproving specific claims – one would have to deal with each one as science does all the time. Like the case with entities. If LRH claims there will be returnees and we calculate the numbers, then at some point Occam’s Razor will do some shaving. Social sciences is often based on statistics and is thus less digital in their conclusions compared to physics or chemistry. But it is stills science, using scientific methods.
Yes, I agree with you. Good point!
Well, with the PCs I had experience with it is too late …
So, I just can use my personal experience for right now.
There are so many phenomena to be explored and explained.
E.g. – I had a PC once talking in detail about a life (last life) where he was sure it was not his life. Well, anyhow. He went on that time track of this other person and could tell details which we found out in the internet later to be true. Was a politican in America. Had nothing to do with him this life and also last life. Maybe double body?
Or just perception of somebody elses universe?
Or an old connection to that thetan?
It wasn’t dub-in by definition as the details turned out to be true.
Couldn’t it also be possible that some of these “connections” seem like entities? (Just another theory … That would explain phenomena I encountered which are not explained by the theory of old viewpoints…)
Sometimes reminds me of Pat Broeker’s speech on the event when announcing Rons death. He was talking about it that Ron left the tech to cut the last lines…
Or another explanation is that the person studied the life of that other person in his last lifetime.
Of course! That’s why! …. lol … 😀
Now I know …!
Well, you can make fun of it or not or believe it or not. You’re free to do so – free will 🙂
I’m just saying what I observed and experienced with the intention to exchange ideas and viewpoints to explain some phenomena for myself and whoever is interested and of course extend my viewpoint and learn more. I thought that was one of your purpose of this post, too – discuss your theory, get more viewpoints about it, does it explain all phenomena? Is your theory the end result of Occam’s Razor applied and no other simplicity or theories possible? etc.
And btw this person did definitely not study that life of that person….
My viewpoint as laid out in the OP is by no means a complete theory. It’s only a viewpoint on what I have described. And yes, I am very interested in yours and others’ viewpoints. As for you PC, I was simply offering another possible explanation – as there could be many. It does not however seem to fully conform to what LRH describes in NOTs as such a being is very lifeless and has to be woken up.
One factor that occurs to me is that a person with a body always has the facsimiles of at least two time-tracks available for viewing –
1. his own track as a being which includes picking up bodies from different genetic lines,and
2. The facsimiles of the the GE of the body he is currently connected to and carrying around.
Thus he has available ‘his own’ facsimiles of his ‘thetan track’, and the facsimiles of the current GE’s ‘past lives’ as well as potentially, the facsimiles of the other GE lines he has associated himself with.
So potentially there are lot of ‘memory banks’ he can pull facsimiles from and claim – “I remember this.”
@Isene: Thanks for clarifying.
You said: “It does not however seem to fully conform to what LRH describes in NOTs as such a being is very lifeless and has to be woken up.” –
That’s a very interesting point. Good you mentioned it! In the OT 3 materials he talks about it that there are also some big being. So that would explain at least that maybe one or another does come back and is strong enough to take over a body.
As for the reference on NOTs. That those are so lifeless could explain why there are almost none coming back. But I know also that LRH mentions they do. That’s really conflicting … 😮
@Valkov: Good point. That would be an explaination. I read about it, too…..
During NOTs they are presumably woken up and gotten into shape, some even Cleared or OT-ified. Hence, we should see some 20 million+ returnees.
Hmmm, just doesn’t add up, right? Either they are too effect and lifeless or they are woken up and ready to take over a body and do it – if only a very, very few take a body, what’s about the rest?
You’re theory would fit in this gap perfectly. Maybe there are only a very few real beings and the rest are old viewpoints?
And some are not even old viewpoints but just dub-in?
Perhaps there are beings also floating around in addition to old viewpoints.
That there are old, forgotten viewpoints is very easily demonstrated on a personal level (engrams or even “Oh, I forgot I ever held that viewpoint).
You remember the lectures about attention in Source of Life Energy? He talks about old communication lines attached to ones body.
Maybe that’s another theory. That there are a lot communication lines towards a lot beings accumulated over a long, long period of time. After a while one is so intermingled and is not aware of these connections anymore. One could give attention on this line (feels like waking it up) and get aware of how it was establish (what, who). So one disconnects. The other being has maybe a body (or not or whatever) and is not aware of it either and feels suddenly just a bit better….
This of course doesn’t explain the idea, that some of it can apparently go clear ….
But it could explain the phenomenon of healing over distance.
I feel that it may go even deeper than that. The fact that we are unisonily (making up a new word here) in sync as we create the same universe all the time may indicate the deepest of connections. No reason then to believe that I cannot know all about another person’s life at any given point in time.
Right. I agree! I feel the same.
It reminds me sometimes of a big ball of intermingled viewpoints and commlines (old connections)and maybe also a few beings sticking together and old mock ups. And the bridge is there to just sort it out bit by bit so one is at the end fully aware of himself again out of this ball of confusion. Maybe there would have been an easier way to communicate it instead of using this threatening catastrophe being confidential on top of it.
Well, LRH said it must not be the nicest way or whatever. It just works.
And I agree with you fully. So far it works.
Right. As for the threatening catastrophe, I believe LRH was in error about Inc 2. There are too many indications that it didn’t happen.
I think so, too. There were many incidents where he corrected it later as being an implant like his trip on the GE line in History of Man or the wild dates of the implants on OT II where he said they can be ignored as they are also implanted. Apparently it seemed necessary to not change it as it was such a strong implant and as it works to audit it out like that…
But I don’t like it at all to put people into fear about it and threaten them like “boooo, it’s so dangerous. Even thinking about it after Clear means your death! Now you have it! But if you pay a looooooot money and do what WE think (not even what LRH thought or mentioned or whatever) is right we help you – otherwise we exclude you of the holey way to reach the freedom for yourself. You will stay in hell forever.” …. lol
Always the same drama within groups ….
The Mafia has perfected that art 😉
I have lost my belief in the need for confidentiality of the OT levels.
That’s a good one, Geir! …. 😀
Mafia …. they definitely perfected it. Also the Stasi in DDR or Nazi Germany before that.
Not to forget the catholic church in Middle Age … and so many groups before and after that.
Seems to be deeply implanted aberrations on this subject of groups and power. Soon as people connect up it really starts to go wild! And that’s a very good method indeed to keep all beings pretty much powerless.
Divide and conquer – always working to bring a movement or people down.
I agree with you – no need for confidentiality, especially because LRH did not make it confidential in the beginning. See Lectures in 1952, Anatomy of Theta Body etc.
It’s all there.
And since everything is in the internet it is also pretty stupid.
Geir, I have audited NOTS on others since 1983. I have seen returnees and a few (4) who had been being entities. One just has to be alert, keep TRs in and to have audited a large shitpile of hours (last year I passed the 46,000 hours since 1969.) Thanks for your blog
I would be very surprised if during tens of thousands of hours of NOTs auditing that you wouldn’t at least encounter a few scores of false positives… given the amount of Jesuses an Napoleons reported from Dianetics auditing. Just the desire and belief in something is known to produce false reports – and not just because people consciously lie – but because they so intensely want to believe it. So unless you get at least a few percent of the people you audit to confirm the theory behind NOTs, I will stick to Occam’s Razor.
I second that. My wins the write ups, being considered some who read and written to me and expressed they reality that I have a good imagination, I should become a writer with such a good creative ability very few who read “To walk the walk of solo auditor” which summons up some of my wins the achievements, the cognatios and the new reality levels which comes from the tens of thousand of hours which I have soloed since 76 could in fact are the actuality,, the changed view points, given different reality which was attained by as-is ing the earlier the more solid= narrow reality levels. Therfore extanded the other reality- could have many different one an many levels. few can imagine or believe one can solo every day, for 36 years as i have. One can solo on every consideration, an every agreement and take the MEST UNiveres, dissect it into nothing and come to conclusion. I know nothing, it is my first day, on the adventure to descover, to locate the door into the unknown of the moment. and in the unknown in the invisible there is a different reality which was buried way back. I look at it and see it in new light, undertanding. Svientology , the Tech have given me the greatest of adventures any being can have. The discovery of self with that understanding the universe once capibility and power. Not bad. Yes the Tech works. the gradient is right. One one solo with that the universe is open. One can see, undestand and create once more. The magic regained. Thank you Isene, once more. Elizabeth.
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/a-radical-new-view-of-the-upper-scientology-levels-ok-here-goes/#comment-4073
What I mean is that I have failed to get across on this blog my viewpoint on UNKNOWABLE, so I won’t be wasting any more breath on it.
.
You have not failed to get across on what is Unknowable, you are looking for debateon on the subject and not one poerson picked up the ball and run with it. that do not mean there is no ubderstanding of UNKNOWABLE, on the contrary!!!
Isene, I left you a PM on the Ex-Scien board. Check when you can.
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/a-radical-new-view-of-the-upper-scientology-levels-ok-here-goes/#comment-4099
I see a being itself as a viewpoint that may be as-ised.
~Vinaire
By whom?
I think that is the wrong question. It makes an assumption that there must be a who.
.
Well, what or how then?
Same thing. One is assuming that there must be a “what” and a “how.”
🙂
No, You are assuming there is such a concept as speculating or considering that you yourself indicate is different from speculation or consideration, only you seem to be unable to admit that your whole premise hinges on just that. A consideration cannot create (or to be specific, collapse the wavefunction), but the act of considering can.
Expecting an answer vilates the premise of LOOKING.
.
…violates…
It seems to me that the “act of considering” just happens without any antecedent. It is the surface of the ‘sphere of consideration’… it is the interface.
.
Well, I guess one could spot the moment he considered ‘To Be’ for the 1st time … then what’s left?
An actuality of no mass, no wave-length, no position in space or relation in time, but with the quality of creating or destroying mass or energy, locating itself or creating space, and of re-relating time?
I think recognition of ‘ownership of’ or ‘responsibility for’ beingnesses, identities, considerations & facsimilies that one carries with him will go a long way in handling odd behaviors in certain situations, unusual ills happening ‘out of the blue’, or just plain feeling not himself.
Whether a beingness/identity or consideration is self generated, borrowed, or it jumped on you from behind and stuck, they all go to forming a composite being.
Of course one can also get into screens set up to keep one from knowing. What’s behind the screens? Who put them there? Implanted? Maybe ‘ME’ right at the beginning of this game to make it a challenge. Whose consideration is it that I can’t simply ‘know’ what’s behind that screen? Is this consideration even mine? Borrowed?
Is what we are looking at even real? 🙂
All of a sudden I feel somewhat naked 😛
Just like a molecule is made up of stoms, and an atom is made up of electrons, protons and neutrons, and an atomic particle is made up of more fundamental particles, and a fundamental particle may be a solidification of flowing energy; similarly, I think that a beingness consists of structures within structures within structure. Call a being composite or whatever, in my opinion, a being has a structure, that has not been fully investigated.
.
“in my opinion, a being has a structure, that has not been fully investigated”. A opinion is not reality, not an experience. Therefore the so called investagation could exists. And it is, and that is not a opinion.
When in session one as-is all the basics, the reality becomes different if there still any structure remains one has not cognited on the basics, one have not reached the state of Intangible the Infinite. Than back to the session one should go and clear up the MU.
I should have said, “A being IS a structure.”
.
“I should have said, “A being IS a structure.””
To that all I can say, THANK LRH for the TECH, I have soled on “Stracture” I have taken that consideration into parts, dissected and as-is ad every consideration agreements ever connected with that consideration. It is made of energy, therefore belongs to the MEST Universe. THE item Stracture in a consideration which holds great amount of agreements, and the agreements are self created, collective, groupagreements etc.. whatever. Each being universe is differen in reality therefore the ‘Structure” is different according to ones reality but still part of the MEST=implants. Theta Universe HAS no stracture. It exist as a momentarly creation of the creator the same moment of the creation is the experience. Here I am not talking word taken from books but from knowing, experience which have come from soloing as-is ing and the cognitions which gives the knowledge in very different reality as one learns “To know” here in the MEST U.
Does an ISness grow in the forest if there is no one there to see it?
No
Who posted this?
I wish I knoew.
🙂
“I see a being itself as a viewpoint that may be as-ised.”
~Vinaire
Well, I don’t get it.
“As-is” means at the moment of creation. One can ask “Who or what creates the postulate?”, but you could say it is an assumption that anyone or anything creates it. Perhaps it is merely an assumption that there is such a thing as a postulate.
Well,your post seems to assume that something called “as-is” exists or there is a valid referent for it. What is “as-is” a placeholder for?
My main question is, Why do you indulge in this recursive game? You don’t seem to duplicate what others post, and just answer the questions of Geir and others here with another question.
That’s not good communication. What, you think you are the modern Socrates and your answering a question with a question will enlighten someone?
It’s just a firefight you have going.
I know that this has upset many.
I, or anybody, can only go around in circles where knowledge is concerned.
.
Or we could aim for something more productive.
Sure! I am just looking at what knowledge is. It is boring. You may ignore it.
.
In my experience, pure looking would get me somewhere. This line of speculation is not. Sorry for being blunt, but that is what I see.
I love your KHTK-approach with the exercises in looking. It is pure genius. The speculation on the Unknowable seem to be a self-fulfilling prophecy that gets nowhere.
I am not upto speculating about unknowable yet because I don’t know what it is.
.
You have done a hefty amount of speculating on the unknowable. You brought it up. You continued to speculate.
And you don’t take input.
The true knowledge which one have gained in sessions-solo as -is ing the MEST the considerations and argeements galore is not up for debate. And it’s debt never be known to any other being. Only book learned knowledge can be debated for simple reason. About the same knowledge many has written therefor there are many different reality levels, they all can seat around the stadium and duke it out whos has the best view point, who’s is the true reality. That has been going on ever since the implants have become into affact. Why do you think there is confusion? The arguments about who’s implant is better more valuble ETC..I ask, will there be any winners?
Elizabeth, I’m enjoying your posts and this one made me laugh, particularly these two parts:
“they all can seat around the stadium and duke it out whos has the best view point, who’s is the true reality”
“arguments about who’s implant is better”?
😀
Regarding “better implants” I once knew a gypsy OT/SP who made a great Implant Parmesan. That one was hard to beat…
Jerry, good one! LOL
Probably I should just keep quiet. I know I am repeating myself and nobody seem to be getting it.
There is a valid logical structure, which I refer to as a self-contained ball of consideration. I have no quarrel with what you all are saying, because it is all just a part of that ball.
.
I do believe that you are not getting something here. You seem to be selling a thesis without leaning on the input you get.
The Intangible, The Infinite, do not contain any considerations, any agreements, if they would they would not be Intengible, Infinite But those considerations “SELF-CONTAINED BALL” is a consideration,it is on existing concept which was postulated into the MEST universe therefore has energy, therefore is has a life span,cycle in MEST, 3 stages, the beginning the middle part that is the continium than the end when the postulate desolves into nothingness. So the Intengible the Infinite is, what exactly mean what it means. Also, that meaning is not debatable, Debate on that subject only exits if it is not attained in sessions-solo, only if one comes by the knowledge in learning from otheres, learning the concepts, words which can be tossed about like dice see what comes up. What number.
Vinaire, It can be as-ised if the being consider to be one with any occupations, doing-ness, I am a carpenter or I am singer, whatever.
But only in the lower aware-ness level, that can be done and is done.
When the being achieves the state of the so called enlightenment there is 2 different definitions on that, which in my reality, the two different state cannot be compared since that is impossible.
. 1: since it strictly within the boundaries of the MEST Universe, described by words with words since. Buddha was only keyed out of his BANK while he was looking for the way out of the MEST universe. Therefore he had no true knowledge of the knowingness one can attain by as-ising the MEST.
Gautama lived in nothingness even after dropping his body which he did not know will be his reward for his hard work pushing away the rotten human considerations he had fallen into. But there was no other ways existing that time. .
In his attempt to get rid of all the considerations and agreements of that era, Gautama “ NOT, AS -ISED,” BUT GOT KEYED OUT OF the MEST; the so called worldly world.
The second Enlightenment the true Enlightenment, that is what Gautama was looking for, The Tech which was not existing in that life time. . So he got stock in nowhere.’ In Huge loss, No Bank- MEST Universe, No recall of previous life’s, no memory. Nothing.
In the State when the Bank-MEST as-ised that is the state when one can differentiate between, playing the game or I am the game the “carpenter” etc..
I am readying the popcorn for this one
LOL!
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/a-radical-new-view-of-the-upper-scientology-levels-ok-here-goes/#comment-4068
I see past lives to be a mere explanation for a phenomenon that needs to be investigated more deeply.
~Vinaire
There is no was.
+1
There is no was is actually reconcilable with Ouspensky’s model of the universe as a ‘solid’ of 6 dimensions, 3 dimensions of space, energy and matter, and 3 dimensions of time, in which the 6th dimension is the ‘realization of all possibilities’.
The whole contraption would simply exist ‘now’, and could be entered for viewing at any point in it, or could be viewed by creation of remote viewpoints within it.
It would be, after all, just the realization of all the possibilties of just this one universe.
All existing in an ‘eternal now’.
That would be a hell of a thing to poof!, as-is.
But there is a structure.
.
vinaire, it is not doubted that you have a straucture. No one said here there is no structure existing.
Hi Vinnie, yes, there is a structure. 3 dimensions of time because it takes 3 dimensions, one dimension is not enough.
In his scheme, the 4th dimension is a time LINE.
The 5th dimension is a timePLANE, created by the endless ‘lateral’ moment-to-moment branching off of the possibilities of each moment.
The 6th dimension is analogous to the vertical ‘stacking’ of PLANES to create a SOLID figure.
These 3 dimensions of TIME would comprise the realization of every possiblity.
But,I have been thinking about your “Unknowable”.
I am wondering if what you mean by that might be what I mean by the word INCOMPREHENSIBLE ?
INCOMPREHENSIBLE:
archaic : having or subject to no limits
in·com·pre·hen·si·ble (nkm-pr-hns-bl, n-km-)
adj.
1.
a. Difficult or impossible to understand or comprehend; unintelligible: incomprehensible jargon.
b. Impossible to know or fathom: incomprehensible mysteries.
2. Archaic Having no limits; boundless.
incom·pre·hensi·bili·ty, incom·pre·hensi·ble·ness n.
incomprehensible [ˌɪnkɒmprɪˈhɛnsəbəl ɪnˌkɒm-]
adj
1. incapable of being understood; unintelligible
2. Archaic limitless; boundless
incomprehensibility , incomprehensibleness n
incomprehensibly adv
COMPREHEND
: to grasp the nature, significance, or meaning of
2
: to contain or hold within a total scope, significance, or amount
3
: to include by construction or implication
The basic meaning of ‘comprehend’ is something like
“To view from all possible angles”. It has the flavor ‘surrounding’.
So, here’s something you might be interested in: 4th London ACC. In these lectures Elron talks all about Native State and “NOT-KNOWING”.
It seems the way he saw it, NOT-KNOWING is essential to existence, and he goes into a lot of detail on it even in the first 3-4 lectures.
This might be right up your alley! (You didn’t know you had an alley? Well, that’s how alleys come about, it seems….)
The whole set is almost 4 gigs, but you can download them one by one at this page:
4th London ACC download links:
http://forums.whyweprotest.net/threads/requested-4th-london-acc.64801/
If that doesn’t work for some reason, I can load them all on a 4-gig flash drive and send them to you.
Vinaire. That is Scientology is all about.
Geir,
Question #1: In your view, are we immortal?
Question #2: In your view, will we ever get out of the cycle of being in bodies?
Question #3: Do you believe in God or a Supreme Being?
Question #4: Do you feel there are other, existing, physical universes to play games in?
Question #5: What, in your view, is the point of us being so aberrated, irresponsible and full of whole track amnesia?
#1: Yes
#2: If you want
#3: Yes
#4: Yes
#5: To have a game.
I love it when people ask direct questions. Thank you, Bryan.
On #3, is God the same as “us” and we are all one, God? (Direct is good. :-))
Now That is a question I am wrestling nowadays.
Thanks. Interesting that you do have certainty about the existence of God in itself. Can you say why?
The question was “Do you believe in…”. I do. I don’t have certainty on the area. 😉
Got it. And that aligns better, no seeming paradox now. Direct answers might be even better than direct questions, btw. 🙂
At one time I theorized that the 8th dynamic might be the sum total of all the creativity of all beings.
The $64 question to me is, Is the Beginning the same as the End?
This in my mind is related to Hubbard’s statement that in the beginning there is a being who is very powerful but totally ignorant. After sufficient processing, there is once again a very powerful being, but now he has experience and “can fix the kid’s electric train.”
See also my post about the mootness of whether we are many or one. It’s upstream in this thread.
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/a-radical-new-view-of-the-upper-scientology-levels-ok-here-goes/#comment-4114
One cannot be totally ignorant while creating It All.
Yes, I saw that earlier comment. Got a chuckle out of the answer to the question of are we one or are we many – yes. Ha!
You might be right that it’s a moot question and that the Beginning may be the same as the End, but somehow I’m interested to know what that Beginning was. Seems like it would make a difference in how we perceive things and others, or whatever.
Geir wrote:
“One cannot be totally ignorant while creating It All.”
Good catch Geir. I think the word ‘totally’ was my additive. It’s been a while since I heard the lecture, but I don’t think Hubbard said ‘totally’.
I just started listening to the 4th London ACC lectures, which I think were previously released on cassette as “The First Postulate” lecture series. They are now available for free download, I’ll check for where they are available.
These start right out with LRon’s take on Native State and the first and second postulates, and it’s wild stuff.
Native State is indeed the state of ‘knowing everything’, but not necessarily know any particular thing.
The first postulate(s) are along the lines of NOT-KNOW (I don’t know), I’m not, I don’t have,etc. They follow the BE-DO-HAVE scale or series).
So it’s like we have looked at previously, a being creates randomity by selecting out things he doesn’t know, isn’t, and doesn’t have.
Why?
So he can then ‘KNOW ABOUT'(by learning how to) BE by learning how to DO whatever he postulated he doesn’t know how to do and therefore HAVE whatever he postulated he does not have!
So yes, at no time is he ‘totally ignorant’ as he creates all this, but it appears he can go pretty far in that direction as he makes more and more ‘first postulates’ that he ‘is’ ignorant of this, that and the other thing.
A being postulates his own ignorance, in order to have a game.
Extra! Extra!
Getchur Native State here and hear all about it!
4th London ACC download links:
http://forums.whyweprotest.net/threads/requested-4th-london-acc.64801/
If that doesn’t work for some reason, I can load them all on a 4-gig flash drive and send them to you.
Thanks Geir, Great OP.
A direct and honest look trough the veil of mistery is very much needed, and then, clarification and simplification of it.
I like very much the simplicity of your model.
I´m trying to make predictions with it, which could then be corroborated. have you made some?
As one becomes whole,and responsible, creativity and control of one´s own universe should increase, and also, ability to communicate and experience(lookingness, knowingness), shared reality (not enforced) with other beings, specially those moving in the same direction.
Increased reality of a state of brotherhood.
A group of such beings would communicate very easily, even telepathically, and maybe operate as a whole, creating an universe of their own, or maybe creating visible effects on the MEST universe.
Is there a point of creation of creativity ?(life).
I believe we are about to reach origin, the creation point of this universe, and maybe, the ability to step above of it.
If individuality disappears or not cannot be seen from inside this universe.
What visible results are obtained from the OT levels?
A good model will produce results, what can be seen with this one?
Nice comment. I could add that people mutually create universes all the time. Some are called companies, other are called families, nations or organizations.
Great point. But those are sub-universes, dependent on MEST.
Maybe at the point of origin creation of universes not dependent on MEST, or even causative over MEST could occur.
Also, I do not believe creation of other viewpoints (or other universes), with life of their own, could occur inside the MEST universe; that necessarily would come from outside, or at least from the origin point, of this universe.
I´m just speculating about the characteristics of sets, sub-sets, and super-sets (universes); and placing creativity (free will, potential) above, or at least, at the origin point, of the MEST universe.
As an example, in my case, my considerations do not have a life of their own.
No engrams? No unexpected thoughts?
Geir: No engrams? No unexpected thoughts? (No reply button appears on your post)
Holy smoke !! Good point.
Back to the drawing board….
And I´ll have to start from zero, cause this small fact is staring at me now:
I talk all the time to “myself”……
(I think there is a max number of reply levels on this theme…)
Talking to oneself to play ball with ideas is A Good Thing methinks. But unwanted thoughts or behaviour is not…
Good point, thanks 🙂
Nice point;)
Thanks for the answers, Geir.
I, too, like brevity.
If I may ask a few more:
Question #6: Many comments here are very wise. Yet, they could be summed-up in perhaps 1/20th the word count, thus taking up far less of your time and getting right to the point. This, too allows for faster learning by your readers. Faster particle flow on multiple viewpoints being exchanged. You have hinted at this many times. Is there a solution, or are you okay with it as is?
Question #7: What, in your view, makes the difference between starving children born in, say, South Africa and beings born into far more pro-survival, affluent conditions?
Question #8: LRH called Earth a prison planet. This would suggest a no-games condition, as it perhaps suggests that we are being held here against our will. Do you see it this way?
Question #9: I’ve read about being sucked into implant stations once the body dies. Is this real to you? If so, how do we avoid it once our heart stops beating?
Question #10: Do you recall a more favorable existence on the past track than the current one, with its wars, greed, poverty, illness, drugs, etc?
Thanks for your time!
#6: I see no solution. It is fairly Ok as it is. Thanks for reminding the posters here 😉
#7: The sense of belonging, of familiarity.
#8: No.
#9: I am not sure about the idea of implant stations – I think specific phenomena comes into play – be it existing implants or something else…
#10: Yes. But I like this one too 😉
Regarding implant stations it should be noted that there’s something called (as you surely have heard of) a near-death-experience (NDE) which have happened to about 10-20 % of resuscitated patients. (Perhaps it happened to the other patients as well but they don’t remember it?)
A classical NDU all contains the same factors:
1. out-of-body experience
2. a sense of calmness
3. seeing a light
4. travelling through a tunnel
5. arriving at a calm place
6. meeting old relatives
7. having a life review, i.e. lots of pictures from your life flashing by, sometimes accompanied by some kind of mentor who comments on your life.
All of the above occur independent of ethnicity, nationality and geographical location, with some variations, e.g. the mentor is sometimes “Jesus”, sometimes something else dependent on your religion etc. So it could be that everybody see about the same thing but interpret it differently depending on their culture.
The above (according to me) indicates some kind of pre-programmed experience and the word implant most easily comes to my mind.
How to avoid being implanted? Do not go into the light after you have died. Go to a hospital and try to take a body, if it works that way. Many report being sucekd down into a body before getting born so it could be that “the implanters” have a special way of getting you into the body.
I don’t know if you can just take a body as a free-floating thetan.
Mediums talk about “the other side” which is on the other side of the light. So ghosts who have unfinished business hang around their relatives etc and when the medium are finished with them they try to send them to the “other side”, toward the light. I don’t know if this is the wisest thing to do though. On the other hand, I don’t know what happens if you are not implanted. Perhaps you will more easily remember your past life?
Or… you don’t know how to get a body without it?
Scientology upper OT Levels – my experience – Perhaps this is the Real EP of NOTs ?
I did new OT V at AOLA around 1987. I paid close attention to the OT V bulletins that were part of the in session training on the level and in particular, I really “got” where Ron said that the fastest way to blow the NOTs charge is by inspection. He also talked about “massive blows” where huge amounts of that kind of charge would get handled and it would go faster and faster.
I had early on developed the ability to blow engrams by inspection and it was very natural to do this with the NOTs material as well.
I have always liked to make my auditing as efficient as possible.
The auditor I had at the time was very validating and willing for me to use my as-ising abilities.
So in the beginning we worked with the usual NOTs techniques where one or a few entities would be handled at a time, but I quickly got into blowing by inspection and massive blows where a sort of chain reaction would occur and vast amounts of the NOTs entities would blow, hundreds, sometimes even thousands or more. The as-ing would often go on for several minutes with huge huge relief.
I quickly progressed from just my body and nearby space to the surrounding area. From reading the ep of OT VII, I would say I got it or very close to it on my original OT V because of the very efficient way I developed of handling that type of charge.
After the level was done, if anything occurred in my life that caused any NOTs charge to be re-stimulated, I wouldn’t hesitate to take a look at it and cause it to blow. I didn’t do this obsessively or compulsively, just as a tool I would easily use as needed, which wasn’t that often. I found I could “chase down” this type of charge and as-is it and any related bits very easily. Sometimes the as-ness would extend to other “universes” or other “times” and breathtakingly large amounts of blows would take place. Perhaps millions of entities within moments. Then an amazing thing took place: One morning in Northern California I took a look at some NOTS charge and as-ised it and suddenly a big peaceful change and realization took place. I realized that I DIDN’T EVER HAVE TO HANDLE THAT TYPE OF CHARGE EVER AGAIN. It was a major case change, not unlike going Clear and just as significant.
I also realized – ironically – that I was pretty screwed as far as what future C/Ss would think… :>)
That case state has remained totally stable all these years – again, similar to the way the state of Clear is stable. Interestingly I can be aware of NOTs stuff around, mostly associated with other people, but it has no real charge or impact for me. It is kind of flimsy and insubstantial.
It seems to me that I somehow managed to get the true end-point EP for all of NOTs, which I have never heard anyone else speculate about.
It is an excellent state to achieve, but not any kind of “full OT” state. I still can’t knock of hats at 30 paces or travel to mars without my body or even to the British Museum with full perceptics. I think the next step for me would be more the type of thing that was on the “old” OT levels. Lots of OT exercises, Grand Tour, etc.
Nice. I enjoyed that.
Those SIDDHIS (look this word up in Wikipedia) are traps. The goals implanted at OT levels are traps. What works at OT levels is LOOKING as in KHTK.
You did the right thing by not getting stuck to desiring those SIDDHIS.
.
So are you saying the desire to have “OT abilities” such as operating without a body, but with OT perceptics, is a trap?
Of course, in Hindu philosophy I suppose all desires are a trap.
I had that exact “EP” on my OTll,i also realizes I’m “screwed” as to get any agreement from a C/S on this matters.I was actually thrown out from Ron’s Org on it,interestingly i never got any Tr2 on my 10 div blow-down and floating TA (i was treated as an “ethics particle”) Ron says in his filmed interview,”some stays on the bridge longer than others,,this is all taken for granted”..)My idea of any future “bridge” is also in the realm of “drills”:))
JerryH,
I had a similar experience when I was auditing NOTS, in the independent field. My C/S trained under David Mayo, and I trained on delivering it under Merrill. Most of my later sessions simply consisted of counting and locating very large numbers of ‘them’, and they would all blow. Maybe 5 minutes to FTA. Ran out of anything to audit, and started getting into trying to handle the ‘theta’ (phi and Lambda) that made up the body. Which didn’t work well. The body doesn’t like that.
I did my L’s after that, and several actions, attested to Clear OT and felt I was doing well.
Then my wife started on the Excaliber course and I started getting heavily hit both spiritually and physically. And I audited on Excaliber for over a year and half, and I didn’t have short sessions, my head physically shook the entire time of all of my sessions, and most sessions went about 2 1/2 hours , I did handle a lot of stuff, and I did get FTA;’s. Then I did several parts of CBRs bridge, and one day I realized I never even saw the stuff handled on III and NOTS/Excaliber anymore. It’s just not there for me anymore. There are others things I run into , but I’ve pretty well gotten up to blow by inspection stage with all of that stuff.
I did run out all of my own GPM’s, and I handled other identities and valences (using techniques from the 1st Melbourne ACC), and a ton of machinery. And I ran a level I thought of as orders of magnitude, lots of the ‘same incident’ with lots of pieces, connected with lots’ of others and flattened that.
Recently I was looking at TROM and found I could easily see everyone elses viewpoint and everything they were creating, including their track, machinery and opinions, and could handle things with that as the session space.
I recently wrote and ran an OT obnosis booster rundown that ran quite nicely and did actually boost my obnosis about an order of magnitude.
Currently I’m auditing on a Conditions Rundown for all dynamics that is getting some very good traction.
My session tend to only go about 15 minutes or less, to cogntion, FTA, and I’m getting major wins.
It’s moving the TA quite nicely.
My session space is all of space and time, and creations, and all unique individualities,.
Most things I handle by handling large groups at the same time, each with their own attention line.
It’s a skill I developed.
My general auditing program is to stably put back abilities I had in 1956 where I could literally do anything for about a year, but it wasn’t stable. It tended to key in others failed purposes, and I didn’t have the tools and tech to handle that at the time. I got to that ‘going up the pole’; point by auditing over 3000 hours of Op Pro by Dup, each way. Literally at the end uncreating everything and then putting everything back. But it was not stable.
I’m going to get there stably now. I’ve been at this since 1946 at Oak Knoll , over 66 years now.
And it’s just the beginning of all the possible wins ahead.
I got your number you bad person you!! Now I really understand what path you walk on and you must have been reading some of the comments I have made, so you know of my realities. Listen, What i have seen today would blow your socks off, come to think of it that would depands on if you wear any..
If you care to hear it let me know, i hope you do since i would love to share it.
I’d love to to hear it. Always like to have my socks blown off. I’m not sure completely of your realities – you have posted quite a bit, and although I read fast, I just started reading any of this a couple a days ago. Somehow I saw something Geir posted, and I thought I’d dive in. I’m not at all about proof. If it’s not true for someone else it isn’t and I’m fine with that. But I know what I have perceived and experienced and I never allow anyone else to tell me what my truth is. But I do have differing experiences over time, and some things do change that I was certain of, when looked again later.
I’m always happy to share anyone else’s truth with them. It’s really fun, and I’m quite curious about it know.
Doc: “My general auditing program is to stably put back abilities I had in 1956 where I could literally do anything for about a year, but it wasn’t stable. It tended to key in others failed purposes, . . . ”
Chris: Excellent writeup. Very easy to follow… Can I ask you to expound what you mean by “literally do anything for about a year…”? And please, does this “anything in 1956” include successfully violating natural Newtonian law?
Literally anything. I could create, destroy, move, change, alter, any object or particle or space or whatever in or regarding the physical universe. I just created the ‘now’ exactly as I wanted. Direct creation. I wasn’t using any earlier machinery, or patterns or anything else that I had ever created, that was all not being created by me, and it was just direct creation. And done in a way that caused the change to be done in the shared MEST universe. Now as to whether anyone could see that or realize that it had changed, that depended on their awareness, and how much machinery they were viewing things through. But at the most basic level of MEST shared agreed illusion, it was there the way I put it there. Newtons laws are only true in the local time space continuum anyways, and require that there be big thetans around, in the area to be seen and observed. Unless there is a big thetan or thetans with a viewpoint observing the universe is only virtual its not ‘real’. If the tree falls in the forest, and theres no one there, there isn’t any tree or forest to fall in, much less be seen. We have an incredible number of lines of theta we create to view, and see what other viewpoints are up to, and to keep all of this sort of co-ordinated, and most of us usually don’t uncreate them when we are done with that action or cycle. So we tend to trip over them later.
One of the things I have seen lately, is that the track (our copy of the universe, postulates, and opinions) is only there because we create it, and it’s only viewed as having any chains, because we add the chains, the actual things are all unique, newly in a new unit of time, and have no basic true connection. We are actually always creating everything newly in a new unit of time, and then we overlay that with a bunch of postulates of connection, and significance.
And similarly, any terminals (in GPMS) or valences all of which are mocked untrue versions of things. The item is what we consider aunt Alice to be, not what she actually was, and only has power because there was actually such a real big thetan as they actually were underneath it. The truth of the big being allows the persistence of the altered lie of the terminal or valence.
the truth of the unlimited unbounded transfinite sources allows the altered lie of a narrow, bounded, defined, apparent universe of games. And it’s all really theta anyways.
And you don’t have to shrink, and diminish and become less, you can expand and grow and become more.
You can create as much admiration as you want. There is no set amount. And thetans love admiration in the shared games they do. Via viewpoints and dimension points.
The way they initiate games and comm and exchange and such is through an initial comm I call a hook. We put the hook out and ask the other to play, and if they accept the hook via their own hook, then the game or games begin.
And that would all be fine, if we just put the hooks away when the game was over.
If a hook is not accepted, the thetan can and does create it forever. Which is not always the brightest thetan thing to do.
we can create things that allow for fun, and expansion, and increase and connection, or we can create things that cause no fun, contraction, decrease and disconnection.
Sorting out which is which is part of the fun of the path.
An excellent book to read, which hits the whole enlightenment thing from several different levels is Roger Zelazny’s “Lord of light”. It’s Science Fiction , but it’s very meta. Hit’s it from several different angles.
For some interesting Sci Fi meditations on psychic abilities, read any of James Schmitz’s book, like the “Witches of Karres”, or any of his books about the “hub”. He was the president of CADA (California Association of Dianetic Auditors) at one time. Also EE Doc Smiths – “Subspace Explorers” and :”subspace encounters” are recommended. Less read than the LensMan Series probably more useful for the OT. And of course, the great Robert Heinlein’s work “Stranger in a Strange Land” – from where we get the term GROK. Sometime I like to tell people that what I’m doing is learning Martian (read Heinleins book – you’ll get the reference”).
James, great post, 100% my reality outside of course those names you have mentioned for Chris.
you are comfiming of what i have known about big, giant thetans, interesting, since i have known I am a giant among giants and I am very aware my ability to cause in the spiritual universe.
The only reality break I have head how can one be such.. I have looked for reasons and what i received was communication from others who are very aware and asked me to accept thought-responsibility since to have a game one has to be a leader in order to have fallowers. and the leader holds that space intact where the game is being played. [ i still feel a bit shy talking about this since I never mentioned this to no-one till now.]
It was only than I accepted: yes, it is is fine to be on. but i still dont know the reason why the difference outside of awarness one has and the ability of course to create-cause. Bloody hell, I am good!!!
‘PS, dont panic i have soloed-confronted every passible concepts of importance,” being” anything so those are just words… hehehe.. i am of to see the dragon and we will share a cup of tea..
Elizabeth,
It’s the KRC triangle – you know, you can control, and your are responsible – not as a lowed tone thing but as a high toned, exciting artistic thing, demonstration of technical excellence is itself an artistic performance, and it benefits all to see that demonstration.
You are not alone. It’s fine with me if you want be do and have alone, and you can be do an have that forever, as far as I’m concerned, and that too can be fun and exciting.
But I find it more fun and exciting to share, as widely and deeply as I can the fun I’m having.
Around the time of Richard the lionhearted the word liege changed concept from representing the positive duty the warrior had, chosen by those he was protecting, to the duty the protected owed to their conqueror who was protecting them from all those other badies. In other words it went from at cause view to an at effect view.
But the truth is we are all in this together. We are all friends. Some of my friends aren’t doing as well in their current consideration as they would like, and I’m working intently (and having fun doing it) to fix that. So we can all have fun, knowingly and at will together. It will be the biggest party and dance, and concert and creative art explosion we have ever done together.
If you have the gifts, please share them.
Part of leading is to be very curious and intent on those you are leading so you can produce what they need and want, and acceptance of the back flow of admiration and love.
Just like what it takes to be a good auditor or public speaker.
Things generally go from a monad (single source) to a dyad (double source) to multiple sources.
There’s always pioneers, and there is always consolidators.
The goal of Scientology is to enable another to play a better game in their own estimation.
(From fundamentals of thought).
Ethics is reason and contemplation of optimum survival.
If it’s not fun it’s not Scientology.
Have some fun.
James I must have written something, not expressing my self clearly and caused a MU.
I am very aware I am not alone the fact what I believe and have reality on is contrary. I operate in the Universe share that Universe of Free Beings [ have no bodies] I don’t think I will explain my realities since there is not much point in that.. If you desire to know more all you need to do is read some of the hundreds of posting In Geirs blog since many are cognition based and or read my blog which is made out of 175 major cognitions. [all in one year and it is only part of the rest i was too lazy to write about.]
About fun, I have nothing but fun ever since I have erased FEAR which was about 14-15 years back.. Please do read some of my postings.. and have some fun reading it, others do. thanks.
Geir,
Dr. Wayne Dyer (self-help guru from the USA), states that one must align themselves with “universal source” or “God” by feeling good and eradicating as many self-invalidative thoughts as possible. Sort of like vibrating at higher wavelengths of the Tone Scale, if you will. If you can do this well, along with seeing things you want to accomplish from the end result (as if they are already accomplished), your life will flow quite successfully, according to him.
Any reality on these points?
Any added comments to offer?
Thanks! Learning a lot here.
There is value to strive for purity in personal integrity, in compassion, in doing right across the dynamics. If the concept of God helps in that, then God has value. If believing that all life is intimately connected brings about an understanding and tolerance, then that has value. Anything that works is a step toward truth. Hence, I believe God and a sense of unity holds some truth.
Unknowable should not be the subject of debate. The debate should be on inconsistencies among what we believe in.
.
And I believe the inconsistencies in your use of Unknowable has been duly pointed out. Hence we are in concordance with your wish.
By speaking about “unknowable” are you referring to the question of whether or not God or some other who/s or what/s EXIST – is that what is unknowable?
Or do you agree that there is some sort of “existence” beyond the material (i.e. that much is know-able and is either known already or can be known), but do NOT agree that knowledge of more than that is knowable – i.e. knowledge about the NATURE of such an existence – is that what is unknowable?
In other words, are you saying that it is unknowable whether or not there is such an “existence”? Or are you saying that anything ABOUT that existence is unknowable? Just want to be sure I duplicate what you are actually saying.
Vinare, If you would dare to look into the so called UNKNOWABLE, Peel away the invisible, the unknown, forgatten, not remembered, given up, buried, hidden, conceal, out of sight, all the secrets,walls, in prison, the between world in which nothing exits and few dozen more items I could list than you would discover a new universe in the Unknown and unknowable. You would erase that word from your dictionary.
Vinaire. “The debate should be on inconsistencies among what we believe in.””” Got you kid. You fall into your own…. If you have such on , long word! Inconsistencies. The Sessions, auditing soloig takes care of that sooner or later the many considerarions the confusions on the same subjects fall away since they are Implants created and ech of those dandy creations feed the being different commands view pints in sessions-solo the bad is as=ised, the WRONG, conflicting stuff. Sooner or later on the inconsistencies, the believes ends, on the end one has the gem, the jewel in form of the cognation. Which holds no inconsistencies, the true knowledge is not debatable.
Wow, I go away for a while and look what I come back to!!! Much much food for thought…
I thought I would throw out a few ideas I have been having or more properly stated things I have realized.
Funny word REAL-ized
“we would have a large number of beings turning up for auditing that were ready to run a very different process than the ordinary Bridge (as covered in OT VI material).”
It seems to me that they would not show up for auditing, they already received the auditing they needed. I think a more rewarding question may be: what reality are they released into?
“Viewpoints that I created and that I no longer take responsibility for and when I through auditing do take responsibility for them, I would conclude that the one creating them was ME.”
Lately it seems like me and thee and the birds and the bees. After all, what inspires us to make these viewpoints? And what exactly is a thought-form vs a physical form? And when are they exactly? And where are they exactly? Lately it looks like aggregates upon aggregates in an infinity of creation.
I’ve been considering the Chart of Attitudes. At the top of the scale is the ability to operate in past present and future, in short, any time. And at the top of the arc scale – no separation, total duplication, communication with no vias.
Then maybe this little body of mine isn’t my only body. After all, it is a thought-forms aggregate. So what if the entire world is just such a thought-form. So too the entire galaxy. And beyond that too. And those too are my body? Or should I say – the body that I connect with and use to participate?
And when I am auditing, what am I “recovering”? It seems to me that points of dissonance are being remedied and released where? when? It also seems to me that points of consonance are being created just as much, if not more. Where? When?
It seems to me that what is recovered and what is created is simply always “there.” The forms change and the relative dissonance and consonace change but what is still is and this is the backdrop, not the show. And maybe, just maybe the auditing is actually altering the past and the future and now. And maybe not just here where my little female body sits.
I’ve been considering the point of view that there are eight dynamics. Its a fine model. Very useful. But it appears to me that auditing or indeed life is not ACTUALLY severable into 8 dynamics. There’s just one. And that one is you and me and everything we see. And we share this quest, this awareness, this reaching, and interdependence, this creation, resonating endlessly.
Perhaps its simply about learning to resonate and create from within a universe shared or otherwise without getting lost or confused or not (depending on the point of the activity I guess)
And when one can do that then all worlds are open as one wishes. And there can be worlds where wishes are horses and beggars do ride.
Or maybe sailing Greece?
Maria: ” And maybe not just here where my little female body sits.”
Exactly so! -Changed MY universe.
As we’ve wrangled about what is and what is not, I began thinking that we are selling MEST short by sort of giving it a brush-off and looking past it toward something we can’t quite get to and which Rafael called a “flimsy lie.”
There is depth and breadth and plenty to contemplate in the physical world right in front of us. There is plenty of room in the cracks for the things to exist that we don’t yet suspect or understand to fit. If we do the work of understanding that, maybe we discover we should just be auditing instead of blogging.
Chris my Dear, you have made my day. Now, take your socks off before you go to read the article on my blog. Mother load. That should inspire you to do what you intend to do! Love Ya!
Mathematics don’t apply to the theta universe,one “Thetan/Theta line” can have more than one body at the time.Following the theta line back in time up the line may reveal that we are “one” (or not).When you have total communication it may be difficult to separate where you starts and I stops..
Well said Tommy. Several of us here are having this sense about oneness.
For sure, as ARC increases we become closer. Or maybe we just become less farther apart – I don’t know – – – I wanted to write something smart, but lost the urge to do so! hahahaha! I must have been thinking about something Valkov said! hahaha!
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/a-radical-new-view-of-the-upper-scientology-levels-ok-here-goes/#comment-4234
Isn’t soloing basically LOOKING? Is there any difference?
.
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/a-radical-new-view-of-the-upper-scientology-levels-ok-here-goes/#comment-4249
Yes, INCOMREHENSIBLE is another way of expressing what I am trying to communicate.
.
From the Freezone, here’s a cognition from OT7-NOTS:
I had a big cognition today, a big win. I realized I came from something other than my individuality. I recognized the point where I created my individuality from something other than it. “I” was something else before I became me.
The point of creation of a thetan is pan-determinism narrowing itself to a self-determinism.
To create an individual thetan is to create a player for a game.
To create an individual is to diminish the will to a level where one can begin a game.
The goal of being an individual on the first dynamic is to play a game.
Happiness is being all dynamics.
Spending a whole life on personal first dynamic pursuits is a trap.
If one opens up to all dynamics one becomes happiness.
The game of individual pursuits can bring rewards and fun, but not happiness.
Being all dynamics is the action of leaving the game. Having the ability to enter and leave a game is freedom.
Joe Warren
Wow, Valkov, pretty interesting. Thanks for posting this. You are a prolific knowledge and data scout for us!
Make that – knowledge *resource* and data scout. 🙂
Geir. Please, go for it do get a big bowl. Here,
the sleeves are rooled up on my cardigan.
I have two dictionaries stand guard by my side.
holds no chalange to tear learned knowledge apart. But i love the sparkles created fly, [I am Not to keen on swiss cheese, it is full of holes.] But great fun knowing all the words are blown away by the next wind. The value the fun was the game. I am looking for restimulation in vain!!
Elizabeth, funny stuff! And “tear learned knowledge apart” is a good addition to your earlier, choice lines of “duking it out to see who has the best viewpoint” or “whose implant is better.” Witty and no doubt wise!
Vinaire, where are you? I think Elizabeth probably duplicates you better than anybody. But your phrase would be, “tear considerations apart,” am I right?
FANTASTIC! Thank You. Elizabeth
Very nice cognition!
It really rings true to me … prior to mocking up or creating a beingness, there is something … a potential, all-knowing & aware.
In order to play the game, beingness is created, and with that, comes conditions such as forgetting what one knows, an identity that is created which at once alters the original ‘entity’, and an adoption and agreement to abide by the rules of the game one is entering.
It is a total denial of that original ‘self’.
LRH mentions in a few places where once we move out of the game, we don’t just combine back into some ‘blob’ of knowingness or a ‘all are one’ concept.
He also mentions Big Beings & minions … possibly these minions are just ‘chips off the old block’ and as we gain awareness these ‘chips’ are regained or move back to their respective creator as free theta.
Thanks for posting this.
Hi Dennis. “In order to play the game, beingness is created, and with that, comes conditions such as forgetting what one knows, an identity that is created which at once alters the original ‘entity’, and an adoption and agreement to abide by the rules of the game one is entering.” I my reality you have described the conditions, the very rules used which are or is [?] dictated by the Implants to fallow, the “how” to play the game. In the theta universe none of the above exiting, or being applied. Rules, regulations, identity, or beingness not needed to have an experience, or creation.
Amen, brother.
Very true!!
And it explains some of Geirs questions,don’t you think?(granting beingness is a clue 2)
All Scientology is bullshit, get a life and stop holding two tin cans. Life is out in the streets and public and private places on this planet. Please continue the process of deprogramming and leave all of Hubbards crap in the trash can.
Before you continue to make a fool out of yourself, I recommend that you first do a bit of reading to get some kind of an idea what my viewpoint on Scientology is.
What a wonderful comment. I truly hope you feel much better now. And this time would be a good time to clear up your MU, an every word you have written in your coment.
Anson,
NO! U!
OK folks, I have discovered that Vinaire not only has a ‘secret identity’ but may BE a secret identity! It appears he is the long-lost brother of Hollywood’s Austin Powers the International Man of Mystery, and his real name is Austin Siddhis the UNKNOWABLE Man of Mystery, Bollywood’s answer to Hollywood’s superhero.
Sorry about blowing your cover like this Vinnie, but I felt the public’s ‘right to know’ is the overriding consideration here.
Here is a recently discovered video in which Vinnie is mistaken for Austin Powers because they do look much alike, being twins…..
Hello Geir Isene. I have a question. Is it Ok with you if I would continue with comments in your Blog? I am asking since I know my reality is well, you know my reality by now. I do not wish to over stay my welcome. so please let me know. If you think I should not that is fine. No ARC B. here. I am sort of holding back,there is a reason for that. Thank You. Elizabeth or Erzsebeth.
Please stay and post your comments.
Thank You. Then I offer this short note in friendship.
My understanding of what is purity, what pours fort from the so called Pure heart
after the MEST is as-is ad one regains the intangible the Native state The INFINITE.
Where there is no darkness of the past remains, in “now” the Life force shines.
The Few lines bellow is small part out cognation in which the understanding have come, what is a total duplication.
Suddenly a small dog appeared front of me She stood rooted into the Earth
her short little legs wide apart grin on her face and laughter in her eyes.
Joy washed over me as I looked back into her eyes, inquiring.
“As I have duplicated her Universe” suddenly there was nothing around us,
The MEST Universe has vanished.
There was nothing and no one.
The invisible form opened up and light poured forth.
Soundless sounds formed words and I have heard
“I am what you are”.
my Universe opened too hearing that magical
concept, the greeting of spiritual beings in the Cosmos,
unfolded and the two light become one
as I have heard my reply, the “echo”
“ I am what you are”
There was no more communication, since none was needed.
The wondrous sound of Affinity washed over the Universe.
After eons apart two friends were united.
For one, time never existed, for me the journey was long and now ended,
I have arrived laden with gifts,
They are the experiences when as-is ad in form of cognations have becomes knowledge.
I have Returned and Welcomed.
The West Coast of Canada is shrouded in heavy silvery mist.
It lulls the soul into peaceful calmness. But I fly, I live in light
Since I am light!!!!
Nice.
Elizabeth, I enjoyed your lovely post.
You got me thinking
words are sometimes
like the notes of music
not particularly denoting
finite things
the way words usually do
but evoking
feelings sublime.
(Not just thinking, you got me waxing poetic!) 🙂
That is Beautifully Spoken. Thank You.
Just for that I’m going to give my little poem a title – “Ode to a Post” You elevated it in my eyes! 😉
Yeah Miraldi, me too.
Hi, Chris. Haven’t seen you here lately. Or your favorite sparring partner. (Are you sure you two aren’t brothers? ha ha!)
Marildi, we are one in the light!
🙂
At the risk of showing my ignorance (or should I say, my Knowledge? ha ha!) let me ask you, do you now go in and out of the MEST universe? Or are you always out, maybe with just some “feelers” extended into it?
Ron says that a Thetan and a thought are similar things.A child that creates an “imaginary friend”,or “God” creating the angels,sounds like the same process?The entities was described as ridges,circuits and valences in the early works.(i don’t think there IS any difference)
Yes, Tommy, I remember something like that too – a thetan is similar to a thought. Do you remember the reference? It has greater interest for me these days…
I think it was in the PDC,but it is in the deff of Theta to:)
THETA, 1. theta is thought, life force, elan vital, the spirit, the soul, or any other of
the numerous definitions it has had for some thousands of years. (SOS, p. 4) 2 .
the life force, life energy, divine energy, elan vital, or by any other name, the
energy peculiar to life which acts upon material in the physical universe and
animates it, mobilizes it and changes it. It is susceptible to alteration in character
or vibration, at which time it becomes enturbulated theta or entheta. (SOS, Bk. 2,
p. 21) 3. theta is thought; an energy of its own universe analogous to energy in
the physical universe but only occasionally paralleling electromagnetic-gravitic
laws. The three primary components of theta are affinity, reality, and
communication. (SOS, Bk. 2, p. 3) 4 . reason, serenity, stability, happiness,
cheerful emotion, persistence, and the other factors which man ordinarily
considers desirable. (SOS, Bk. 2, p. 12) 5 . an energy existing separate and
distinct from the physical universe. (SOS, p. 4) 6 . Greek for thought or life or
the spirit. (Aud 10 UK) 7 . not a nothingness. It just happens to be an exterior
thing to this universe—so you couldn’t talk about it in this universe’s terms.
(PDC 6)
Thank you, Tommy! For going to the trouble of posting all that and thus getting me to look it all over (as it was right there in front of me!). And from there I decided to look at the defs of “thought” (in Tech Dict as well as the regular English defs, which LRH of course used at times too), specifically looking at these defs: “the product of mental activity” and “a judgment, opinion, belief.” Then I thought of the def of concept (a high-wave THOUGHT…) and the fact that thoughts are energy (mental energy – just a finer, higher wave than physical energy) and are products of a thetan (an energy-space production unit).
Now, getting back to “a thetan is similar to a thought” I thought of the def of GE, “that beingness not dissimilar to the thetan…” and I read again the following line in HOM: “The GE is theta.” And from there – I sorted out, better than I ever have, static vs. theta vs. thetan and Cause vs. viewpoint (in The Factors) and OMG!
Bottom line is that I’ve clarified my understanding not only of how a thetan is similar to a thought but all the above as well. Do you know the story about “the want of a horseshoe nail”? Well, Tommy, thanks for the horseshoe nail! 🙂 🙂 🙂
U are welcome Marildi:)
It is also interesting what going up the bridge means?! If you grant enough beingness to an animal it starts to behave “human”.A magi/occultist may get “possessed” or assume the beingness of a “higher being”.I think any part of theta can be “God”..
I think I’m with you…the ripples, they do spread. 🙂
I thought of something else in relation to “static vs.theta vs. thetan”. In the Scn Picture Book there was (or used to be) a statement about a thetan being in “a little bit of mass.” Apparently, that book quoted from other LRH books and I was wondering where that particular quote came from. Do you (or anybody) know?
It also comes to mind that upon death a person’s body weighs slightly less (an empirical fact, no less). I wonder, is that weight just erasable bank mass, which would theoretically leave the thetan weightless – or, if the mass were ALL to be as-sed, would that include the “thetan”, perhaps leaving just static…
Here I go again…. There is a song with that title. Thank you for asking, few dare to ask and even fewer would believe. The body is in BC Canada. I have not changed location I am, I always have been.
What changes are there is the viewpoints.
By as-ising the MEST all the considerations all the agreements which have connected to me to be here believing I am here, I am a human.
By erasing=as-ising the walls, the barrier’s the incredibly difficult state which is the after death state, which is the nothingness, the unknown, the emptiness, the void the invisible, unmoving, no energy, dozens and dozens of other considerations.
Slowly as one peels of all the layers one have the glimpse of true self the so called native state. The universe opens up, the magic regained.
Since the energy mess which held me here it was my anchor point which made me believe I was a human no longer exits. My reality becomes very different.
As for location the Crab Nebula it’s wonderful energy, it colours is me, I identify with, therefore it is my home. My space and anchor point in the Universe. It is here I will remain.
I am not one being since I know the viewpoints of others who are call free beings free souls. Yet I am and I am not anything but Infinite.
The view points are so changeable so easy to be, to do, to have. But one must accept one role in the Universe.
When one knows one’s own power it’s great magnitude. How it affects the space and all who is within that space, in sessions one learns that. It is a humbling experience and one knows, one is not a leader of many, but a Servant to all. Also in session one learns to differentiate what is power in human view points, reality and in the Universe where is no solidity exists.
Yes, I will continue have view points expressed here if Geir graciously allow my presence in his space and I will continue write into the Blog which Silvia created for me.
But I no longer create other games, activity. I do garden if weather permits.
But where I am is nowhere yet. I have so much to learn. It is only the beginning of my adventures the greatest adventure a being can have because of the Tech.
The greatest gift one could receive the HOW the” DUPLICATION “since that has given us the knowledge in confrontation. The greatest the most valuable gift we were given to which no equal exits in the Universe.
Now, Geir will hit me on the head with his baseball bat for being longwinded!!
If you have the consideration After reading this , like AWE, blow that in your next session I am not better just have different viewpoints. And viewpoints, reality, considerations have no value. But do ask and thank you for doing so.
Elizabeth, thank you so-o-o much! Okay, I confess I do feel some awe, but mostly delight from all you said in your gracious reply. I got your reality much better, I think. And it expanded my…imagination!
You talked about “anchor points” – it seems LRH chose the term well, anchoring a being as they apparently do. [Geir, I suddenly thought of your epiphany on that earlier blog post, about freedom and urges – it may be more basic than it seemed!] Elizabeth, you also said, “Yet I am and I am not anything but Infinite,” reminding me of something else LRH said: “When the Seventh Dynamic is reached in its entirety, one will only then reach the true Eighth Dynamic.” I’ve wondered if anyone has done this is and there you are!
Wow, you consider your home to be Crab Nebula – how interesting! Is “home” for you the same as what LRH called “home universe,” do you think? And you said, “It is here where I will remain,” which makes me want to ask – for how long? and will you come back for new bodies to play the human game some more? Maybe this relates to what you said about having more to learn…
I especially loved – “I am not one being since I know the viewpoints of others who are called free beings, free souls.” I felt some “oneness” just reading that! And on that other intriguing paragraph about the magnitude of one’s own power in the MEST universe – if you will, please say more about that and the sentence: “Also in session one learns to differentiate what is power in human view points, reality and in the Universe where is no solidity exists.”
I know that old song you mentioned, “Here I go again – taking a chance on love” – light and joyful, like you. 🙂 By the way, my sister tells me she has been reading and very much enjoying your blog, including the stuff about your amazing garden. I consider blogs to be one of my “paths” these days (especially this one, and I’m glad you found it too).
“I am light,” you told me earlier. I would say that you shed it too! Thank you for answering my questions. (Don’t worry, I think Geir grants a lot of beingness before he gets out the bat. But just a feather bat is all that’s needed for the likes of you and me. 😉 )
Marildi,I will answear all your questions , I need to pull and rerange all cogs on Power. Over the years I had many cogs, the reality have changed over and over again. But
I believe I have the basic now.
PS: your “Imagination” is the OT power the ability, the capability to mock up and as you do, expeience the same time, that is the so called game. There is no solidity in that mock up, just pure Life-force. it’s transformation into the MEST the a so called imagination, image, can be made in solid form but the original mock up remains un-seen in the ‘now’ solid form. So you have the OT power, you never have lost it.
Okay, no problem, if and when you are ready to say more, I’ll have my “imagination” ready too.
And thank you for the validation! 🙂
Hello Geir, Good day to you. I have a realisation why I have looked up your blog. I was pulled in.
It was delightful to read the heading, your view points.
As I was reading on there was harmony in the blog, friends exchanging view points, having fun , learning, educating self.
But in that harmony there was occasionally a bump, literally a bump in the energy flow I scrolled down over and over till i located the bumps it was Vineires writing. It did not feet in.
First I thought how delightful, yet something was wrong. I went into his space and looked at the action of the energy flows.
Than I started to bat back what he put out. I know what was he doing. same as you all have known. Challenged OT’s .
Presented his superior knowledge, which is nothing more than confusion stemming confusion.
He will not write in your blog for awhile but he reads it. No popcorn.
He truly believes his knowledge is superior which is fine and I am truly sorry for what I have caused.
I am not here to pick a fight, There is no fight since what we have in comparison to any eastern religion=believes can not be compared.
I have written it as usual, long, I can post it for your reading if you care to post it or not will be your choice.
It is for him Vinaire I could post it in my blog but he picked a well known Blog for OT’s
I feel the lesson should be on the same pages he has written. He is a student who have challenged that is a no in Buddhism. PS: I Do understand you velcome all view points. So his was welcomed too. Thanks for posting mine too!!
Well, I happen to think Vinaire has made some very valuable contributions. You should check out his blog where he presents one of the most valid forms of therapy and practice I have seen in a long time – the simple but skillful art of pure Looking. And for that I love the guy. As for his rants on the Unknowable… I believe that to be a dead end.
Elizabeth,
I pick on Vinnie a lot sometimes, but basically I feel he is trying to understand something, as many of us are trying to understand something.
Currently he seems to be struggling with something(I think of it as ‘the NOT-KNOW thing’) but I think he will get it sorted out.
He does sound like a chauvinistic Hindu upper-caste Brahmin at times but how many of us have completely transcended our culture? I style myself as the “Feral White Russian from Manchuria”, for example. I really was born there.
And I have learned from him, and interacting with him has helped me overcome some of my limitations. He is a stubborn cuss, though.
I’m sure visiting his space as you did can only help, as your being here helps us all. 🙂
Valkov, I think of you as more Ferret than Feral. 😉
(Ferreting out all the references and links that you post… As I put it on an earlier comment, you are the prolific data scout of the blogs!)
Valcov, Not one being will ever know, How much I have gained BY BEING ABLE TO COMMUNICATE OPENLY. To put my thought, express the reality. THIS one item which connects me to here. A very intricately made implant which have made for me only. I have great difficulty locate the commands since all, every one contain illness, must be silent, no one allow to recognize my presence. Need to hide, I was dumped here 2500 years back. Also in the Implant was given great power but that power to hold me here was in form of so called human power. Become powerfull leaders ETC which I have been But that was done in order to keep me here. Since I have recognised that fact I also have recall who I was before “HERE” But My firts life here as a man which I know a total recall, but I must not speek of. The command are hidden in invisible, they are not connected to any human consideration I dont know how to locate the chard. There is still charge on that life I must as-is before I can be free and leave the body. I have no confict with Vinaire the words he speeks, the thoughts were mine. To write such is agony. But I must I nedd to be free.
Geir,thank you. I too read his blog I too like his view points. I agree that they are…. i cant locate the right words. so i use one of my favorite word fantastic. And have made comments there and read his.
Geir, I have posted what I have written, If you care to read it than you will understand the last line in the post Thank You I have closed the cycle.
As You have asked about power. Just one of the Cogs. This was back last fall.
The COG: is a major one and gives a finishing touch
over the past attainments.
Every word, every concept, considerations
[And the major ones are the agreed-upon considerations
which solidify and it gives more power or takes more power away.
This in large lumps.] one ever had and have,
holds the power which one have given, assigned to it in great magnitude,
in so-called “importance” and that is the only reason
they do exists and now hold power over the being
and by which the being is affected by.
But the largest amount of power the spiritual being had
that is now scattered all over the Universe, and forgotten,
it was assigned carelessly not having the knowledge of it’s value.
It has been given away in indifferent manners when the being, assumed,
believed, agreed to, supported, tolerated, accepted,
admitted and granted that others are better, bigger,
more capable, have more power than himself and therefore one is less,
below, worthless, powerless, weak,
not good enough, inferior in any way.
And, in a reverse manner, when one assumes others are less,
not good enough, worthless etc….
and we are better, superior,
above others and hold power over them,
A CRIME IS COMMITTED TOWARD SELF.
In sessions one do as-is these words, concepts, considerations
and with each little word as-is-ed,
we gather back the previously scattered power the self worth
and with that the spiritual being becomes complete.”
Such wonderful concepts here. Thank you, Elizabeth! 🙂
Good morning to you Geir. It is a beautiful morning here in BC. A cog I got in session this morning if you care to post it here in your blog if you think it is in line of the reality, please do so. If not, just push the button… Thanks. Elizabeth.
Morning Cognition, the Great power of Acknowledgement, the solidifier of MEST Universe.
Something has been bothering me of late on unknown energy floated about which I have not confronted yet. Pulled my attention, it was my reality that I real did not liked to be appraised or do the same to other. Either way I was not comfortable with it.
A reprimand usually p. me off and appraisals, I always pushed away invisibly. This elusive energy was difficult to locate since it is a positive action so called a good consideration.
Finally I got it, “ACKNOWLEDGEMENT”.
That very word drives a stake like anchor point into the center of the beings universe. Further solidifies the CORE=bank which runs vertical in the body. [ if we have problem getting exterior view points, moving out of the body, travel being out of the body, perceive differently, and see other universes well the core=considerations=agreements hold one in place in the MEST, same old story].
An acknowledgement might confer one is good, doing well, should continue going on the agreed upon considerations, action, since what one is doing is approved by others who usually is close to us and love or likes us. In other words agree, have similar reality level of ours..
And we look up to these persons with love and admiration and value they opinion, reality and believes. These acknowledgements do hold danger because it anchors “, creates agreement” and holds them in place between two persons or become collective, group agreement, example: which politicians view point pro survival, better therefor lets vote for: that vote solidifies his position in space he is in office for 4 years. Let say, 10 million people voted him in. They too are in the oval office and they too are affected by the president’s action. Furthermore all his further communication will get further acknowledgement, more invisible energy lines, confirmation. Solid they become and remain.
Same with any other acknowledgement, which we are giving or given by others to us, we too are tied to that being with an invisible line.
That communication=acknowledgement hold that concept in the MEST Universe, Period.
Therefore has solidity in form of energy.
With the so called times passing both will be forgotten, but the invisible lines will remain between the beings so is the act which was acknowledged till as-ised by both parties.
The positive considerations, pleasure moments which we believe that they are better, since they are not destructive in sense, but they hold more power over the being.
The pleasure moments pulls the person in over and over again like vanilla ice cream.
The pleasure moment is the trap which holds the being in the MEST Universe. They have greater power since the pleasure moments are continually re-confirmed=acknowledged, agreed too and the confirmations are the solidifiers to makes that continue and to remain in the MEST.
The so called “bad” we all want to destroy as-is, but the “good” we nurture. Yet both considerations belong to the MEST universe. They are the implants and they make the game the game, Gives the choice which side one once to play.
On the Path of Enlightenment, on the Path of Light neither side whatever maybe, “good or bad” has value, since they made up from energy, express energy. MEST IS MEST. OH, to be or not to be!
Very well put. I have been looking at this very same thing for a while now. I agree with you on several levels as follows:
1. I am wondering if it is the basic comm cycle which synchronizes the physical universe? – So elementary.
2. I used to read the LRH def of “pleasure moment” and gave it sort of a half ack without understanding its aberrative significance. Well, I must agree with you wholeheartedly about the aberrative value of the pleasure moment. I love how you wrote it, “The pleasure moments pulls the person in over and over again like vanilla ice cream.” -Perfect!
3. With-out so many considerations in your own universe, you don’t automatically acknowledge the considerations in my universe. This lack of acknowledgement can have different results in my universe. A couple of them are as follows:
A. If I have no service facsimile to key-in, then the “lack of ack” only prompts me to look. My own consideration is revealed to me and poof-gone!
B. If I key in a service fac, then I begin to feel the urge to fight to make self right and you wrong for not agreeing.
C. This is why I postulate the synchronizing value of the comm cycle, the acknowledgement being one component part.
D. When one person reduces the GPM, the GPM is reduced for everyone. So here in a few sentences, I have made arguments for both One-ness and for Many-ness. I think I agree with Valkov in that it doesn’t matter too much which it is. At least not at the moment and not from this part of our journey.
4. I so agree with your statement that on the Path of Enlightenment maybe neither “good or bad” has value. I am certain you are right about that one. The polarizing opinions of goodness and badness are lynchpins to the physical universe. The very thought of it makes my stomach twist, and not in a good or bad way! haha!
Chris Dear dont use abbreviations I dont have tech dic. and I have not taken many courses, just what was mandatory, the material to go full OT7. Of course I had taken the basic courses. I was on the gammar course 3 weeks, I could not comprehand the stracture, 6 weeks an Applied S,cholastic do you know there is 32 different defenation of “of”? I had to clear every one. I can hardly spell. I dont have logical side I dont have learning abilities. I cant book learn. I dont no onefull song, just a line here and there. I type with one finger only. The IQ test left side of the brain is logical the right side is art, the Spiritual side I only have one side here the IQ can not be measured it is not measurable. The test was in the U.of Washington. So Abbrevations is like greek. Mytery. The knowledge I have is from other place other time,[ no time existed there], different Universe.And I dont have memory. I am new here, only 2500 years. Thanks! Elizabeth
Oops, when I posted the comment below about recommended reading, this comment of yours about your reading ability hadn’t been posted yet.
But I must say, you do seem to be able to read and grasp the written posts on philosophical matters. So maybe it depends on interest being high enough! 🙂
Marildi.
“But I must say, you do seem to be able to read and grasp the written posts on philosophical matters. So maybe it depends on interest being high enough!”
I looked up the word GRASP, To be sure too understand the meaning and see if I am correct. Yes i can read, I can write also. But What I do is best I duplicate as-in in a instant what I read. Your statement indicates it is you who have not grasped what I have written so far, none Knowledge has no hight, it has levels which is in reality of the being.
Elizabeth, I got the wrong idea – sorry about that! I’m on the reality level that written communication involves the via of words, definitions and grammar. And from what you wrote, I thought you meant that you have trouble with those things. I was guessing that English might not be your first language, maybe French (from your last name), which might then cause some difficulty with English.
Anyway, no “put down” was intended, I assure you! I just misduplicated what you meant and wasn’t equating that with YOU or your overall abilities. 🙂
P.S. When I said it “depends on interest being high enough,” I meant – interest being of A HIGH DEGREE OR AMOUNT = high interest (which I feel can often get a reader through in spite of any language difficulty).
I certainly didn’t mean “interest at a HIGH REALITY LEVEL,” but I can see how it could have been read that way – by anybody. That’s the rouble with language – the same words can mean different things! Anyway, hope you didn’t think I meant that.
hahaha! Sorry about the abbreviations. I try to never do that but sometimes when I write some abbreviations just slip out – curse words, too.
Some of us were discussing why it is that we all can see the same things in MEST. How is it that we can coordinate that MEST can hold still for us and be viewed by us the same way all over the MEST universe.
My question is if, as we have already been taught in Scientology, that affinity reality and communication are the component parts of understanding? And if this is so, can it be that it is simply that we communicate about what is real to us and this agreement is the cornerstone of reality? No more or less?(As we were already taught as Scientologists)
I hate being the moron – all the funny looks that I get and all. My question to you is not a “scientific” one. It is directed at your voluminous solo auditing experience into the Terra Incognita.
Is Affinity, Reality, & Communication the Great Solution to Understanding MEST?
Chris,
“Is Affinity, Reality, & Communication the Great Solution to Understanding MEST?”
Not only understanding but that is as-ising if it is done in sessions. Cogs galore!!
It was my solution. I have written that up in the form of a major cognition. The simplicity of is so simple it is almost incomprehensible [long word] My reality is on the simplicity it has no value, We are used to have great complications, contenual problems. So the simple answers, one can by passes, overlook easily. Please read the Cognition which is posted in my blog. “To walk the walk of solo auditor #2” Bu the way Vinaire is right i am touchy Not so bad as used to be, but I dont claim perfection, If i would be perfect than what? how would I learn from my own short commings, my mistakes, ignorance, I have so many considerations to work on, the only salution i have for that, Since I am on Infinite being definitely have time to correct my major short commings of which even I know. But I wont be able to as-is otheres considerations. So I never be perfect. The trill of being in this universe, total joy, knowing I dont need to be perfect! Chris go read the article!
PS: I would love it if you or somebody else shred the above view points apart, that would be fun, so I too could have different view points
. . . not much “shredding” but I wrote what I could that I thought pertinent. I HAVE been working on these concepts for months. I laughed at your writing “someone knocking” on your blog.
http://elizabethhamre.wordpress.com/2011/05/20/eating-in-theta-universe/
“To be or not to be” oh, to have the choice! Now that for me would be the rehabilitation of the game.
Hi Elizabeth. Try as I might, I couldn’t find anything to shred either. No shredding, no fun, oh well. 😉
But I did have a thought about your interest in other viewpoints. You mentioned somewhere that you have not read a lot of LRH, and I was thinking – now THERE is where a lot of related viewpoints can be found! I wonder if you have read (or done so very recently) Scientology 0-8, The Book of Basics, which contains:
The Factors (“the summation of the considerations and examinations of the human spirit and the material universe” LRH)
The Axioms (“the central considerations which have been agreed upon” LRH)
Or maybe your “item” would be:
The Q’s (“…the level from which we are now viewing, which is a common denominator to all experience which we can now view”; “the top level from which we are now working, the highest echelon from which all other things are derived. Knowledge is a pyramid and knowledge as a pyramid gets itself a common denominator which evaluates all other data below it. At this top point of the pyramid, we have we have what could be called a Q…” LRH)
I would love to hear how you would relate these basics to your own discoveries.
Marildi
“I would love to hear how you would relate these basics to your own discoveries”
I do not relate to any of the material you mention above.
I don’t own one book, one tape or material in any form,[ When Silvia was she was here,few weeks back,shehas put some material into my computer from LRH which I have not looked at so far I have no idea
under which stone is hidden for safe keeping. She also brought six plastic containers which I believe are tapes but I have not taken off the plastic wrappers, so I have no idea what is inside.
From the beginning and from 73, no matter what I read had cognition and that included the TECH Dic.
I read every word in that Dic. I had to look up the definitions in different Dic.
I cognised on every meaning.
So you can see I confronted Ron’s concepts by cognation that concept become mine but in different form=reality of my own universe My own knowledge was realigned not his.
I was and I am still burning, on fire, with desire to know more.
I have found, by looking at one’s own universe and dissected every thought, consideration, idea, on every subject of mine and the considerations of others, of which I known of, therefore they too are mine [ simply because I know about] confrontation, examination to the tiniest details we are the only one since we are the one who created all that lovely mass..
I have learned the basics well. [The basic can and will remove by confrontations, as-ising all the MEST. And have for self.]
How to confront, how to list, what is the ARC B really means, [The MEST is nothing but one huge ARC B. That is the reason for existence of each individual self-created universe.]
What are and how the obverts and withhold work.
How the use of buttons the “suppress”, opens up the well hidden forgotten, till now invisible items, appear in light and can be confronted. I have learned that every experience no matter what happens in one’s own life=universe, is nothing more than a lesson to confront to learn from.
Because no matter how filthy, dirty, bad unreliable is that item, in effect the layers peeled off by confrontation there is priceless jewel in the form of cognition=knowledge is there.
Loved the problems the troubles, bring them on I have shouted at the Universe.
I received what I asked for, had plenty of.
But what a gift each have brought, knowledge of incomparable magnitude.
LRH’s knowledge is his, stll belong and it is in his universe.
What I know is mine. I won’t compare his to mine. It would be not fair to either of us.
Of the basic knowledge how the MEST universe there are some alignments since the basic is the basic to the MEST. But In don’t know how his black cat looked to him and no one will ever know how mine look like to me.
So what I know now, I always have known but now I look at things in different light, I know how to duplicate, by as-ising.
Because I have confronted my universe=the knowledge I have had, by that confrontation new knowledge have re-aligned everything, have removed the false data, the lies, the enforced knowledge in form from, the implants. The immense amount of agreements, consideration which I have had in order to belong to, have to own, to be, to exists, be part of the game.
The values, the impotence’s were removed. The complications, the confusions, the unknown have gone.
What is the now? Not much, Intangible the knowledge one is Infinite
I have learned the basics well and used it well. No comparison is needed, there is no debate of my own on my own. I am just fine how others see they own black cat. Fun we having, yes?
Thank you very much. Exalting post. And thoroughly answers my question!
I really got that you absorbed LRH’s writings and made them your own – and view them in the context of your own reality. No way I can “shred” that! In fact, I have done something that may be similar – but on a gradient, on my own reality level. Which is to read and later re-read LRH. Each time, I find more and new meaning, peeling off previous “knowledge,” or lack of. I guess this is similar to how a person might be able to audit certain things again and again and get something more out of it each time. Anyway, I’m sure that with more auditing it will be as you have described, peeling off more and more layers of “knowledge,” with reality eventually becoming utterly basic.
Okay, one point of yours I might try to shred, just for fun – this idea that we can’t know what each other’s black cat looks like. I guess it’s possible that even what I see as “black” is not what black looks like to you. But, Elizabeth! This feels so lonely! Because it leads to – how can I ever know that anyone ever really gets any of my communications? Or vice versa. I guess it all comes down to KNOWINGNESS (as usual!) – that is, if I can believe the notion that occupying their space or becoming one with them, I would KNOW them and their universe. 🙂
Marildi,
One, never ever can be lonely That concept, consideration stems from the bank, it is MEST related. The “lonely” is created so the being wont leave the game the implant, That feeling-concept alone has enough power to hold the being keep the being connected, to remain, in the MEST. There is no such a thing as lonely or being alone. You believe the Earth is over populated? Well let me inform you……!!!!
By the way you can love my black cat and I can love yours. What I see is a beautiful being in a very pleasing soft body which have a little motor, which kicks in when one strokes the soft covering and emmanates lovely theta energy flows! Pure Magic!
No loneliness? Oh, good!
Good thought. I guess it’s just that so far, I am still anchored to the MEST universe and do want to play the game… But I hear you. And I loved your line, “You believe the Earth is over populated? Well let me inform you……!!!!” Funny!
I like your black cat too. That was a good example of how we exchange (and communicate) – our own creations. And a good example of how there is yet much to marvel (or create) in the physical universe.
Beautiful writing and work.
NED stands 4 New Era Dianetics and has to do with the body.I believe there is some validity to implanting and incident 2,(but not 2 the airplane/volcano part).But that incident didn’t happen 2 us any way?!It happened to the beings inhabiting the body.I have read to much 8008 maybe,but are we supposed to run out this “bank” in every new body we pick up? (i rather get myself in shape)
PS: about the above, the knowledge which is “ME”? why not debatable not even for my self? It, changes, shifts like the sands dunes of Sahara. I had one of the beautiful, glittering sandgrain an the palm of my hand yesterday and was a glorious sight to behold under the sun, where the hell is it now, where did I put it?
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/a-radical-new-view-of-the-upper-scientology-levels-ok-here-goes/#comment-4374
The following is a general statement. It is not directed toward anybody.
It is my opinion that a highly evolved person is beyond feeling “put down”. If a person easily feels “put down” and is usually very touchy then that person has a long way to go to be spiritually enlightened. That person is still very protective of some assumed self.
It is my opinion that OT levels simply stick one more heavily into a SELF.
One should let the self go.
.
Agreed.
Vinaire,
right, you are, but there is no perfection. if one judges where another being is, that consideration is measured to something again to ones own believes, knowledge.
I believe my univerese is perfact,
But that is only my consideration therefore it is.[ I am the only one who consider that] So is yours that is your consideration that your knowledge is perfact. that is the reason two universes should not be compared. When comparison enters that is judgement, open for debate. Than again we would take our boxing gloves out of the box. I agree nothing like a good round, something to learn from.
I don’t consider my knowledge to be perfect. That is why I continue to look and document what I observe as I proceed. I am willing to correct myself when I find inconsistency in my observations.
.
Is there an example?
Vinaire,
Sorry I have caused on MU.
I was saying my Universe is perfect, my knowledge is perfect.
BUT, there is a huge BUT!!!
That perfections only lasts till I hear or read something of which I dont know about or have different reality . Than the Perfection of my universe and knowledge is gone to Hell.
I am like a little kid in the candy store or in the toy shop.
That is better than mine, I want some of that, a kilo of this, or mine is broken I need to replace that,the wheel have fallen off.
Mommy!!!!!!! please by that one for me!!
Or, I am a prospector looking for gold, how one burns, one is on fire to find the that elusive glint!
Perfection in my universe lasts only for a fraction of a moment, the considerations changes like the river from one moment to another is only an experience. So is my spelling for you all who read my comments, but that is too part of my perfection.
Fun, great fun perfaction that it……….. What is perfaction? the very first glimps one has of anything before all the other consideration agreements an different level kick in.
Than again this is my reality,my perfection of the moment. Go for it you all shred it!!
Well said. And jolly!
“…the considerations changes like the river from one moment to another is only an experience. So is my spelling for you all who read my comments…”
Laugh out loud!
But again no shredding. 😦 Even you and Vinaire are in complete agreement, it seems – still no popcorn! 🙂
Hi, Vinaire. I thought of you in relation to my comment upstream about static vs. theta vs thetan. All of a sudden, your idea about as-ising a viewpoint didn’t sound so strange. That is to say, if what we are calling a viewpoint is the same as what we are calling a thetan, and if the idea I’m entertaining about the actual meaning of thetan (i. e. the actuality) is correct, i.e. maybe a thetan is a mocked-up viewpoint (“in a little bit of mass,” no less – per LRH) and as such CAN be as-ised. But I myself would add – leaving pure static, which you aren’t willing to assume at this point (if I have that right).
And this conception of mine could point more in the direction of oneness. Or not – maybe like Valkov said, it’s a moot point. Anyway, like I keep saying (harping on, ha ha) – depends on what exactly we mean by the little ol’ words we’re using to communicate! 🙂
My next essay addresses the subject of “words.”
.
I will definitely read it! I have a keen interest in words and language and if life had taken different turns I would probably be something of a wordsmith by now. I’ll watch for your essay. 🙂
The title for the Essay is LOOKING AT KNOWLEDGE. The commentry on “words” is within that context.
.
I searched on your site – Vinaire’s Blog – and couldn’t find it. Directions, please?
The following is a specific statement. It is directed to the Self. (imagine smiley icon here).
With all due respect to the beautiful-disaster of ‘semantics’ role in communication of this (verbally transcendental) subject at hand, I would suggest the notion that ‘what ought be let go of’ (as a practical matter in regard to our spiritual recollection) is the sense of the self as being a person. Not the sense of the self as being a Self.
Personhood is the great bine of Individualized Understanding of our Collective Spiritual Identity for the simple reason it attracts all sorts and manner of idiotic idea’s notions and conclusions that otherwise would not, and do not, appear. Which idea’s notions and conclusions show up in the experiences of our lives. Which is to say, Our Selves.
Which ‘added baggage'(i.e. psychological, emotional and or physical experiences arising from the fundamentally accepted, though factually false premise, as a practical sense of identity of being), constitutes a huge portion of the psychological territory that Isene, I perceive (and believe and welcome and hope for) is presently working to resolve (in terms of a relatively broadly applicable ‘applied philosophical science’). Or, restated,’a more intelligently sound, workable model’.
Bottom line: persons do not exist as spiritual identities (e.g. I am ‘Joe Doe’), Spiritual identities exist as persons (e.g. I am). Big difference with a powerful distinction here. Given the subject at hand.
To wit: In a nutshell, ‘the idea’ of entitiess, being ‘not-i’ identities, that are attaching themselves, for reasons of a spiritual-historic (chuckle) collective event’, or, for reasons of an individual fundamental (multiple lifetime) intellectual and emotional failing (for not knowing how to know, spiritually, ‘just yet’) is but a somewhat comical though creative means of expressing the greater underlying ideas that have to do with our timeless identity, which is to say, our timeless being.
Or visa versa if you prefer.
The discovery akin to that of fire, which comes like a bolt out of the blue, prior to the appearance of Dianetics and Scientology (and hopefully quicker thereafter) is the discovery that a ‘person’ is not only a temporarily-created composite of fragmented-points of view, of an author of it, but that ‘you are’ the author of it. Of one and all that appear in the temporary field of your eternal being. Firstly by way of interpretation (via truth), lastly by way of experience (via love).
And that’s what Siddartha knew. And knows.
And that’s what Hubbard knew. And knows.
And that’s what You knew. And know.
And I what I knew. And know.
Aw, forget it.
Lol.
Forget just elementary semantics, your post is requiring a lot of parsing (and chuckles) along the way. But I’ll roll up my sleeves…
By the way, is your name actually a cryptic misspelling? 🙂
Ahhh,’Person’! Another one of those words which from the time of it’s derivation, has now developed a completely opposite meaning….
PERSON: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person
A person (plural: persons or people; from Latin: persona, meaning “mask”
“Prior to the advent of Christianity, the word “persona” (Latin) or “prosopon” (πρόσωπον: Greek) referred to the masks worn by actors on
stage. The various masks represented the various “personae” in the stage play, while the masks themselves helped the actor’s voice resonateand easier for the audience to hear. In Roman law, the word “persona” could also refer to a legal entity.
In his work, De Trinitate, Tertullian became the first person recorded by history to use the word in a quite different way: to signify a being that is, at least in principle, complete, autonomous and fully responsible for his own acts.”
Thus ‘person’can mean 1. A ‘mask’, an identity one assumes for the time being, for a specific purpose perhaps just for the hell of it, and 2.the person himself,the authentic being, the ‘real self’, the one who wears the mask(s).
Very nice reply Valkov. Thank you. I find the subject of ‘personhood’ fascinating (and appropriate for this thread) as it lies at the heart of self-identity, which lies at the heart of OT phenomena, from my point of view. Perhaps if I can clarify a few of my perceptions/interpretations regarding the subject (of a person), and the importance of it, you (and or any others) can/will offer some additional insights?
Notwithstanding Tertullian’s arguably astute alteration (or elevation) of the conventional use/definition of the word ‘person’, it seems to me in the absence of an individuals specific awareness of, and conscious acceptance of, Terts ‘newer’ definition, the older definition of what ‘a person’ is, stands. Which strikes me as being fundamentally problematic in regard to individualized spiritual transformation. Long before the level of being OT comes into play.
If I recall correctly Mr. Hubbard implied, if not flat out stated, that a person ‘is’ the thetan, yes? And even whether if so, or if not, absent any additional specific scientology data on the old vs the new definition of that word, which word near universally lies at the heart of ones sense of self-identity (i.e. self-definition) such an un-clarified stable-datum is fraught with self-deception and danger, in terms of spiritual self-realization.
One specific phenomena of just such a danger of the word person being misunderstood, would be (and is) for example, a manifestation of an individual that has defined themselves as being OT (with unshakable and absolute certainty), while factually possessing no OT abilities, whatsoever at all. Which renders their self-definition a delusion, as a spiritually practical matter, which delusion they are deeply unaware of. A Spiritual Identity assumed, but not real. Which false assumption is not without cost.
If and when we take apart the traditional definition of the word ‘person’, piece by piece, we come to the realization that a person is a figment of the imagination of the spirit (or postulate of the thetan). And a temporal one at that. Nothing more, nothing less. An effect. In the absence of such an individual investigation into the meaning of the word ‘person’ however, we unwittingly accept it as being a valid identification of the self. And equate it being the identification of spirit (or thetan). Which error is akin to mickey mouse imagining that ‘he is’ walt disney, rather than being walt disney, knowing that he is merely appearing as being mickey mouse.
One can witness the antics of numerous (self-proclaimed) OT’s, which demonstrates such truth in spades.
lamoore
Whew.
And wow.
So much philosophical truth, neatly and effectively packed into one intricate and playful, beautiful dance of language. I applaud you!
(You even stayed on topic! LOL)
Whether you call it “the sense of self as being a person” or “the sense of self as being a self” it seems to be looking at the same thing, only the number of layers loaded on the basic viewpoint may be different.
.
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/a-radical-new-view-of-the-upper-scientology-levels-ok-here-goes/#comment-4378
Well that is one way of looking at it. Another way of looking at it is that a highly evolved spiritual person wouldn’t covertly show their hostility by carefully referencing their target with hyperlink then making a snide comment under the guise of “not directed at anybody.”
If you think Elizabeth is being too tough on you, I think it is probably fine for you to say it. At least it would be okay with me.
In your experience, which OT level that you did would you say stuck you the most heavily into yourself?
Well you guys have totally lost me, on this matter of ‘self’ or ‘Self’ or whatever. Here are some common definitions of ‘self’. Which ones do you suggest be given up?
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/self
1. The total, essential, or particular being of a person; the individual: “An actor’s instrument is the self” (Joan Juliet Buck).
2. The essential qualities distinguishing one person from another; individuality: “He would walk a little first along the southern walls,
shed his European self, fully enter this world” (Howard Kaplan).
3. One’s consciousness of one’s own being or identity; the ego: “For some of us, the self’s natural doubts are given in mesmerizing
amplification by way of critics’ negative assessments of our writing” (Joyce Carol Oates).
4. One’s own interests, welfare, or advantage: thinking of self alone.
1. the distinct individuality or identity of a person or thing
2. a person’s usual or typical bodily make-up or personal characteristics she looked her old self again
good self (or selves) Rare a polite way of referring to or addressing a person (or persons), used following your, his, her, or their
4. one’s own welfare or interests he only thinks of self
5. (Philosophy) an individual’s consciousness of his own identity or being
6. (Philosophy) Philosophy (usually preceded by the) that which is essential to an individual, esp the mind or soul in Cartesian
metaphysics; the ego.
This seems to be a question of how do you conceptualize your own existence?
I have a couple of other comments on your comments,Vin, which I’ll post separately.
However, in the context of any given definitions of ‘self’ it makes no sense to give any of them up.
It would seem to be an imposition of a limitation on oneself, rather than an expansion of one’s ability and beingness. If one is not supposed to be ‘one’s self’ then what is one supposed to be? Something or someone else?
Valkov, I agree that each of these conceptions are useful in expressing the respective idea/concept you want to emphasize or single out.
But here’s a win I had looking them over. I think each of them fits into one or another of the types of definitions listed in the Logics.
Descriptive definition: one which classifies by characeristics, by describing existing states of being.
Differentiative definition: one which compares unlikeness to existing states of being or not being.
Associative definition: one which declares likeness to existing states of being or not being.
Action definition: One which delineates cause and potential change of state of being by cause of existence, inexistence, action, inaction, purpose or lack of purpose.
(Isn’t that analysis brilliant of LRH?)
Anyway, an application I thought about might be the terms I’ve been thinking about lately – thetan and viewpoint. Seems to me that the definition of thetan is a descriptive definition of self and that of viewpoint is an action definition of self. That’s as far as I got, but it’s now 11:00 pm here…zzzzz
P.S. Or maybe it’s the other way around?
It seems absolutely brilliant to me, who am a very concrete person.. I have always been amazed at how well he could think on highly abstract levels.
Yes, never ceases to amaze.
Here are a couple of links to some good short Wikipedia articles about the concept of “self”:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self
Good synopsis of Carl Jung’s ideas on ‘self’ among other discussion, here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology_of_self
Here is an excerpt from recently published letter by Phil Spickler that may be relevant, as he speaks in it of “ego”:
> > “Speaking personally :
The accumulative effect of putting a being at cause of all the unwanted conditions
in their life, by concentration on Flow Two, namely, what they have done or caused, and are now
consciously or un-consciously withholding, has the effect of peeling off layers of valences. Valences assumed,
to acommodate actions or non-actions, deemed so discreditable, by
consideration, that the being no longer wishes to be what they were
being, when the dis-creditable occurred.
Gradually the being will start the path back to being what they were before living
a life that took them further and further away from their pure and radiant, native state.
The degree to which the above is accomplished is the degree of result that the person you are auditing will attain in the direction of recovering the considerations that caused their personal dwindling spiral.
This understanding will help auditors to audit, since it will make it easy to see
what humans, in general, are suffering from.
Auditors with that vision are able to see their pcs, as they might be, when they recover from the considerations they formed about being at cause and the effects of their cause, that have brought about a loss of self esteem in a most basic manner.
Having reached a state where I was un-afraid to be without a defensive structure built
to hide behind, I can report that such a state makes life seem quite different than when I was
viewing it through the gun ports of my fortress.
Its a naked, but imperishable feeling, that words can only hint at.
Compassion is a word that points toward that which I am attempting to express.
As a being is stripped of the many valences that make up the Ego—- the Ego diminishes as
the real Being re-emerges and regains a sense of self as something that cannot be harmed.
In another letter I hope to tell about life after the Death of the Ego ( the false I ).
Best to all,
Phil
OK. It is the subject of self that seems to interest me currently. I plan to apply to it what I have written in KHTK 13: LOOKING AT KNOWLEDGE. It seems to be a viewpoint that hardens as an ego. The hardening layers are the various considerations fixed in place. Beginning considerations seems to be the viewpoint reflecting on itself as being a thetan, soul, etc., or even contemplating on a native state. These considerations get fixed in place as a basic identity. Yes, a thetan to me is an identity. God is also an identity. The basic identity may then express itself as many, many more identities as it starts to acquire more and more layers of considerations. These are being referred to here by Phil as valences. One need to look at these layers and let them unstack themselves. Being non-resistive and non-judgmental are the key aspects of looking. Please see KHTK 1: INTRODUCTION TO LOOKING and other KHTK issues.
.
It would be interesting to contemplate on self as a viewpoint and how it manifests itself in the first place.
I would also like to investigate what various philosophers have said about the self. I have started with Rene Descartes here.
Comments on Descartes’ Works
.
Valkov, The bellow alines, with my reality, Thank You.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self
Thanks Elizabeth. I really like this section in the second link, on ‘Jungian understandings’, so here’s the whole thing:
“In Jungian theory, the Self is one of several archetypes. It signifies the coherent whole, unifying both the consciousness and unconscious mind of a person. The Self, according to Jung, is realized as the product of individuation, which is defined as the process of integrating one’s personality. For Jung, the self is symbolized by the circle (especially when divided into four quadrants), the square, or the mandala. The Wise Old Woman/Man can also serve as ‘a symbolic personification of the Self’.[9]
What distinguishes Jungian psychology from previous iterations is the idea that there are two centers of the personality. The ego is the center of conscious identity, whereas the Self is the center of the total personality—including consciousness, the unconscious, and the ego. The Self is both the whole and the center. While the ego is a self-contained little circle off the center contained within the whole, the Self can be understood as the greater circle.
The Self besides being the centre of the psyche is also autonomous, meaning that it exists outside of time and space. Jung also called the Self an imago dei(image of God). The Self is the source of dreams and often appears as an authority figure in dreams with the ability to perceive the future or guide one in the present.”
I relate this to Dianetics theory about “AP” and “BP”. The “self” includes both. It is the ‘whole person’. BP is a vast ocean of theta upon which AP (the ego, the worldly identity) floats like a little child riding an elephant. No, more like a flea on an elephant’s back!
BP is Georg Groddeck’s “It”.
Notice Jung’s definition of ‘individuation’ is quite the opposite of Hubbard’s definition of the same word.
AP = aberrated personality
BP = basic personality
From DMSMH (Dianetics).
Valkov.
that “bellow” did not look right, so I look it up, the word, below= under, that what i meant. I bet all of you have fun on my account on my perfection. The problem is or was,in hungarian we do not need to spell, we write the same way as we pronounce the words, yet I was the worst in my class writting in hungarian. I could not spell where one not needed to spell. The left side was missing already, born without.
It’s a game – OK, what did Erzebeth say here? I don’tmind.
Because your intention is clear, your meaning comes through clearly. Here is a song and picture you might like:
RIPPLE by Robert Hunter music by Jerry Garcia
If my words did glow with the gold of sunshine
And my tunes were played on the harp unstrung,
Would you hear my voice come through the music,
Would you hold it near as it were your own?
It’s a hand-me-down, the thoughts are broken,
Perhaps they’re better left unsung.
I don’t know, don’t really care
Let there be songs to fill the air.
Ripple in still water,
When there is no pebble tossed,
Nor wind to blow.
Reach out your hand if your cup be empty,
If your cup is full may it be again,
Let it be known there is a fountain,
That was not made by the hands of men.
There is a road, no simple highway,
Between the dawn and the dark of night,
And if you go no one may follow,
That path is for your steps alone.
Ripple in still water,
When there is no pebble tossed,
Nor wind to blow.
You who choose to lead must follow
But if you fall you fall alone,
If you should stand then who’s to guide you?
If I knew the way I would take you home.
La dee da da da, la da da da da, da da da, da da, da da da da da
La da da da, la da da, da da, la da da da, la da, da da.
Valkov, this is beautiful. And very fitting.
Valkov, as you can see I have been reading your links and commenting on self on my blog and here.
.
@ Vinnie:
“It is my opinion that a highly evolved person is beyond feeling “put down”. If a person easily feels “put down” and is usually very touchy then that person has a long way to go to be spiritually enlightened. That person is still very protective of some assumed self.”
Don’t be so hard on yourself Vinnie.
The above seems like an unnecessarily demanding standard. Maybe even a false standard.
Seeking to be ‘highly spiritually evolved and enlightened’ may, after all, be just a status-seeking egoistic trap.
I also recall when I worked in psych, we took the view that if we felt ‘put down’ by someone, it could well be because we were perceiving, through our emotional apparatus, the person’s actual intention to put us down.
This is a very subjective area, of course.
And about this:
“It is my opinion that OT levels simply stick one more heavily into a SELF.”
Poor Geir. He must be pretty heavily stuck into a SELF, huh? Having done all those OT levels that he has….
😉
Vinaire; I want to thank you. if not for your comment, Valkov article in which there is a word Defence Difencive. I never looked at that word before, a Gift from Heaven. Thank you all. So far I have look at in sessions every kind walls, barriers, invisible and solid, yet not once I ever thought of defence, diffending whatever. Great win.+cog.
You comment here says a lot about you, Elizabeth. Not that it was surprising, just wanted to say so. 🙂
And thank you back!
GEIR Isene You have asked.
•”If the theory behind the OT levels as laid out by LRH is true, then we would have a large number of beings turning up for auditing that were ready to run a very different process than the ordinary Bridge (as covered in OT VI material). But we do not see that. Except for some loose rumors, not one single being has been verified as having showed up out of the estimated more than 200 million. This is a discrepancy like no other.
Since I have not searched for others and not known if others searched and have found the way out of the Confusing mass: the OT levels. I have spent my years doing the search alone.
As I learned and know what works and not only for me but on any one who is in the MAST who has the human considerations and the believes that they are Human. Human that concept is a concept more likely the very title of the implant. “HUMAN IMPLANT; how it works, what are the effects, how to download etc..
The OT Materials were great disappointment, left me on the cloth line out there in the cold rainy day, wet and shivering.
I did not have the OT III Material; I had to fake it to be allowed to continue with the rest of the OT levels.
After all was done,[ OT levels] I was more than disappointed, I could describe my condition, lost, confused, upset, depressed, totally unhappy, let down, empty, since my hope, my dreams were not realized. End of the road? Bull dodo!
But I have had great wins at the start when audited by field auditor than in the Vancouver Mission, and the lower levels at ST Hill.
When I got back home to here in Vancouver, I taken out the Emeter and started solo again, I had to.
I knew, I had great wins I learned a lot; MY track was totally open not just in understanding of MEST but past into the real universe to the Theta universe.
I started; it was not easy since there were no directions to fallow. Yes there were in the form of knowing that the tech worked, the taste of cognition lingered in my universe.
And the intriguing knowledge that I lived before had other lives!!
Therefore there is a continuum a future, more than just waiting for the cremation of the body. [How many times I have recalled, I was seating top of my own grave as a GHOST and wondering what next? ]
But I have worked diligently, and discovered I could do my own listing, than I cognized on the item which is written and used by every person being ever audited but I am not sure just how few realizes that question alone could and can dismantle any implant all the considerations, all the agreements in other word: the WHOLE MEST.
But no one care to know [two OT doing fantastic because my discovery plus ones OT’s wife who is “only” clear. She left the church in total mass, now is having time of her life and handling her own case her own universe. When anything comes in to her life she confronts it and bingo. She is on way again!
But I am not being heard of what I have achieved since it was not written by RON. “BUT I do use the tech in a very simplified version.!!!!!!!!!!
I stepped off the PATH OF CONFUSION so what I ever I do cannot be right.!!!!!!!!!
The opinions who totally into the tech, can “quote” every word ever been written by LRH, YET they case is stuck in the writing the learned words. But are they right? Lets examine their case levels.
One thing we, who use this method we know that no levels needed, numbered and each individual can take responsibility for they own universe.
Yes, I would alter the bridge; there would be no numbered items.
Each being who is reaching for the so called “TOP OF THE CHART” in my believe, everyone one is strong, powerful, capable to handle their own universe.
Otherwise they would not be looking, would not have the need for the search.
THE PATH of KNOWLEDGE is wide open, for anyone to walk an.
Thank You. Elizabeth
Marildi, no problem if there would be any I would be very happy to solo out the item to have one more cog. What Grammer? I cant comprehand writting structure, it is a learned, tought form. Not having logical side= human implants do give interesting experiences. But they have become my learning experiences. The understanding how the MEST Universe is alined with the Spiritual Theta Univere, in my own reality. Thanks, and I do love you.
PS: Hamre is Norwegian name. Elizabeth in Hungarian is Erzsebet
Well, I love you too!
I get what you mean, lack of grammar was sort of a blessing in disguise for you. That’s the way so-called “stops” often work, don’t they,
Norwegian (like Geir!) and Hungarian, huh? I’m Scottish and Russian, mother’s mother from Russia and father from Vancouver BC (like you!). I only ever met one other person (other than my own relatives) who was that combination. Yours is probably unusual too.
Thanks, “Erzebeth”. (I’ll have to call you that once in a while.) 🙂
Geir, are you solo-auditing?
Nope.
However, I am going to do my Ls in the very near future.
Oh, wow!
Do you mind saying where/which auditor?
Pierre in a couple of weeks (as he is conveniently coming to Norway – otherwise I could have chosen Ray or Otfried or…)
Thank you. Love your openness, Geir. You don’t seem to have many reasons to “withhold” things. 🙂 Freedom of information is your consistent motto.:-)
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/a-radical-new-view-of-the-upper-scientology-levels-ok-here-goes/#comment-4409
I haven’t finished writing this essay LOOKING AT KNOWLEDGE yet. It is going to be the next essay. It is not uploaded to the blog yet.
.
Okie dokie.
By the way, could you go back to posting under the comment, unless maybe it gets too long and unwieldy. That way the whole sub-thread is before our eyes, and also we don’t have to go back and forth and lose our place. I speak for the non-techies. 😉
Unfortunately, I can’t do that when I am at my laptop. The “Reply” doesn’t show up on it. So, I use this alternate method.
.
Got it. Okay, but try to post your replies on your desktop when you can. You don’t want to lose your fans. 🙂
Geir, I have posted a article About the future of the Earth as I have seen it. Silvia asked to post this addition in her blog, If you care to have your readers to read this please post it here to. This is not to cause fear but to ponder.
Thanks Silvia! Since it is the future I have seen,
The Ghost, of the Planet Earth. Read the rest in my blog.
I recommend that all who wish to attain some different level of reality.
Those who wish to get out of the MEST Universe, get going on all levels, take some courses have auditing than solo.
I don’t predict the so called “END OF THE WORLD.” It has its natural life span. Same as our self’s and other souls, persons, spiritual beings whatever…. Who have on ownership, a name tag connected to a body.
I have not seen the “YEARS” the amount, till the Earth will be here. That would have the same importance as spiritual beings having a body and years.
The Earth has it so called” Soul”, it is a spiritual being.
Ask, you can locate her and many other beings who believe they too are the Earth,
I have audited a few.
I have given session to “Mother Nature” you should have heard her Cognition before she left the sector!!!
Weather changes? I think about it.
The souls who believe in aesthetics who are the Earth, that wonderful energy flow which you experience in the woods, in the wilderness, when out there one can experience of the “oneness”, the wonderful beings who losing their harmony because of the pollution, disruptive energy created by the humans of self and in solid form , which overwhelms the Natural collective spiritual energy of the Earth.
Go to my blog and do read the article, and ponder where one would be if not as on OT look on from distance and have the ability to create?
Elizabeth Hamre.
From Chris: he would like to have different reality on the Theta Universe after reading my last post, his question is unique. Geir, if you care to post for others to read, there could be interest on the item.
” But back to your lovely story. Beyond the enjoyable environment, tell me about what we do, an example of an activity in which to participate in that future. I want to say “games,” but in your creation – well, maybe you can say more to adjust my reality to synchronize with your own. Then I will have a better idea. The patter of life, away from the MEST universe, away from the “eat” and the “eaten” leaves me blank. And I am interested in your story about your vision of the future.”
Chris I don’t know your track, I have no idea what is your basic personality. Where the road takes you after washing away the dust from the long journey,in form of experiences of what have you collected.
When you will have your final cognition, your realization who you are, where is your place in the universe,
The view point from which from that moment on you will view the present, the future, that view point will be the source of your games.
That moment is in ones reality the greatest moment, since one entered into the Physical universe to experience to play the game.
That moment when the circle will be completed you will touch the entry point again into the Universe.
But there will be the difference you will have knowledge. You will know, understand your power, and know the reasons, the whys and the how’s. You will simply know.
The game you will play? What ever you will see and you will decide if you care to play or not, be the Creator or all the players at the same time or just cheer on the side line. Chris, there is no time in the Theta Universe, How long is forever?
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/a-radical-new-view-of-the-upper-scientology-levels-ok-here-goes/#comment-4446
Hey Valkov,
I sure agree with this. Elizabeth’s intention is clear as a bell ringing. She complains of her accent, etc., but when reading her words – I don’t hear it and understand her just fine.
Write me sometime at christhompson85301@gmail.com
Valkov. Thank You. I do!
I am lost for words than………..!
Than the springs bubbles up,
[Have you seen a spring in the meadow where water bubbles up from depth of the earth among the tall green grasses and there are daisies, buttercup, bachelor buttons and here and there a red poppy? Have you experienced the fragrances of the heated earth and the greens?
The sounds of beating of thousands of tiny wings, the insects, that sound envelops the terrain becomes one with all, the creation, the harmony, beauty in abundance!
As one kneels beside the spring and looks at the silver bobbles as air too is bubbling. The bubbles, like liquid silver polished by the rays of the sun, you bend down but don’t want to touch that purity with your hand and you drink, slurp the liquid , the water is sweet and cool, you drink and drink you want to inhale all which is bellow the earth and the terrain around you.
Self-do not exists, there is the sunlit terrain the sound of the harmony, the breeze kiss you, holds you in embrace. Here one loses the self the human side, all considerations. Times stops and there’s only the meadow………..]
The words the water flows once more and carries me on its back and I experience again the bubbling evanescent of the creation the life-force my own creation. Good grief, Elizabeth there you go again!
Here at this blog I have found friends, not in sense they are new to my universe, since I know there is no such a thing in the universe as strangers.
Only different considerations, like opposite, agreements and playing the game “opposite, different side’” the considerations that such a thing exists as opposition or distance, strangers etc..
Simply by eliminating such viewpoints, we discover we again have reality on what others believe in we have experiences to share.
We can enjoy being in others universe once more look around there and discover their knowledge which they have collected on their long journey. We have our friends back again and we walk on the same Path. Thank You, I am learning .
Oh, Elizabeth. You may not always spell the words correctly but the words you PICK are from the most beautiful flowers of language. (This in itself is a sort of mastery of words that few have.) And then you COMBINE those words into such exquisite bouquets, tossed to the lucky reader.
You see how you inspire, up towards your aesthetic wave length? 🙂
Marildi, far away there is a great library, in there in one magnificently ornate room on long tables there many huge books open, volumes and volumes, the collection of my writtings which are still existing. I was honored by others who have valued my words and bound the daily articles, the pages into beautifuly illustrated, and painted wonder. The wonders as i have seen the Universe and through my reality i have given the readers the adventure in different reality. The is one title for the many volumes,it is very simple and was given by otheres. ” Our Dreams” I am who is honored.
Delightful! I can easily “imagine” it.
+1
The first rule of communication must be to have something to communicate. Elizabeth has this in plenty.
Some people have something low-toned to say and try to prop it up with beautiful language. But if you have elegant concepts such as Elizabeth’s then the spelling words become less important.
Chris, your comment brought to mind the Art Series, which I just read not long ago. There is a communication to deliver, and then there is the tech for doing it. Both are needed, but per LRH “The communication is the primary target. The technical quality of it is the secondary consideration.”
I haven’t heard the Art Series mentioned in ever so long. And I love those writings!
Reading your comment reminded me that the definition of art as “technical expertise sufficient to create an emotional impact” wrote itself indelibly on my soul and I think with it every day. That one statement has taken mystery out of art for me and allowed me to enjoy every kind.
I haven’t heard anyone mention the Art Series in ever so long. LRHs definition of art as “technical expertise sufficient to create an emotional impact” is written on my soul and affects the way I look at things every day. I understand why I both enjoy and criticize every type of construct based on this.
Well, no wonder I recognized an Art Series concept in your comment.
And I agree, amazing the doors that are opened when truth is presented to you.
Chris, I was silent since 82 till last august.I was closet cleaning in the form of soloing. So much trash, that stuff was not even good enough for garage sale.
Since You are all so wonderful and cheering me on, I cant invite you and cook luch for you since you so far away in body. But I offer a morsel, not food for the body but the other kind!
Once upon a time, long ago and far away, in the Crab Nebula, when time had no meaning, or existence.
The domain of the Crab Nebula was under the protection of the Grand Wizard Wo-Y.
The balance the harmony was his, was Wo-y the Nebula or the Nebula have become Wo-Y?
There were many who lived played within that boundaries, after all it had many world, sun, galaxies with in the galaxies. Nebula is a very spacious playground.
There was every kind of games to be had, naturally, since it was part of the Universe, but solidity was yet have come into fashion.
The Wizard did not judge, held no viewpoints Wo-Y, was just simply there.
So life went on whatever, that was up to the players of the game to be, to do, to have or not, to each his own.
The Crab Nebula was well known throughout the universe as the loveliest creation in the Universe. Beauty in abundance.
Many had dropped their game in other part of the universe with that the their body which went with that game in order to be here and to join and , become the part of Wo-Y universe therefore they to have regained the purity of the soul, the innocence of self.
Within the boundaries games went on, continued. This story is about twins, brothers, and the lack of knowledge.
There were two brothers, twins, Patek and Shrapoo.
They were the handsomest pair of rouges the Universe ever seen and contained. In their travels criss-crossed the Nebula over and over they loved the chaos, the turbulent energy, to cause surprises, make thing vanish, or just move things which would not be move and hid items into nothing, behind invisible curtains.
In that they found great joy, to make things invisible. Of which did not belong to them. They played hard and had the right to do so. Up to a point where the pranks affected others who did not agreed to the same game.
What a mock up this two handsome men had! If there were female heart surly they have speeded up the beat in great speed at the sight of these culprits.
The brothers enjoyed the heavy energy the very opposite of the look the beautiful mock-up they presented. In their wanderings they have picked up, from someplace evil intentions, destruction, which did not allowed other games to be, to continue. Responsibility was not included in the games which the two were playing.
The turbulentions of their space have grown and the affects were noted by the Grand Wizard. The balance, the Harmony of the Crab Nebula becomes jeopardized.
There was small Planet among the many in the Nebula this small planet was called Gregoria. This beautiful creation was the heart and the very soul, the domain of the Grand Wizard, the inner sanctuary of the Crab Nebula.
Of course who ever wished to be there was welcomed too. The Planet was mostly a garden, lake, waterfalls and Great Hall in the gardens where art was expedited at all times. . For lovers of beauty and by creators who were beauty in self. Here in this garden where the magic was in pure form. Eons brought no change, here was for ever.
If one entered into the sanctuary of the Grand Wizard its pure power of the space melted away all other energy flows.
Here one could become self again the original the Intangible the Infinite. But there was one interesting thing about this sanctuary, in garden only the change could happen if the being who entered wanted the change.
The culprits, the beautiful rouges were transported into the garden by they own agreement.
There were few rules in the magical garden which in actuality lives in every soul.
Love of the game and the understanding no matter what one is doing it is only for a moment of experience. No more.
Therefore the solidity will never be., never be.
The beautiful culprits had more than one thing in common. Not only the beauty of their gorgeous mock, up the love of heavy energy to experience, the thundering energy flows, but love of sparkling gems. They sacked the universe collecting hording beautiful things. The “want”, to own, was they crime.
The twins each had a beautiful huge sapphire imbedded into the upper side in they left wrist. The stones were a perfect match same as they personalities.
In the garden the two appeared, but not in human form[ no solidity here existed yet in the Crab Nebula] they in an instant they have become monkeys in form.
Lesson 1: learn that all is a game! [No more lessons, since there is only one rule!]
You should have seen them as they rolled, wrestled by the lake become one big ball of brown fur rolled around in the green emerald grass, only laughter was heard and the flashing of the blue sapphire light could be seen..
Here the two have retuned and learned once more to know the meaning, love to play. As the so called time passed the Wizard looked on, observing the changes.
The energy flows of the twins when arrived were ball of grey energy mass. Now, he noted the grey has become transparent and then as more transformation was taking place the grey become less and less turned to white mist than the sparkles; the life-force was growing.
He noted the twins have become separated , Patek have changed and now was truly a beautiful spiritual being, the twin brother Shrapoo’s mock-up remained the same, as when he have entered the garden.
Wo-Y wondered what was happening what was the reason one brother have changed and the other not? Since they were identical in every way!
Grand Wizard looked on as Patek regained the Theta the Self and Shrapoo melted into the nothingness of the Universe. Into the Wizard universe, unknown, mystery entered.
As Patek looked on with silence as his twin disappeared, tears rolled down on his face [this was his first experience of loss from the many yet to come.] To where tears have fallen on the ground, for the first time there were flowers grown out of his loss, the Tears become Forget-Me-Not.
After a while the Wizard too has become a wanderer, searching for different games different reality.
He have found out because of understanding the TECH. There was only one being Patek, who mocked –up a playmate a twin.
And when he regained self he did not needed that mock-up any more to share the game and after all it was only a game!
. And The Grand Wizard, WO-Y?
Well, he had to solo Hell of a lot of hours to found the way back to the garden. You see the bread crumbs he left behind were crumbled by the passing of time.
He too learned what learning means. Now, after so many experiences were created and had, now he too truly understands what has happened in his garden. He knew that Patek a spiritual being created the twin, the self to play the game with. That creation was the dark mass and that dark mass which have disappeared, melted away in the magical garden. Nothing died, no one was gone. Just a game ended.
In my garden the Forget-Me-Not are in bloom. It is a small garden yet the universe is within.
Elizabeth, aka Wo-Y.
Happy Tears!
I am thinking that some of the charm of your writing can be lost if edited by another. Just continue in your own words – we’ll figure it out just fine.
Chris thank you, Thank God we finally got back to the original point “figure-figure”. I rub my hands in delight aha, a combinition of points and circles and lines……………
Charming, delightful, enchanting story! My favorite parts:
“There was only one being Patek, who mocked-up a playmate a twin. And when he regained self he did not need that mock-up any more…” This is right on topic and speaks to Geir’s original post. And speaks to my personal liking as well.
And the other favorite part: “Elizabeth, aka Wo-Y.” 😀
This is not confession, this here you read is on OT’s Life
Where IS no track, where there is no time!
Do have had many wonderful adventures but there is the other side!
You real think and believe I only walked under the halo, only in light?
In my wanderings wrapped;in cloak of power,
I searched for adventures far and wide
Since there was so much to have, so much to see most of all, many, many to be!
As I wandered, I walked among the many flowers, picked a large bouquet of greed,
For ever, I changed with that first breath,
no longer I wondered who I should be
I wished for greatness and fame,
I wished to be rich and truly I become vain
For long, I walked in the valley of that dark, the Devil was my only guide
I walked alone in the unknown and walked for long, long time
I set on his throne and his domain become mine,
Here, I was the king, my sceptre was the might,
Oh, how I loved that power, how I loved that bloody sight!
Wait till I write, how I, Attila have ridden the steppes of wide!!!
Aka.. aka…aka………..Elizabeth.
I look forward to the serving of each lunch to come!
The pounding of hooves….
And here is one from Mongolia. I can hear the horse in this one too. There is authentic Tuvan throat-singing in this one. Huun Huur Tu is a Tuvan group of musicians that tours the world. Being Huun, they are probably distant relatives of yours!
Valkov. Thank YOu!!!
From the first moment on the tears……….. the faces of my beloved brothers all who I lived with and the ones who I have had slaughtered.
I was transported. The half-naked warrior that was me and still I am as I have seen myself in the mirrored water.
I still have that strength, I am that warrior I am that power. This life, in the” now”, I used, but not the sword and whip, but the auditing questions were the deadly arrows which I have aimed at every consideration, and every agreement.
I have relentlesly hacked, ransacked, torn, shredded The MEST Universe apart! The fires which I have lit now are seen across the Universe!
As Attila, in agony, a tormented soul, that agony was handled in Dianetics
But the true healing of self as a soul not was to long back when my heart was returned.
Before that I was haunted and I haunted.
My Empty Heart
I have seen myself over the aeons
I have heard the sounds of my cry
As I have searched for the contents of my soul.
The contents of my now empty heart.
My sobs were the echo, the the emptiness
I have heard thousands of times
As I a lonely soul searched in vain
As I flown across the endless blue,
of the endless indigo night.
That infinite, that void, that blue night was the reflection
Of my now empty heart.
Here in this space here,
Only the sobs from the depth from my soul
Echoed among the stars.
Searched in highs and in the lows,
In every blade of grass,
In the deep waters blue,
In wintry days in icy nights.
Flowers have no secrets, birds sing they own songs.
I asked, addressed every tree, every cloud and each stone,
I asked every being living,
The quiet ones the dead, now unknown.
Relentlessly searched for eon’s asked millions of times
Please, do you know how could I find the contents of my empty heart?
PS: That life is one of the reasons I humbly ask for universal forgiveness.
Bu I have a far greater crime.
Valkov, one more transport please? Thank you.
Valcov will you be so kind and transport the picture and the words into my blog. I cant transport the vidio. Thank you.
TO All, who is in search for different reality, in search of they own Spring of Truth.
I do not write to attain, admiration, glorification, fame or to be applauded.
I have no need to tell tall tales of old and the past, I don’t write to glorify self of what I have done and to advertise the name tags which were on that body that past life.
But I will use my names, if I that will take to attain the purpose of my writing.
Since I know, Fame has great value in the MEST Universe.
That value is a motivator to do and to have!
I still write for the same purpose as I have written my fist article,
“To Walk the Walk of a Solo Auditor”
In last Augustus in Silvia’s blog that article, describes the changes, become my wins as I have summoned up Part of this life that is that story, 38 years of it.
The point was then and I still is
“ I WRITE IN HOPE TO INSPIRE”
every being who reads the adventures of on OT to continue on their journey of self-discovery to take the next step.
That decision is everything, half of the battle.
Every time I put that single letter down “I” that is an arrow pointing toward the Technology!
with that” I” when I write of, about, is only a very small sample what one can be, achieved in one’s universe where there is no limitation.
By taking one step toward ones goal, by taking courses being audited and to continue with solo after the OT levels
The “I “ the, meaning, becomes so different in the Theta Universe.
Yet, the “I” is only there because of the Technology, for the glorification of the Technology, to demonstrates it works and it is yours to use.
To regain your own magical Universe!
PS: wonderful acknowledgements the admirations I receive, now have very-very different meaning as it was in the past,now has value in different sesnse!
It is truly a humbling, to know I have attained the state which inspires and unites in the band of aesthetic, where reality seldome differs.
Elizabeth, our comments show that you are achieving your purposes here, and with the post articles on your blog too. Thank you!
Marildi, Untill one small shub reamains and cant move because the “solidity, of which its seed was planted” 2500 years back. Amends I need to make. Words hold more power and enslaves, kills more souls than the swiftness of sword. I have wielded the might of both.
I should say from the start that I do not believe in Scientology or even the existence of the soul. It is also my opinion that Scientology’s processes work (when they do) primarily due to the placebo effect, and that one’s own interpretation of “clear” or “ot” are what one will deem oneself to have achieved as a result of practicing Scientology.
I do believe that there are steps that any individual can take to help make that individual feel more at ease and more oneself.
In my teens I began researching the science of neuroplasticity as it might relate to generating long-term states of ease, wellbeing, and even (one might say) integrity. I figured that, if neuroplasticity is true, then it should be possible to push one’s personality in one direction or another as a function of exercising and practicing those behaviors which would be conducive to such brain changes.
For example, modern culture has a way of making us want to succeed and to fear failure. I realized that this social stigma is in many ways bad for me. By fearing failure, I decided I may be preventing myself from taking risks that could ultimately prove beneficial to my wellbeing. To make the proper neurological changes to rid myself of this irrational fear, I simply began to act as if I had no fear of failure.
I did the same thing with social embarrassment. For example, I used to have a proclivity towards shyness. To rid myself of this, I would walk up to strangers during the daytime and ask them which star was the North star (one of the more colorful examples).
I can truly say now that I have no fear of embarrassment. I have zero shyness. I can (and do) walk onto a stage and give a presentation in front of hundreds with literally zero hesitation or nervousness. Is this because I have altered the connections in my brain? In my opinion, it probably is. But of course that’s just my opinion, and I don’t have a way of proving this.
I have also found that contentment is just a thought away. By choosing not to dwell on factors that would otherwise cause me stress, I have reached a point where I automatically feel contentment essentially all day every day. This is not ecstatic happiness (like the feeling one might get after winning the superbowl), but a constant, simple ease. This must of course be balanced with a healthy regard for action. I should not, I feel, simply be content and not taking action. I like to think of it as being a large tree with large roots: the hidden roots represent the integrity and contentment, and the exposed body of the tree represents the actions. To me, being like a Buddhist monk is equivalent of the tiny shrub with wildly extensive roots: you can kick and pry that shrub and it will never budge, but the shrub does not have as many effects on the wellbeing of the fellow trees around it. (Of course, if you want to be the tiny shrub, by all means that is your choice! 🙂
It takes practice, but in my opinion anyone can, with training, reach the point where they have trained themselves to act with total integrity. These days, I speak and act openly and freely without hesitation in accordance to my internal value system, and if other people find anything unappealing in my behavior or personality, it does not bother me for even an instant.
I find it amusing that the Placebo effect is so easily dismissed or used as a way to discredit – rather than giving it due credit as the magic it truly is.
You may want to check out my article “On Will“.
Good choice of pseudonym.
What about the placebo effect intrigues you?
“I should say from the start that I do not believe in Scientology or even the existence of the soul.”
I wonder I wonder, and wonder why do you bother read this Blog?
Yes, that was my thought too, SolidarityWithin. You might find more kindred folks (not souls of course :>) in a Psychology-oriented blog… Probably a very high portion of the souls here know they are spiritual beings and know that at least some parts of Scientology work beyond any placebo effect. The disagreements are in the details, not whether souls exist.
Solidarity,
There’s nothing to believe in. Scientology is just a set of tools and practices some of which you have already discoverted or thought of and have already been doing.
You are not alone. There are many people who, like you, naturally have “their shit together” and find ways and techniques and practices and exercises to achieve the personal changes and growth they want.
You don’t “need” scientology. You might enjoy some parts of it, or find some ideas or practices useful. But you don’t “need” it.
I don’t “believe” in scientology either. But I do really enjoy listening to Hubbard’s lectures and usually get a new POV on some aspect of life from those. Naturally, since he has his own unique POV, his very individual ‘take’ on things.
Drop in any time!
Valkov,
There are many people who, like you, naturally have “their shit together” You so right. There are so many incradible and wonderful beings here and their shit is together.
SolidarityWithin, I enjoyed your post and thought you had some interesting viewpoints, and experiences. Would it surprise you to know that it actually sounded pretty “Scientological”?
Except for maybe one thing – your last paragraph, ending with “… and if other people find anything unappealing in my behavior or personality, it does not bother me for even an instant.” Let me chide you a bit and ask, isn’t that not unlike the Buddhist Monk or the tiny shrub with wildly extensive roots?
By the way, not everyone here is a Scientologist. Some once were, some never were. But many of those who read and post on this blog are Scn’s, so the first comment on your post may not have gotten you off on the right foot! But I’m sure you will be a welcome contibuter with comments like the majority of your post – once we get to know you, and if you are interested.
There are plenty of people reading this blog who are not Scientologists and are not interested in Scientology. JFYI.
And I don’t doubt it. I should have said the commenter may not have gotten off on the right foot “with some of the readers” here. With some others he probably got agreement!
P.S. If that sounded like I’m not in favor of many viewpoints being expressed – not so. Just the opposite. It makes for a good discussion.
Geir, JFYI. What is?
Just For Your Information
thanks, there is no level for ignorance, it simply exists! You made me laugh!
Geir, Good Morning to you. [morning here] Are interested to continue posting more of what I see and how I see the Universe. All of them of course stem from cognitions, some MEST oriented and some of them very new in reality. Please let me know. Elizabeth
go ahead.
Solidity!!!! The subject is The Solidity.
Ever since I joined the group and learned about matters great and small and what effects they have on a Spiritual Being, I was greatly interested in that intriguing item.- The Solidity.
The Solidity of the MEST Universe.
Most intriguing to find out and see how one created one’s very own Solid MEST Universe.
It was not easy; it was done little by little. I have worked for on it for eon and very hard.
Every new thought, every agreement, every consideration or disagreement, made it so!!!
Over the years one can solo only so much on little things like problems, aches and pains, loss of a toe nail, before one move on into wider and more interesting fields of considerations. Like, ask you shoes to walk to you.
I have been wanting to move through the walls, make things float about, do snow on a hot sunny day. Sit on the top of the mountain and look around, but without the body of course but its cold up there full of ice and snow to have my butt frozen off, oh, no!
Be a butterfly and feel the rays of the sun on my wings. Etc. But most of all – to be able to move solid objects, now that is a wonderful challenge for the solo auditor! Ah, I groan.
To make things solid: over the eons one has used, employed every possible means to achieve just that.
There are many secret ingredients, invisibly hidden factors, the so-called forgotten considerations. One is; that we all have agreed on “ not to touch” because the safety of the race depended on the Solidity!! We must have family tree continuum= time in MEST
Oh, I must not forget the GREAT TABOOS!!! Do not touch!!! Do not dissolve, or terminate, but make it certain to become permanent, therefore safely be there, for to be and have in the future.
So no magic of any kind or meddling were allowed to interfere with MEST. Or things will disappear on you and you with it, no wonder one can’t move objects. If we could than the Universe would not be solid under our feet.
Magic was outlawed long time back and the culprits were severely punished if they broke the law! They were banished into the invisible.
Many evenings I have sat here in my living room and worked (Solo, regular sessions, by the Tech) on the understanding of just how a solid object could be moved.
How could I make the prisms move on the chandelier without touching it with my hand? Nothing worked so far, since nothing moved. Or I thought it did not. You see, I saw things moving but I was looking with the eyes and through the eyes nothing have.
The illusion of solidity has remained because of the “EYES”. Out of hundreds of hours of work confronting the MEST, I have had many cognitions. But out of the many cognitions, one is worth the mentioning
COG: we look with the eyes, we have forgotten that we can see without better than with.
One’s home – no matter how small a room, the size of a cave or a palace – is created and filled with little or lots of objects in order to ensure the permanency, the existence and the safety for the being to have. The walls, having walls, holds great importance.
No matter how thin, or made of heavy carved stones, it serves the same – to give the safety for the being, to ensure the location, the solidity in space, in time.
Therefore the continuity of self to have and to be, let’s not leave a very important consideration, here in the home we keep the most valued possessions. Memorabilia, grandfather’s pipe, aunties scarf the shoes we had when young when we have danced!
You see, outside of the “HOME” things continually change, move, and disappear. One morning we look out and Good God we shout, who has stolen, where is my bike!
There are also the seasons, nature, others, beings, who, without our agreements are constantly changing things. Daily! They dare! We need the safety of the solid walls.
Never once when one looks out through the solid glass pane, does the terrain look the same. There are dangers out there, unexpected things which one can’t count on. The Things come and go, move about and one’s reality, “THE KNOW,” does not know the outcome.
So the Self, the Spirit has built safety, solidity and named it HOME. Even the name is solid since on that concept there is no misunderstanding. All beings know what it is and on that have agreement. The HOME becomes solid and safe. [Well, an occasional plate or book flying, grandmamma rolled off on the staircase, her hip…..]
And everyone will defend the “Home” with tooth and claw. Verbally or with weapons, it’s one’s choice if that is needed to do in order to keep it safe and permanent and solid in form. Cannons were invented for only for that purpose.
Walking through a wall, well, one can have a large bump on the nose, Outside of that, I have found in sessions, nothing more, with the body that is!!!
But searching for understanding, knowledge brings great rewards.
When one is confronting the MEST Universe one ends up in the Theta Universe
So the solid forms fall away, they lose their importance and solidity, and one can see beyond the solidity of MEST.[ Please do believe I can look at my neighbour now and I don’t have to visit her, by walk in through her door. But do I want, no, for what, she is on old thing same as I.]
The theta Universe is full of wonders and magic. It is where we are cause, it is where we never fail, where everything is the way we want it, our reality, which does not need to be compromised. It is where we truly belong. Perfection in every way, our real home!
I have many beautiful objects in my space. One is a large wood Snow Goose. Beautifully carved and painted. So a few evenings back, again I was working and wondering if I would ever be able to move on object. Actually, I was in session while I was looking at the orchids. Suddenly the leaves were growing; the roots twined out of the pot, hung down and carpeted the floor around the table.
The long stalks grew upward, buds formed and then opened into magnificence by the dozens. I looked on with wonderment. So much beauty!!! In theta Universe anything can be.
It than I have realised what I have been looking for it existed in my Universe all the time, but I was looking for it in the wrong place.[ as usual one ask, where I have put my keys, God I be good let it be found!]
The MEST Universe has been created by the magic of the postulate and has become solid because the creators considered it valuable, therefore remains solid.
The Ability of an OT is creation, being cause over, in the Theta Universe.
I looked back at the Goose, She moved, stood up and opened her wings and flapped them. She stretched one wing parallel with one of her orange-coloured leg, then her other side.
She shook her body and stretched her neck upward with open beak I felt the movement of the air around in the room. I was thinking that she was sitting in the same position too long and needed to stretch.
I saw the downy underside of her snow-white small feathers, I smelled her too. She settled back and preened herself for a while. Then walked over, hopped up onto the ottoman in front of my chair, settled herself and put her beautiful head on my lap.
I looked into her lovely black eyes into her Universe; my invisible hand reached out and gently stroked her white feathers.
The only way I can explain – I know she and I were alive; we were spiritual beings existing in our own Universe, apart from the MEST.
The Tech is the magic. When used it opens the Universe, which is filled with wonders of one’s own creations. Elizabeth, aka Wo-Y.
PS; all your reality would be so welcome in order to expend my view point. Vinaire, do some shradding,.
What is shradding?
.
Vinaire, I don’t know if Elizabeth saw your question here, but I think she meant to type “shredding,” as she did in the post below.
That word reminds of my cat that shreds hair all ove the place. Looks like Elizabeth would just love him.
.
Vinaire, what does “ove” mean? 🙂 (Just kidding you in return.) But it would be more interesting to hear your take on Elizabeth ideas, as she has challenged you to do!
Vinaire, I am sure your cat and I we would have love at first sight. But I cant locate the word the meaning to spell when fur falls out. Shad, is a fish your cat would like. He shreds the carpet… But?
Elizabeth, I think Vinaire meant to type “shed”.
I love this Marildi. Right. The hubbardianen talks of brilliant and idiotic side. The spelling is in my idiotic side the logical thing which i dont have. I real like to be on idiot in some occasion. One of my favorite word is, Idiot. You should hear me saying, and aften. Elizabeth you are a totall idiot! And there is no debate on that.
I don’t think Vinaire or most people here or anywhere consider spelling itself to be a very important indicator of intelligence or stupidity. Spelling and use of words in general are only important to the degree they help or get in the way of communicating an idea. If they’re getting in the way, we just have to fix ’em up, like you did with “shradding.”
Vinaire.
Great start!! well done. You just did the first shedding on the above article.
The word is shredding: narrow strip cut or torn off, a small fragment, But in I my reality you have the invitation to make me wrong. Dissect is a good word, pulverize, go for it. thank for asking!
Why are you so fixated on being made wrong or right?
Hubbard used that button to the hilt… validation of self… invalidation of self… these are powerful buttons.
.
Vinaire, sorry to butt in but she did explain earlier that she’s interested in other realities, and indicated that it was because she wanted to compare them her own.
I do not think in terms of right or wrong, nor do I think in terms of another’s reality or my reality.
I just look at what is there and recognize it for what it is. I am not interested in opposing any viewpoint. I am only interested in recognizing and calling things for what they are.
It seems that “me” and “you” are node points created in field of consideration when one fixes that value to them. Once that is accomplished, one can play the game of validation/invalidation, right/wrong, etc. by regarding “you” in opposition of “me”.
.
Huge Cognition , just huge. I was watering newly planted flowers but I was going over reading one blog where on “OT” in the name of “OT was doing …..
I just realised the concept of what is a true OT means
On OT, The person who attains the so called OT Level is not a GOD like creature!! [I already known that by shredding my own universe in order to confront what the hell got me into such a deep dodo] but there is a huge, gigantic miss understanding about.
On OT only a being who has wider, more in depth understanding on ANY SUBJECT, no matter what that is.
The understanding is there because one has looked at as-ised all the thoughts one has ever encountered in ones wondering in this Bloody Universe.
BUT, BUT here is the core of the cognition”
One becomes more human than one ever has been
BUT HERE IS THE THING: one is no longer re-stimulated by all that crap!
But one still understand and know what is going on but the understanding is complete= is aligned with one’s reality= level of knowledge.
NOT ONE, NOT ONE being should have the audacity to put any being lower than self, to invalidate and evaluate any other being that walks the Plains of this Earth!
If the person happens to be so called highly trained and have some higher level education about the so called spiritual universe which others don’t have,
That being should be the last person to point out others lack in education, confront level and put self above, that they know better because levels of training or education on certain subjects.
If and when that happens, that invalidation the one who is doing the evaluation show where the being is, who is doing that evaluation and invalidation
If I ever do that to any of you who read my posting, Please Shoot me I ask for that!! I will supply the gun and the airline ticket to get here. I am not kidding.
But I will shoot, shred anyone who will do that to others in the NAME OF OT, In the name of OT Ability. I would like to clarify what is on OT to me. Nothing! IT is just a word which I describe some concept.
The crow that is out there in my garden he is more OT than I am, at list he had enough brain not to get a body.
OT ability? Everyone should have their own definition on that subject and that definition should not be from the dictionary.
Please, Please, keep it in mind when I write, what I write is not better than what you know it is simply different Nothing more just, different.
It is your decision if you like or don’t like my view points it is your decision if you care to exchange yours or incorporate my view point into yours. That decision is soli yours. Thank you!!
Elizabeth.
Please don’t mind me saying this, but it appears to me that you have a lot of attention on yourself.
.
Vinaire.
Not at all, you are right, where I am at here I look around and dont see anybody else. Question: IF you close your eyes do you see others or are just self, you exists?
Not quiet right, where I am,I
am not alone just part of the spiritual univers. I real dont know just how many otheres use the same body, I do not know how many other souls say I am, I am Elizabeth Hamre. I have no reality on if others speak for me or I speak for otheres, or we speak at the same time and say the samething. Clue-less. We just hang out.
Is that your judgement?
Chis, Idiot? running into, having concepts of which I cant comprehend?
On expession, nothing more. there are lots of creations out there I have no reality on the understandingo of what was the purpose to cause-create.
One comes to understand after taking apart shredding MEST where ones ability is.
To know is equal to resposibility to that extend.
It is nice to seat by the creek on hot summer day and have ones feet in the cool water be with nature and have no care.
As you know, I’ve done some geological study of the OT-materials and still find it fascinating that there’s some truth to it (shocked quartz and iridium are both found in (H-bombs in volcanoes) and (asteroid impact on earth). However, current research points toward ONE impact in Chixculub in Mexico thus going against Hubbards claims of H-bombs all over the world. And where are the remains of 250 billion “humanoids”? Huge anomalies.
My biggeset question is: How come Hubbard would lie about such a big thing as the OT-levels, going from OT III up to OT VII. That’s about half the bridge, actually more when counting auditing hours. Why lie?
Hubbard once said something like “Scientology is like chemistry: It might not be true, but it works.”
Also, there’s so much of Hubbards other work that rings truth to it. Why would he lie so greatly about this?
I can think of some explanations:
1. He was “brainwashed” or “implanted”, then came back and put Scientology toward hell. (Some PL’s indicate this.)
2. He ran out of material and decided he liked the fantasy world better than the real world.
3. He mixed some reality with some made-up fantasies. Perhaps OT III happaned 380 million years ago with a slightly different story on a slightly different solar system? LRH just filled in the blanks and made up some.
4. He lied just to have a “new game”. Remember, we all want games or we’ll die out of boredom.
I’m actually starting to view Hubbard more and more as a genius & crazy person at the same time, so it’s up to each and every one of us to decide what’s genius and what’s crazy.
This reminds me of a rescent scandal we’ve had here in Sweden where Viljo Nousiainen (who died about twelve years ago), the great trainer of Patrik Sjöberg (who won the world record of high jump in 1987 with 242 cm). That trainer was just recently exposed as a pedophile, having sexually harrassed boys (including Sjöberg) when he was a trainer. Nevertheless, everybody does agree that Viljo was a great trainer, probably one of the best in the world when it comes to high jumping, seeing important small details, creating a world elite for Sweden withing “track and field” (Patrik Sjöberg, Christian Olsson, Stefan Holm and trainer Yannick Tregaro (who was also sexually assaulted).
Both an incredible genius and an incredible idiot at the same time.
Perhaps some genius persons get all their “abilities” multiplied by ten? That means all their personality characteristics are multiplied, even the bad ones.
It’s not unusual for geniuses to have really bad sides.
Probably even Hubbard?
I don’t think he lied. I think he believed it. And according to my views he wasn’t that far off the mark (except for the OT III story which he could have dropped without any problem) – and based on his view of the OT case, he developed processes that work very well – but not for the reasons he thought. And further out on that limb we find Captain Bill who just extrapolated the hell out of the sci-fi and ended up with something that dwarfs most sci-fi writers. But even he had some pieces of truth to it (like the ideas of creation of viewpoints) – but the conspiracies and the space opera got the better of him. IMO.
Gier, I really liked what you said here (and the fact that you would say it 🙂 ). One specific is your saying you don’t think LRH lied. For me, that would align with his beingness and activities overall.
On the OT III story, I get from some posters that for them it was a real incident and from others it wasn’t – and from some of them that it depended on when the thetan first “arrived” on Earth or in the “Sector” (I’m not sure now which it supposedly was). Now, if that last is true isn’t it possible that you yourself were a late arriver?
Also, could you say a bit more about the “pieces of truth” related to creation of viewpoints?
As the OP says – the OT case is about handling of old viewpoints – something that Captian Bill (and many others) validate (but Capt. Bill also goes on this wild conspiracy goose chase).
Thanks. At first I thought of the way “viewpoints” is used in The Factors (which I THINK is another definition).
I am not entirely sure there is any difference.
I was wondering about that very thing when I asked you earlier if the people you created in your dreams might be able to step out of them, just like you do. You said that they could but would still be attached to you. So I got that it was more like a circuit/valence in the mind – which doesn’t pick up bodies, etc (I don’t think!).
Well, it may be a matter of universes inside universes…
The viewpoints in my dreams picked up bodies… in my dreams 😉
So I guess the real question is – are they all “thetans.” And with the same abilities, or at least no difference in ability or magnitude than ANY two
thetans might be (i.e. even those of the same “generation”).
The inherent issue I see with “thetans” or “souls” or “spirits” is that they have connotations or properties attached to them. As Vin points out – any such carries considerations or mass with them. That may point to “viewpoint” as a better term – and definitely a more generic term… usable for the viewpoint of ME as well as viewpoints I create (although they are perhaps leaves of me if I can be seen as a branch… would that make God the trunk of the tree? 🙂
Or are the “dream-like” creations more like Elizabeth’s Shrapoo (in her post above), who was the twin created by Patek. Shrapoo ultimately melted into the nothingness of the Universe – while Patek regained the Theta of Self.
I would not say God is the trunk of the tree, because that would limit God. God by definition is unlimited. So God would be, in my view, the whole tree, and every tree, and everything else from Alpha to Omega, which would be from Potential to ultimate realization of every possibility.
God is, from before the Beginning until after the End of everything that could ever possibly exist. And that covers a lot of ground!
And that is one definition of God. There are many.
I like it! LRH himself originally defined “thetan” as a static with certain abilities (what you are now using “viewpoint” to mean, if I duplicate you) and of course a static by definition would not involve any considerations or experience – which are actually mass in mental form. But those things do get piled onto and connected with INDIVIDUAL “thetans” and thus the word has, I believe, evolved amongst Scientologists to include those personality additives to the definition (this is like LRH’s original problem with “spirit” and “soul” – they had additives, added connotations). Anyway, I’m with you and Vinaire on this!
Yes, I can see God or Static as the trunk of the tree. Or maybe it’s more like – each “outgrowth” is a whole new tree in itself. I just hope it’s not the case that some of those created viewpoints are like circuits/valences of the mind with no real life of their own – like the fur on Vinaire’s cat, mere sheddings (or is it shreddings? LOL). Heaven forbid there are zombies amongst us…
Static is a good word. I believe Viewpoint is even better. It communicates better, is more usable as a generic term and incidentally is more in alignment with The Factors.
Yes, as I’ve said, I like Viewpoint better too. And I had a great win when I realized (on this comm cycle!) that the meaning of Thetan has evolved to include notions about properties that are actually acquired. As I see it now, these notions are additives to the original LRH concept, a static with certain abilities. Yay! 🙂
Hubbardianen,
There are other possibilities. Personally, I tend to subscribe to the possibilities outlined by The Pilot(Ken Ogger) in his articles about “Implant Universes” and “Pocket Universes”.
The entire OTIII incident, including the content exactly as Hubbard described it, could exist in a “pocket universe that is/was used in the implant. In this way the incident would be both what ‘really’ happened’ and a fictitious implant. In other words, it could have happened “on Earth”, but not exactly this particular “Earth” we are living on now, but a very real mock-up of it including date-stamps etc. Thus to a person who runs the incident in an auditing session 2 million years from now, it would say it happened 75 million years ago….
If you read The Pilot’s article carefully, you can see what I am talking about:
http://caersidi.freeshell.org/FZA/pilot/sscio/ss5a.htm
This resembles Battle Star Galactica 😉
I’m not sure what the similarity you see is?
Battlestar Galactica could be written from recollections of whole track events. As could any sci-fi, like Star Wars.
If you accept the possibility of a ‘multiverse’ then anything and everything may have already happened, and if you dig around in your whole track, you might find it.
For example, the show “Caprica” which was supposed to be a prequel to Battlestar, featured several civilizations, one of which had elements of gangsters wearing fedoras in a hi-tech setting.
I’m not sure I have read any stories exactly corresponding to The Pilot’s ideas, but there are many “alternate history” works in sci-fi. Try the fiction of Philip K. Dick which explores the creation of universes and shifting realities.
We’re talking about subjectivity here.
We agree on this. I just saw the similarity with my favorite sci-fi series. I talk about this in the interview I did on Norwegian TV – about the viewpoint (spirit) being eternal and thus have experienced many things up through the times etc.
Geir, have you ever seen the series Babylon 5? I feel it is the best sci-fi series ever done. Unfortunately it is not syndicated onTV since about 2000. It ran for 5 seasons plus some made for TV movies were set in that universe.
I think you would really like it if you had a chance to watch a few episodes. It’s probably available on DVD.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylon_5
One of the major themes was the “Shadow War”, kind of a war between forces of light and forces of darkness. Also a fascist takeover of the Earth.
I have the whole series on DVD. Love it 🙂
I love B5. I have all the DVDs 🙂
One of the biggest problems for me when it comes to LRH is the money. Why wouldn’t he (like Dalai Lama) just aim to get as many as possible up the bridge instead of focusing so much on money? I think this was one of his biggest “ruins”. Money.
Again though, I have to say LRH has probably showed me more than any other being on the planet.
Hubbardianen,
These particulars that you bring up are troubling. So for me the question becomes what do you want to do about this? So if this was you and me talking, I’d ask you if you ever got any tone arm action auditing? Did you ever have a long-fall blow down with a floating needle and a happy face? If you did, then I would ask you to consider solo auditing everyday until your questions are answered. Hook up with some of the very able tech people lurking about and just get it on.
On the other hand, if you’ve studied Scientology and feel that it is unworthy of being used, then abandon it and get it on in another direction.
I went through what you are describing. In the end, you will be just alone with your own thoughts about this and have only yourself to please. The misery of being in the doubtful condition that you describe is an uncomfortable place to be. And you are going to go nowhere on the research questions that you are asking. We don’t and we aren’t going to know LRH’s heart. Some say Scientology is a bad fantasy and some swear by it. Some of us are in the middle somewhere having (myself) gotten spectacular epiphanies from using the Tech. Some haven’t. Some actively spend their time trying to destroy it.
Anyway, my hat’s off to you for sticking with this and asking hard questions. But try to distill all the brouhaha down to what can you do about any of this? Crystalize this down to what can you do today to make your condition with regard to this move off “high-center” and get some traction.
For me, I’ve put new batteries in my e-meter and charged it and am using it. I’m taking control of my own universe and fighting the fight of my life to regain the integrity of my spirit and according to me, this was the right decision. For you? Maybe not but you can choose something and begin doing it to help you get some traction. I didn’t come to this point very fast. I spent 15 years after the SO being spiritually in limbo and then spent the past 3 years sorting through the muck trying to decide what to do. I tried steps A-E to get back in the Church. Fortunately, the internet provides a venue where people like us can freely discuss and gather information with which to make our “big” decisions.
Anyway, again with respect – Good Luck!
I prefer being in doubt when it comes to things that are not clear, not to say one can do things in the meantime.
Scientific research most of the times means being in doubt, especially when it comes to the age of the universe, one-soul-many-bodies theory, dark matter, white holes etc. These things are not 100 percent discovered yet so being in doubt is the sane approach.
Troubling questions? I sure hope so. The truth should be able to stand up for troubling questions.
But I get your point and I should do more auditing. Both in terms of possible gains and research.
The magical Word: auditing! the Session is the key which opens the door to the universe. treasure hunt for knowledge!
Hubbardanien,
We don’t really know what he did with the money or what he intended to do with the money.
However personally, I see nothing wrong with the idea that he might have wanted to take 10% “off the top” for himself and his family.
After all, it was entirely his creation that he spent most of his life creating.
Why shouldn’t he benefit financially from it? Why should he be like the Dalai Lama?
The Dalai Lama did not create Buddhism, is not the source of Buddhism. Hubbard did create and establish Scientology. In that way, the two men are not the least bit comparable.
But personally, I believe Hubbard probably was setting aside a lot of whatever money he skimmed, for the establishment, defense, and expansion of the scientology organizations. He may have viewed the possibility that the “powers that be” would completely destroy what he had already built, and he might have had to start all over again.
That seems entirely reasonable and sensible to me.
You know, all the assets of the organizations could have been, and still could be, seized by “the Authorities”. For example, by application of the RICO statutes in the United States. And other countries have similar laws they can use.
I have heard it said that the US government was building a RICO case against Hubbard, and that may have contributed to his neglect of his own health and eventual death, before the case could be brought against him.
If he would have the mindset of the Dalai Lama, I believe Scientology would have gotten more traction.
Also, Scientology was not “entirely his creation”. There are many examples where he failed to credit others or where he right out hijacked other’s creations.
Thanks Geir but I’m not buying any (red) herring today! 🙂
It is true many people contributed to the creation, formation, and establishment of both the materials, the practices, and the organizations. How could it be otherwise?
Nonetheless, Hubbard was the driving force behind it happening. Whether he originated any particular datum or process is immaterial to what I am talking about.
Jimmy Wales is arguably “the Founder” or “co-Founder” of Wikipedia, but how much of the content did he create? None.
Did Bill Gates create Microsoft all by himself? Yet who else’s name is associated with it? Does Bill credit all the people who contributed to the creation and development of the Microsoft producers? Not that I have seen.
Hubbard as much as admits he “assembled” scientology and built on previous works of many others. Would scientology as such exist without Hubbard? Of course not. He did originate and found what we know as “Scientology”, no matter how many “co-creators” there are to it’s real existence in the world. He did compile it all together, assemble and sort pre-existing data, as well as doing much original development, and pushed it through to establishment.
What’s the issue here?
People are basically individuals. Each one’s mindset is individual and different from another’s. We are not the Borg, Thank God!
And Scientology had plenty of “traction”, going from zero in 1950 to a network of world-wide organizations actually in about 20 years. It boomed until the 1980s, and what really happened has not been sorted out at all.
If you want to compare Buddhist and Scientological “religious leaders”, it is more appropriate to compare Dalai Lama and David Miscavige, to some extent. They can be compared in that neither one is the founder of his respective ‘religion’, but one way or another is recognized as a “leader”.
Of course Dalai is actually “leader” of just one branch of Buddhism, and actually not necessarily recognized by many Buddhists as their particular leader, or even as being doctrinally correct.
Theravadists are likely to see Dalai and the other Tibetan Buddhists as “squirrels”.
They are just more polite about it.
Eventually, in hundreds of years perhaps or maybe sooner with the use of the Internet and modern communications, the world of scientology will also evolve into various schools. But they will all be based on the materials codified by Hubbard,just as the different Buddhist or Christian sects are builton a canon codified by Gotama.
Son my point about comparing Hubbard and Dalai remains.
The existence of Buddhism is not at stake. It’s a done deal, worldwide. Dalai doesn’t have to see to it’s establishment and survival, and in fact to the extent he is/was, in Tibet, he failed. Buddhism in Tibet is a goner under the bootheel of the Red Chinese. Tibetan Buddhism is in exile.
And in the process of fighting the Chinese, Dalai allied himself with some unsavory political elements, like the CIA.
Hubbard set up scientology, whether you consider he assemnbled or codified or sorted for importance and compiled pre-existing knowledge(which is of course the “work of others”), from scratch. He may have used ‘the work of others’ in creating Scientology, but it was he who created it.
Well, that’s enough for now. There are a lot more posts that could be written on Tibet, Dalai, Hubbard, etc. Another time.
Typing too fast.
Christian sects are of course nominally built on the teachings of Jesus, not Gotama.
My point was that Hubbard had a tendency to disregard or obfuscate the credits of others – like demanding that work others created be copyrighted in his name.
As you know, I am a copyright abolishionist. But I firmly believe that credit should be given where credit is due (i.e. I believe in credit rights and Trademarks to cater for authenticity)
I don’t disagree with your point at all.
It is a detail relative to what I posted. A true detail,but a detail none the less.
A builder/developer builds a shopping mall. He does not mine the clay and make all the bricks for it himself. He gets those from others. He does not acknowledge who those others are,yet without their bricks he could not have built them all.
Or even back it up a step: Sam Walton is the “Founder” of the Walmart stores. Did he actually build any of the stores himself? And in fact, did he not combine in his own way the retailing ideas and principles of commerce of others in his own way? He was the driving force, the ‘prime mover’ without whom the Walmart brand would not exist. Say the builder/developer above is building Walmart stores. Does he get any credit? No more than the brick factory workers do. Sam Walton gets all the credit(or blame).
It’s the same with Hubbard and the Scientology brand of practical philosophy. Hubbard is the “founder” and was the driving force behind it’s existence.
Walmarts exist because of Sam Walton. Scientology exists because of Ron Hubbard.
But you are right, because it is this lack of assignment or attribution of correct ownership and origination that makes things hard to as-is.
That is also what makes things persist.
That is also what makes for attackable lies. As we so often sees on the Forums. Hubbard should have been more transparent in his working, research and building and should have validated the efforts of others much more. Humbleness should have been a prominent trait, because if it was, I think we would have seen more traction with Scientology. Thus I believe that Hubbard ultimately became an anti-expansion factor for Scientology. And this becomes more than a detail in the whole picture.
Why is this fixation on “source” there?
The idea of “creator” is the real red herring. Take this computation of “creator” out of the equation and simply look at knowledge, and the consistencies and inconsistencies within it…
… And things will become much clearer.
KHTK 13: LOOKING AT KNOWLEDGE
.
Valkov, good post!
Geir, I can’t disagree with any of your last post. If Hubbard had done all that, perhaps the outcome would be different now, but I’m not sure of that, precisely because the existing scene is co-created. How much of the fascist tendencies that developed within the CoS, was Hubbard responsible for? I saw people in the 1970s who tended that way, who had had no association with Hubbard. And after his passing there is no guarantee the CoS would be any better than it is now. I have no doubt his self-appointed successor has indeed put his own personal stamp on it however. Were someone else in charge, it might be a much better scene.
At some point, it appears elements of the Sea Org became a destructive influence or force; but the boom of the 1960s and 1970s, when Hubbard was alive and active was very real. And there are plenty of reports of Sea Org missions that were constructive and helpful.
I think the events of the late 1970s and 1980s need to be sorted out. And they have not been, yet.
Well, I have to head out for work.
I believe that the construction of the Sea Org was a mistake – on the heels of LRH’s belief in wild conspiracies (OT III incident). SO became the downfall of Scientology. It was created out of wrong WHYs. Yes, it took several years for the SO insanity to really sink in. Also, many insane movements expands – so expansion is no evidence for the movement being good.
Geir posted,
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/a-radical-new-view-of-the-upper-scientology-levels-ok-here-goes/#comment-4616
“Also, many insane movements expands – so expansion is no evidence for the movement being good.”
I don’t know where you were in 1970, but I was in the USA and the expansion I am talking about that was occurring then had nothing to do with”insane movements” -it had to do with a grassroots movement of hundreds of people filling up courserooms all over the country by word-of-mouth because they were doing the HQS course and co-auditing on up from there.
Whether the Sea Org had anything to do with that expansion I don’t know.
I do believe it was some members of the Sea Org who stopped the expansion that was happening and started the downward spiral of scientology by perpetrating the “mission massacre” of 1982.
Then the creation of the IAS (International Association of Suppressives) in 1984 was another nail in scientology’s coffin. The addition of the other “donations”(for no exchange) programs killed and buried any chance of scientology expanding by word-of-mouth again.
The exorbitant price increases didn’t help, either.
Hubbard’s role in much of these events and happenings isn’t yet clear to me. I don’t speculate much about the many more.
As more people who were there and witnessed parts of the unfolding of those scenes write their books and publish their accounts, I think eventually I will get a better idea of the various causes and responsibilities.
Or perhaps some of them will end up ‘unknowable’ because of the absence of data.
You said: “I don’t know where you were in 1970, but I was in the USA and the expansion I am talking about that was occurring then had nothing to do with”insane movements”
That is an attempted Straw Man. I never said Scientology had anything to do with insane movements. I was merely pointing out that even insane movements have had great expansion – thus expansion is no argument that Scientology was a good movement, even in the early ages.
As for Hubbard’s role in the deterioration of Scientology; He created the SO, he created the disconnection policies, he created a top-down authoritarian system where individual responsibility was undermined by rules, regulation and Policy…
Geir posted,
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/a-radical-new-view-of-the-upper-scientology-levels-ok-here-goes/#comment-4616
Let me back up a little. I was rough on Dalai Lama. I consider him a friend and an enlightened leader. He will say he’s just another common guy from the mountains, of course.
I think his exile from Tibet has been a good thing, it has liberated him, allowed him to grow and expand in theta and be more true to
himself and develop his brand of Buddhism in positive directions. It enabled him to move on up alittle higher.
My point was that Tibet was never paradise. The Lamas of Tibet ruled it savagely for hundreds of years, as a feudal serfdom. They may have
talked the talk of compassion, liberation and nirvana, but they walked the walk of fascistic oppression of the people of Tibet. They
literaly had the power of human trafficking, mutilation, and life and death over the ordinary people of Tibet. This is documented. Here’s
a good article about it by a recognized journalist:
http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html
I do not think my buddy Tenzin Gyatso could have flourished in that environment. His exile was a good thing. It set him free.
I think there is a parallel there, to the CoS and the Independent movement. You, Geir, could not have flourished inside the CoS, under the
bootheels of Flag , the IAS etc. No-one can, except the relatively small cabal that runs the show there.
Someday perhaps the current regime will pass and others more benign will run the CoS in a better way. But the hope for scientology lies
“in exile”, outside of the CoS at this time.
I haven’t done OTIII, so I can’t correlate that to any ideas abouthow the planet is actually governed. I can only treat them as two
different but perhaps related issues, subjective vs. objective, historical view vs. present-time.
But I do believe some people use the word “conspiracy” as a buzz word to dismiss anyone who suggests that important decisions affecting
many lives, are ever made behind closed doors and not disclosed to the public. Thatis the very definition of ‘conspiracy’. It is the
routine order of the day here on Earth.
Those who believe otherwise are living in a fantasy world plus wearing rose-colored glasses, in my opinion.
Do you really believe many of the most important governing decisions are not made behind closed doors? Or that they are made with your
best interests in mind?
How did the Russian Revolution come about? Or the Nazi takeoverin Germany? North Korea? China? Cambodia? The CoS?
Russia was a threat to elements in Germany, England and other Europeans. Perhaps even in Norway? It needed to be brought low. Some
European ‘powers that be’ conspired with Lenin, bankrolled him and used him to accomplish their aim of destabilizing Russia.
That’s how fascists do it. It’s always by ‘conspiracy’.
What do you think the G-7 were doing all those years when they were meeting every year? Planning how to end wars and bring health care to
the people? Please.
Whatever the role of the OTIII incident, it is certainly obvious that something is heavily suppressing the 4th dynamic. And that something
is in the minds of a lot of people around here, below their level of awareness. There is a commonality to the scene, whatever it’s basis is.
I think Hubbard did have a mindset similar to Dalai Lama, in LRH’s early years. But by 1980 that was no longer in effect.
Overall I think Hubbard was a man in a big hurry. He shared his conclusions, and sometimes the conclusions of others as his own, but didn’t spend much time on organizing and archiving his studies and data. He was not a librarian, he was a trailblazer.
He also moved a lot faster than most people and no-one could keep up with him very well.
He had goals he wanted to accomplish and I think he would have accomplished a lot less in the way of R&D and establishment if he had slowed down to re-work, document more carefully, organize, archive, etc etc.
Even so, he did not complete “the work” before his time ran out. But he completed and codified a hell of a lot. Why complain? It seems like damning with faint praise. Do we expect to be spoon-fed? Remember, there is no spoon!
I don’t dismiss conspiracies in general. I dismiss the OT 3 incident as laid out by LRH and the cosmology behind it and extrapolated by Capt. Bill.
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/a-radical-new-view-of-the-upper-scientology-levels-ok-here-goes/#comment-4616
Not having done OTIII, I can’t speak to that. There is no connection in my mind between OTIII and whatever conspiracy theories you have in mind that Hubbard proposed.
However the presentation of the structure of the power-elite on Earth that he referred to in RJ 67 was then, and is still, completely plausible to me. Money talks. Wars exist because someone makes money off of wars, and economic suppression all over the planet is obvious. At best it’s “bread and circuses” just as in Roman days, but nowt here are more sophisticated methods of control too. Do you really think things are not “guided” in those directions because some want them to be that way?
Hubbard did create the disconnection and fair game policies in some form, although not in the way they have been used by others in his name.
Additionally, I just listened to RJ 68 recently, and it appears he very much did cancel them and was very shaken by the way they had been applied.
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/a-radical-new-view-of-the-upper-scientology-levels-ok-here-goes/#comment-4535
OK, we have in mind different meanings of the word “creation”. I meant it in the broad sense of any “cycle of action”.
Like, a guy spends 30 years building a castle out of stolen bricks – that castle is still ‘his creation’, because he invested his time and energy into getting it done.
I was not speaking to the issue of whether Hubbard originated all the content of scientology. He created the overall form of it, out of whatever materials.
Sure. And if he had given more credit where credit is due, he would have solicited less criticism (and would have retained more of his own integrity)
I don’t have anything against Hubbard taking the top 10 percent either. It’s just that I think from an overall viewpoint he could have been more descent when it comes to pricing. I’ve read a PL where Hubbard stated 1000 dollars/hour for the L’s (don’t know it was a faked PL). Reasonable even when the “full exterior full perception”-promise doesn’t seem to be fulfilled?
Anyway, the pricing for some services are pretty high and that’s what I’m refering to. Today’s pricing are even more absurd but that has nothing to do with Hubbard.
Hubbard could have chosen a more “let’s spread this as much as we can over the world for the most reasonable pricing”, but he chose a statistic driven ponzi/pyramide-approach. That confuses me a little in perspective. Perhaps it looks great on paper (it did for me) but not so great in practice.
Like somebody else said somewhere else: “If Scientology was channeled it got the tech from heaven and the policy letters from hell.”
My personal opinion is to skip most of the PL’s and just focus on improving and spreading the tech for the most reasonable amount of money. The Dalai Hubbard approach.
“If Scientology was channeled it got the tech from heaven and the policy letters from hell.”
That’s one hell of a good quote.
I know, that’s why I stored in in my memory. 😉
By the way, you’re talking about 200 million returnees in total, but my calculations shows about 20 million returnees. (Roughly 10 000 on SOLO NOTS multiplied with data from OT III).
178 billion x 76 / 7 billion x 10 000 = roughly 20 million in total.
Or have I misunderstood something?
An average of 3 sessions per day for an average of 5 years with an average of 4 per session gives an average of 3*365*5*3 = 20 000 pluss those OT 3/4/5 (pluss Ls, FPRD, correction lists etc.) would be perhaps 25 000 – 30 000 per person who reached Solo NOTs. Multiply that by number of people on Solo NOTs – some 6 000 people through the years (total of 150 million – 180 million), then add those who only completed OT levels 3 -5, and you would get a figure north of 200 million. That’s a lot of abandoned viewpoints audited.
And if these were real beings – one of the biggest discrepancies I have ever seen in any theory.
Ok, you calculated bottom-to-top and I the other way.
This is somewhat interesting though because the theory of multiverse perhaps has something to do with this.
Going out on a limb here but something like alternative “occurred” possibilities influencing us… I don’t know, just doing some speculating extravaganza.
From wiki:
“The multiverse is the hypothetical set of multiple possible universes (including the historical universe we consistently experience) that together comprise everything that exists: the entirety of space, time, matter, and energy as well as the physical laws and constants that describe them.”
It seems we collect charges through our life that degrade us. I feel personally that fails and letdowns actually influence me negatively and makes me less energetic as a person for every fail.
Kids are much more energetic than older people, on the other hand I haven’t seen many high OT’s that are as energetic as kids. (Every kid is energetic though, so something must happen between lives.)
If a medium or similair could contact some of these “beings” and ask them their history… and if no contact is possible it is probably not beings.
Again, I would love to see a scientific survey and testing of all the OT VIII’s when it comes to OT-abilities, mediumship, microparanormal experiments (e.g. PEAR-project: http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/ ) etc to get some objective truth to this…
It seems to me “going OT” means more getting a cleaner space than getting real OT-abilities.
Nothing wrong with that though ! !
It has occurred to me that we talk a lot about Theta and about MEST, but we hardly mention Lambda. Lambda are alive, but are they a second-order creation?
What is the character of the souls of animals, for example?
Thus these ‘viewpoints’ you are talking about could be ‘alive’, but not have all the characteristics of ‘full-fledged thetans’. They may not be ‘Statics'(yes,yes, Vinnie, I know. It is a figure of speech intended to convey meaning, not a scientific dissection) in their own right, but ‘creatures’ in the biblical sense, and that is why they have not comeback and appeared for auditing. An entity maybe more similar to an animal than to a thetan. Similarly, what is the GE?
I am thinking heirarchies among the orders of creation. Does a cat or a guinea pig have a soul in the same way that we might consider humans to ‘have’ or ‘be’ souls?
I believe animals are basically no different than us.
But the idea of hierarchies are something that intrigues me; If we are all viewpoints on the same level, in this Universe, co-creators of this universe, then I could create my own little universe in my dreams and would act as God there, creating new viewpoints within that sphere. When I stop creating that dream, the viewpoints perish…
Shhh… don’t wake up God 😉
Personally, I’ve seen a sort of hierarchy of theta based on LRH references in HOM and the Tech Dict:
Injected entities,are “probably
‘softened up’ theta beings.”
The GE, “not dissimilar to the thetan” is also referred to as the somatic mind,” a mind which contains no thinkingness only actingness and is “the mind of an animal, a dog or a cat or a cow.”
A facsimile, also called a theta facsimile, is “the physical universe impression on thought [theta] and it means that section of thought which has a physical universe impression on it…”
And the last in order would be MEST, which could easily be likened to theta facsimiles, just more solid or dense. Various societies and individuals (including some OTs) even consider it as spirits or spiritual.
Personally, Marildi, your first few line reminded me of my prostate…
.
Sorry, didn’t mean to restimulate you. (heh heh) Or was that a comment on my construct? LOL!
Hubbard operated more on the lower dyanmics. Dalia Lama, in my opinion operates more on the higher dynamics, as most scientists do. They share their discoveries and wisdom freely.
.
yep.
So, with over 3,000 hours of recorded lectures and journals, and millions of written words in books, HCOBs and PLs, what discoveries and wisdom of his did Hubbard not share freely?
Almost all of that is copyrighted (and Very Strongly Protected as such) – and thus not shared freely.
Also, the raw data from research was not shared freely even with copyright.
I prefer Wikipedia.
.
Hubbard’s motto: “Free service, free fall.” This was demonstrated in his life. He always wanted an exchange back… even more.
.
I have come to the conclusion that Hubbard’s ideas on exchange is faulty. Modern phenomena such as Wikipedia, Free Software and Social Media demonstrate that the above motto is wrong.
The idea of exchange becomes more and more solid as one descends down the dynamics. With Hubbard, this idea of exchange was quite solid.
.
OK, well I consider that ‘shared freely’ means something like published and available to anyone, even if at a cost.
As opposed to concealed and not published, not available in any form.
I think in the early days the printed materials and tapes of lectures were available very cheaply and were intended to be so by Hubbard.
Later the CoS went wild ‘upgrading’ everything and priced it out of reach of most people, just to make money.
Copyrights? Well, it was the standard and usual way here on Earth. Still is.
Well, it wasn’t in the olden times of great creativity and progress – such as with the Greek philosophers or the Renaissance – or 19th century Germany where publishing dwarfed that of England where publishing was sniffled by copyrights, etc, etc.
Point is; if LRH was more intent on salvaging Mankind through spreading his teachings, he would have made them Freely Available. The fact that he didn’t indicates that his intention was otherwise. Or he had an MU, or False Data, or an FPRD case to handle, or was PTS, or out-ethics, or something other than totally devoted to the wide spreading of his teachings.
Another possibility is that LRH had a “method to his madness,” which may have worked had it not been corrupted. Just saying, I probably don’t have enough pertinent data to evaluate.
Hubbardianen wrote:
“I’ve read a PL where Hubbard stated 1000 dollars/hour for the L’s (don’t know it was a faked PL). Reasonable even when the “full exterior full perception”-promise doesn’t seem to be fulfilled?”
Well I guess we’ll find out,as Geir said he was doing the Ls.
As for pricing, for the first 30 years of Dianetics and Scientology, Hubbard DID choose a model that would ‘spread this around the world’, and it did spread around the world.
Something different happened in the 1980s. If you can dox what, that would be good.
Hubbard was a man like everybody else. He probably had an ego and felt something like “I’ve done all this work and come this far, why don’t just benefit from it?”
He enjoyed being viewed a genius and created a game around it. Who knows what we would’ve done? If I had discovered all that Hubbard did I would’ve probably felt the same, feeling incredibly genius.
So it was probably some “human nature” creating some questionable PL’s more than anything else. He probably also had high hopes about auditing and realized they weren’t fulfilled.
It becomes more and more clear to me that Hubbard was doing research ALL THE TIME (lectures, auditing etc) improving Scientology all the time.
CoS however provides it as technical perfection which is ridicoulus. I’ve listened to something like 10-15 hours of the first PDC tapes and they don’t make much sense to me. I will somewhen listen to the rest.
Again though, some of his work are pure genius.
In the future I will not grant Hubbard any kind of “special lane” but instead try to be as healthy sceptical as I would be on anybody else’s work.
Again, I like Hubbard but am somewhat disappointed that Scientology wasn’t as perfect as I originally perceived.
C’est la vie. Just get on with it. 😉
I’m not even sure full OT is possible. There’s not much proof of it. There’s proof of some paranormal abilities, but I don’t even believe in Uri Geller anymore. Check out YouTube etc…
Perhaps this is just a great POV-computer game we’re living where we reincarnate between different worlds and play different games.
Read Michael Newton for example…
I’m a little late to this party and catching up on all of this wonderful blog, but might I add my viewpoint as both a “fanatic staffmember” (recently, quietly, “ex’d”) and sincere auditor (and solo auditor)?
I think it would be very important to point out that on the study tapes and elsewhere, LRH warned of a slave society in which the elite would become more able (through buying auditing – never training) and that would be a result of making too few auditors (like today’s church).
For this reason, you will never hear me advocating “pc-only” bridges because they will never accomplish a cleared planet, except for the high-responsibility beings like Geir and Elizabeth (forgive me if either of you are auditor-trained – but that’s not really the point) who study the tech and free beings (or at least free theta) in auditing solo.
First of all, Miscavige’s church raised the prices, not LRH, at least as far as I know. LRH may or may not have struggled with a personal greed issue, but he issued a “decent” staff pay system (never totally followed – robbed by Mgmt) and had book prices and auditing prices in reasonable range while he was nearby (through the late 70’s).
However – and this is the most important point of all – TRAINING was cheap, fast-flow, and guaranteed to make all the auditors needed on top of the 70’s booms, to take us way farther towards a sane planet than we are now. A lot more auditors would have AUDITED. As cheap as they wanted (if the field hadn’t gotten so heavily policed by RTC). And most people who wanted it would have HAD it instead of been denied it.
LRH in his own failings, including succumbing to the paranoia of the times (COINTELPRO, in the USA) and jealousy of parallel or spin-off practices and movements (EST, for one) clamped down too heavily on copyrights and even violated an old promise not to make “secrets” (read Dianetics 55! Intro) after R6-OTIII.
(And yes, ignore many of those crazy PL’s!)
Yet one point overlooked and always brings me back around to a condition of respect and awe for the man despite his failings, was that he did work hard at figuring this stuff out – a tireless, almost selfless, crusade of research and sharing that research through writings and lectures for all those first two dozen years. He certainly earned copyright protection (but yes, should have also given a lot more credit to his student researchers and other sources of his “source discoveries”) for the time he was alive.
And that protection began to expire under natural law (30 years) in the 80’s and so David Miscavige went criminal on that point alone, falsifying copyright filings and engineering alterations (to accomplish a “new”, “corrected” or “revised” issue) in building his control-freak, power-monopoly perversion of an already seriously compromised “religion”. Then the church quietly backed Sonny Bono putting a new law extending copyrights. (This does begin to look like conspiracy, and not just DM’s own mad suppressiveness!)
That said, times have changed. This planet is – slower than LRH predicted, but in the way he predicted – expiring – and eerily along the lines of the OTIII engram (man’s inhumanity to man). And it needs all the spiritual progress it can get.
If the church could be salvaged and reformed, it should become a rapid (original LRH checksheets) training center with few or no restrictions on auditing and field auditing, other than its own model HGC and Qual to hold LRH standards firm and clean up botched cases. High prices for auditing in the org, sure, but no restrictions on field auditors outside, whatsoever.
Everyone else should be training and auditing others (and/or themselves, as Elizabeth is sure to point out – lots of solo!)
Finally, I agree with Geir that the tech should be widely available and the copyright stops taken off. The church could still make income publishing and selling LRH materials (but all of that was supposed to have been for dissemination purposes anyway, NOT primary income!).
Ironically, the church in its dwindling membership and desperation, has made the whole collection (including recently recovered ACCs) available at pretty decent prices, compared to the last few decades (better late than never, I suppose).
The most major situation in the modern church I would argue, is not the materials or auditing prices. It is the lack of cheap, fast-flow training LRH insisted (quite correctly I would add) was necessary to have an impact on this planet. Training today is not terribly expensive, but the tech of it has been perverted and the standards (“perfection” – but a very robotic “perfection”) are all as wrong as can be. It takes a long, LONG time and there has also accumulated a LOT of invalidation and evaluation (in other words, “insanity”!) to it in the guise of “video’d sessions” (a violation of the Priest-Penitent privilege, by the way).
A trained auditor can handle to improving conditions, his life, his friends, family and company, and his own case (I am really winning on solo and I’m not even near starting OT levels). And eventually handle the environment in big ways like Elizabeth, Geir and Vinaire and others posting here, are doing so well at.
THAT is “OT”.
Audit. Look. Study. Audit. Moving up a little higher.
I may regard LRH brilliant, but I would refer to him as “selfless.”
Others did a much better job with his tech than what he himself did.
.
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/a-radical-new-view-of-the-upper-scientology-levels-ok-here-goes/
“Vinaire, what does “ove” mean? (Just kidding you in return.) But it would be more interesting to hear your take on Elizabeth ideas, as she has challenged you to do!”
Sorry, I am at my laptop, so I have to use this method of linking to what I am responding to.
Elizabeth’s posts are too long and too poetic for me to understand them properly. I don’t want to comment when I don’t understand something. Can somebody provide me with an Executive summary of her ideas? Thanks!
.
Yes, too long and too poetic. Unlike the Rig Veda, etc.,…
Here’s your “executive summary” as follows:
“The magical Word: auditing! the Session is the key which opens the door to the universe. treasure hunt for knowledge!”
Vinaire,
The words flow like Ganga. You seat on one of the great boulder and you look on. Ganga just flows, the name remains Ganga as it was called thousands of years back, but the contents of Ganga has remained the same? The water flows, it just flows, one never see the return which has passed by. The river will not flow backward it will not return to its original source, “I write in hope to inspire.” To ignite a soul to have auditing, or pick up the solo cans once more. The words dont have nuch meaning, but my intention remains the same.
Elizabeth, I just happen to prefer precision of expression. This is not to say that there is anything missing in your expression. It is just a matter of preferance. I happen to love mathematics and science. I do feel and appreciate your spirit.
.
This is one of the most nicely stated disagreements any of us has expressed in recent days!
LOL!
Well, she’s expressed a lot of different ideas. I don’t say I understand them all but I do some. What about her last post on Solidity, where she invited your comments? I”m sure you can get some of the ideas expressed there…
For me the magical word is LOOKING which underlies auditing.
.
+100
Vinaire
Looking is with the eyeis very different than as in auditing:the spirit, the soul, the self, the I, who confronts, faces the issue and locates that basic on which all the false data was piled up. Therefore one discovers:locates the basic,understand what made that item existing in the Universe. If one never been in session than that concep is greek to that person, mean not understandable.
Looking has little to do with eyes.
Please do give youe reality, I am eagerly listen.
Looking is simply perceiving on any channel.
From KHTK 2: LOOKING AND THINKING
The word looking is used in the sense of perceiving. It includes all perceptions, such as, seeing, hearing, tasting, touching, smelling, etc. When we LOOK at a chair we differentiate it from its background and identify it for what it is. Looking has to do with recognizing the input to the mind…
.
Don’t forget to say that it’s not just looking at the chair (or whatever) in the physical universe, but looking at it when it appears in the mind.
Well I wrote a whole KHTK essay about it. Please see
KHTK 4: LOOKING AT THE MIND
.
For some of us, “Auditing” and “Looking” are synonymous.
All the “auditor” is supposed to do, in my opinion, is direct the attention towards the objects to be “looked” at.
True – but emphasizing Looking as the actual essence of auditing makes that “some of us” into “more of us” 😉
This is a good idea.
However there is the old saying, “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink”.
Or a Jesus said, “He who has ears to hear, let him hear.”
He didn’t say what to do about those who do not have ears to hear, or eyes to see.
We have our work cut out for us, is what I think.
But somehow increasing the numbers of those who can Look is a very good idea.
Geir, you are drifting away from the meanings of words which for Scientology purposes use precise meanings. A few of these words are:
Auditing, itsa, in session, as-is, static, and cognite.
Aligning with Vin’s muddy language problems with ceaseless attempts to define “unknowable” when there is a perfectly good usable word and definition for this = “static.”
Writing that the actual essence of auditing is looking is similar to defining the essence of communication as talking. See? it just isn’t enough. Auditing has component parts that go together to create the whole.
If you wrote something like that the “essence” of an auditing session resulted in at least: long fall blow down, floating needle, and very good indicators, then we would be talking the same language.
If you said that the essence of auditing is very carefully guided looking with “itsa” and admin and an exam and a success story, then we could be speaking the same language. (yes, the success story – has more than PR value.)
I understand many of the complaints that me and some of us have had. But the presence of model session is not one of these is it? You (Geir) have defended the wins and gains you’ve gotten using auditing while maintaining an open mind.
But I would like you to write about your thoughts about the need or not for model session in order to give Scientology a fair trial (as in “use”) This belongs here and also on the Scientific Standards and Scientology thread.
You say “Writing that the actual essence of auditing is looking is similar to defining the essence of communication as talking. See? it just isn’t enough. Auditing has component parts that go together to create the whole. ”
No, those are not at all the same. Looking is the Why auditing is working. Talking is Not the Why communication is working. Apples and pears.
And getting to the core of why something is working is valuable research IMO. And by applying LRH tech to this, getting to the WHY of something opens the door to handling. And I would dare to claim that this is true not only for negative WHYs.
“Auditing” is a method of guiding LOOKING.
“Auditing” is a method that can get quite cumbersome and error prone.
.
Another dodge. The PC looking to his bank for answers to the auditors specific questions are components of auditing and there are more. There is no “underlying” at all. There are important component parts and looking is one of them.
Your complaints about the improper unstacking of the mind have nothing in common with auditing either. Please don’t be bothered by my statement that KHTK is a rehash of TR’s and obnosis drills. Your “blanks” in learning is a rehash of misunderstood word clearing and a very brief one at that.
Please rest assured that my complaints about your own technology are directed only at that technology and not related to my complaints about your dodging of questions and other comm cycle offenses. My complaints about your manners is a different complaint.
How right you are. I believe i use not the word as channel, [new word to look at, thanks] but a many facet diamond each item has many facets, right,has countless channels, yes, flow, connects, or dead end or a obsticle on, like ridge, could be invisible etc. thank you.
Geir, in session one never looks at things with the eyes. we know that, eyes sees nothing that moment but the auditor or if one in solo than whatever. When in session I see as the being whe whole incident in holographic form within the perception what the eyes perceive. There is two pictures but only which i confront has my attantion an. The eye bit has no meaning. I believe we use the words differently, beside diamond I like to say I have peeled off another layer from the onion. My expressions are not technical. well onion..
As I said – Looking has little to do with eyes.
Little bit more to it. If there is a hill I see the hill at first but if i want see through the hill and need to bee seen though in need to understand than I would. I have no idea how and otheres confront but I would love to know what you folks see. My siter is here for dinner!
I guess it’s safe to say most of us aren’t able to see through hills! But that isn’t required in session, I think you would agree. We simply confront whatever perceptions are before us – seeing, hearing, tasting, touching, smelling, etc. That’s all we mean by Looking – and it applies to both in session and outside of session.
.
Marildi 100% right,
Dear Geir, is the first time that I read a post and comments on your blog. Let me tell you that you are a true gentleman and able to grant beingness. Everyone could post his point of view in a free speech.
The post is really interesting to learn about the reality of an OT without entering data that could be restimulated.
I find your point of view interesting and I agree with many of your positions about Scientology.
B.W. Akhbaka
Thank you. And welcome.
You are very welcome to post your comments and views here.
I find that abilities in their purity belong to the dimension of “unknowable.” We may say that the dimension of “unknowable” is the dimension of pure abilities.
On the other hand the dimension of knowable is the dimension of forms and considertaions. These two dimensions are independent of each other like “x” and “y” coordinates.
The being, soul, individual, person, or thetan belong to the “knowable” dimension. Abilities do not reside in the thetan. Abilities seem to reside in the “unknowable’ dimension. The thetan seems to modulate the abilities the same way as a lens modulates the rays of light. Please see Comments on Descartes’ Works
.
Vinaire, why is the dimension of pure abilities not knowable?
Because you only know what you consider them to be. In short. you only know your consideration about what is in that dimension.
.
I had this thought regarding this; There may not be knowledge in its purest sense regarding what you label “Unknowable” – but there could be inference.
Of course. Please see
Essay #4: THE NATURE OF THOUGHT
Thought is visualization. The purpose of thought is to give form to the unknowable.
We perceive only our consideration of what is out there.
.
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/a-radical-new-view-of-the-upper-scientology-levels-ok-here-goes/#comment-4548
Marildi: “Or are the “dream-like” creations more like Elizabeth’s Shrapoo (in her post above), who was the twin created by Patek. Shrapoo ultimately melted into the nothingness of the Universe – while Patek regained the Theta of Self.”
That was a lovely story, but not scientifically consistent. I would have concluded it with both Shrapoo and Patek vanishing like an electron and positron upon realizing each other’s beingness.
But, hey, art is different from science and it persists in people’s emotions. 🙂
.
Vinaire, good thing science do not exists in the theta universe. If it would, than theta universe would not exitst.
eh… why?
You need to ask your self that. One question. How the intengible can be numbered figured out added to taken away from, added up given the + and -, look at the chemical compound of it and thousand more way in manipulations to figure out its contents.
Than arrive to the conclusion that intengable after all is intangable. If one can measure calculate, do the above an any subject or object than items hold, made of energy of somekind in variation and than that belongs to the MEST. Theta universe is intengible. I will not mix here the concepts: universes within universes.
I happen to think that the MEST universe is simply an agreed upon existence – hence an aspect of what you refer to as the theta universe. MEST is theta agreed. And science is the subject of consistent, agreed-upon considerations – or put another way – the study of agreements.
Looks like your view of science is quite different from mine. Science gets one to truly understand what theta is. Science is consistency and so is theta. Science gets one to look and think systematically with precision. If you think that science is just numbers and chemicals then you need to study and find out more about science. Science will even help you understand creativity better. You can then create better yarns. My view of Science is similar to that of Buddha. Western science is a subset of it. Theta universe is not clearly understood by many because they do not understand science.
.
I think Elizabeth is looking at Theta as the realm of pure creation.
That is above logic and science. In your own universe you can create anything at all and there need be no logic or science involved.
Science and logic are themselves creations. Thus creation is senior to them.
True.
Valkov, Thank You.
“I think Elizabeth is looking at Theta as the realm of pure creation.
That is above logic and science. In your own universe you can create anything at all and there need be no logic or science involved.
Science and logic are themselves creations. Thus creation is senior to them.”
Last fall a cognition has taken me outside the Universe, The MEST Universe, which includes all which is can be perceived with eyes , with telescopes satellites what ever even includes the perception one has as a being.
This was not the first time I have left this Universe but it was the first time I had the choice to come back or not.
From where I have viewed The Universe first there was just the Infinite, not being aware of self , nothing.
Than a tiny point appeared it was light, like in size top of the pin.
I have realized that tiny thing was the Universe. My first thought was, how tiny, how insignificant. Than I made my next decision. I have as-ised the MEST Universe as it was known to me, as-ised the part which I have created by my own agreements. the Tech. works., soloing works. I have soloed since 76 every day there were days when I was in session much as 8 hours.
I know the Universe from the view point of Theta. If you care to know approxeimation of solo hours it has taken me to as-is The Universe You can ask.
There is no MEST universe. There is only agreement. The term “outside the MEST universe” is synonymous with “outside general agreement”. That is incidentally the same as “outside playing the game with others”. I wouldn’t consider that very valuable. I like playing games with others 🙂
It is sciene that helps one recognize that creation is creation. Science is a method of knowing. One knows in the purest sense by looking without filters. And that is science in Buddhist terms.
Western view of science is limited to solids.
.
Vinaire,
One Patek, was a real being the other just a mock-up. i am not surprised you did not get the meaning again. You looking from the scientific view point.
A scientist will consider the difference between a “real” being and an “imaginary” being and would come up with interesting discoveries.
A non-scientist will just play with the considerations of “real” and “imaginary” and not dive deep into it at all.
I think that a scientist is less attached and is in a better position to as-is the whole game. A non-scientist is attached and more and less trapped in the game.
.
Vinaire, the point I took from the story was that the twin Patek was in fact a static (albeit with considerations layered on) and thus immortal. The other twin Shrapoo, Patek’s creation, was just a “consideration” (i.e. not a static, just mass). So for me it was art, yes, and more – perhaps even science of the future! In any case, although you imply otherwise I do believe art can communicate about actualities beyond emotions or imagination. Don’t-cha think?
The term ‘static’ is neither explained nor understood well.
.
It is a term, a word, and thus has a specific definition, which de-fines and is finite. You can say that we don’t know a lot beyond a certain abstract concept of the meaning of static, but that concept in itself can be understood.
If we don’t agree to what the words we’re using mean, I don’t see how we’re going to communicate at all. We’re not getting past a starting point otherwise.
STATIC as defined is just an approximation.
.
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/a-radical-new-view-of-the-upper-scientology-levels-ok-here-goes/#comment-4553
Isene said: “The inherent issue I see with “thetans” or “souls” or “spirits” is that they have connotations or properties attached to them. As Vin points out – any such carries considerations or mass with them. That may point to “viewpoint” as a better term – and definitely a more generic term… usable for the viewpoint of ME as well as viewpoints I create (although they are perhaps leaves of me if I can be seen as a branch… would that make God the trunk of the tree? “
LOL! Viewpoint is definitely a better term. A “viewpoint” just is. It is not assumed by something else. A viewpoint filters and gives form to abilities that reside in a dimension other than the dimension of form and considerations.
.
Yup 🙂
Vinaire and Geir, it seems to me too that use of the term Viewpoint is better than Thetan, less “contaminated” in meaning. But the comment above brings out a potential problem with term, including even the way(s) it is used in The Factors – i.e. there’s more than one meaning and the meanings can be confused.
It is sometimes used to mean Static – at least alluded to in the Factors with the statement, “the viewpoint never perishes.”
Or, Viewpoint can be thought of as a POINT from which to view – as in “the first action of beingness is to ASSUME a viewpoint” and further stating in the Factors that dimension points are extended from that assumed viewpoint. (This is also a regular English definition.)
There is also the regular English definition of, “an attitude of mind” or “a personal perspective from which somebody considers something.”
Therefore, Vinaire, where you say that a viewpoint is not assumed but just is, it seems you are using the word Viewpoint to mean Static. As I see it, what is assumed is more like the other definition, “point from which to view”.
However, Geir, I’m still not clear about the “created Viewpoints” that you are referring to in the OP. Are they created mechanisms in the mind or attitudes of the mind, and can they be Statics too (all created by self)?
I am exploring this myself and will answer when I can 😉
Cool! (You gotta be my favorite PT explorer. 🙂 )
I am not sure if a viewpoint can create another viewpoint that can be totally independent of it. A viewpoint usually gathers more layers through identification, and thus grows into “maturity” and becomes a thetan (joke but it may be true too).
Yes the word “viewpoint” has more than one meaning like most English words. Factors talk about Cause before the beginning, but that is simply a deeply embedded consideration. As a consideration, Cause is already being, and it will continue to be as long as time is there.
As Cause is being at some point in space, it must already have a viewpoint. What appears as sequential in Factors is not really sequential.
(More later…)
Marildi said: Therefore, Vinaire, where you say that a viewpoint is not assumed but just is, it seems you are using the word Viewpoint to mean Static. As I see it, what is assumed is more like the other definition, “point from which to view”.
No, I am not using the word ‘viewpoint’ to mean static. Viewpoints may be quantified as one or more viewpoints. But static cannot be quantified that way. You cannot say one or more statics. If Hubbard used static in a plural form then, for me, that would be a self-contradiction. I always took static to mean a dimension that is independent of this ‘knowable’ dimension of consideration and form.
Static, in that sense, is the dimension that I refer to as ‘unknowable’. It is a dimension free of consideration and form.
Viewpoint to me is a manifestation that has a form (therefore, it can be plural), which is a special kind of consideration through which static is manifested as kinetic (or unknowable as knowable). An analogy would be the operation of “squaring” that converts an imaginary number into a real number.
In that sense, a viewpoint would act as a portal, and may appear as ‘unique’ or ‘individual’. Hope this makes the meaning I am using it in more clear.
.
Actually, Static would be zero dimensions.
Only from the viewpoint of the the dimension of consideration.
That is why I called it unknowable.
.
Okay, if viewpoint is not a static, what do you make of the statement that it never perishes? Maybe you don’t agree with LRH on that so, more to the point, what IS the definition of viewpoint as you are using it?
Also, it makes no sense to say that static has no dimensions when that is part and parcel of the definition of the word.
Okay, good point about static in a plural sense being contradictory.
When you say static is unknowable, does “is” identify – e.g. He is president.
Or does the word “is” describe – e.g. He is tall.
Also, you seem to have a concept for the word static, as you use it. Does it differ from the definition?
My view of “static” has been the same as my view of BRAHMA from “Jyana Yoga” prior to Scientology. If Hubbard meant it in a different way then I didn’t follow Hubbard’s interpretation. But who knows what Hubbard meant. This is such a deep concept that it cannot be conveyed through mere words.
“Static is unknowable” means that one may only speculate about it. Even saying “Static is unknowable” is a speculation but that doesn’t imply its opposite either.
.
Please study what I have written about unknowable on my blog. It is something very difficult to explain and having it understood.
.
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/a-radical-new-view-of-the-upper-scientology-levels-ok-here-goes/#comment-4551
This is a totally misguided pointand useless point being raised in this discussion. It speaks volume about the fixations of the viewpoint presented.
.
Vinaire, this is too much of a generalization to understand. Can you be more specific?
Marildi, we are having a lovely day the Garden and I we share space today.
You go, girl! 🙂
Ok Here are some points for starters:
1) Knowledge should be examined for what it is. Attaching the consideration of some “source” to knowledge is attaching an unnecessary filter.
2) And on top of that defending the consideration of that “source’ is akin to identifying self with that “source”. It then becomes looking at knowledge through the filter of a layered “self.”
3) Those that are defending Hubbard as “source” or as “driving force” are not looking at knowledge for what it is. They are fixated on the idea of “creation” and are distracted by that fixation.
4) Such viewpoints are taking a shortcut by believing in a “source” and evaluating knowledge through the authorship of that “source”. This is a filter they have chosen out of sheer laziness.
.
And it is related to Argumentum ad Hominem
I agree, knowledge should be examined for what it is. And those who are criticizing LRH as a reason to reject Scn seem to be ignoring that truth just as much as those who are defending him when they should probably just point out the fallacy. Actually, I think those who defend LRH are usually doing so in response to criticism of him, because they know that such criticism – even when it doesn’t include criticism of Scn itself – strongly tends to taint Scn, regardless of the fact that it’s a logical fallacy.
And if I may, Vinaire, here’s something for you to “look” at – the fact that you tend to be more aware of and point out the bad logic coming from the one side, might be an indicator of your own filter (bias). 😉
I try to handle all sides as even-handedly as possible for me. The critics at ESMB also get a piece of my mind the same way.
.
I find it mainly a waste of time to engage in criticism of Scientology – the technology. Time is better invested in focusing on end results and positively working toward that end.
Geir, I haven’t seen you engage in the criticism of Scn Tech at all, other than the OP here. Not for you to spend too much time on it, but are there other criticisms of the Tech that you have?
Not that I am going to waste much time with it; but yes.
I have come to the conclusion that the Admin Tech is a highly unworkable body of knowledge (there are bits and pieces in the Admin Tech that is indeed valuable – but as a Body of Knowledge it is a failure.)
As to the Red-on-White… I see the Study Tech as incomplete, the PTS tech as incomplete (it boils down to something akin to a tautology)… have to think about other outpoints… I’ll get back to you.
Oops, I know better but when you said Scn Tech I was only thinking of auditing Tech. I remember your blog posts on every one of the things you listed. But the current one is definitely on auditing tech and is the only one I can recall. But I don’t mind if you complete the full list if and when the spirit moves you. 🙂
Actually, not sure I remember the one about the PTS tech, or specifically that it resembles a tautology. Which post?
Not a post yet, but there’s a brief summary that I may expand upon later;
The basis behind PTSness is suppression. LRH goes so far in a tape that is often cited to OTs at Flag that any counter-intention could cause PTSness, even as brief as, let’s say 20 minutes of it. So, if Any counter-intention can make for a PTS, and Any game consists of barriers (counter-intentions – as there is nothing in a game but agreements), then a person can become PTS to any intention not aligned with his own for as brief as a split second. Then it seems that any person would be prone to PTSness every day for shorter or longer times. It becomes the common state in any game. Now one would of course only handle PTSness as it affects the progress in auditing – but the fixation on finding an SP seems to contradict the reference in the above mentioned tape.
I can’t help but wonder if that tape was blown out of proportion or taken out of context or some such. Actually, the datum is similar to the one that says a person under stress is actually under suppression on one or more dynamics. What you said applies there too – simply playing the game of life with its opponents and barriers obviously involves greater or lesser stress. Some Simple Simon could take the datum to the nth degree and get fixated on eliminating stress and end up being ridiculously inactive. Taking it literally and not aligning all the principles of tech, is just rote application. Anyway, don’t mean to get you into it too much! 🙂
It was indeed aligned left, right and center. And LRH did mean what I said. And he also clearly stated that ALL diseases and accidents stems from PTS just like all stress stems from PTS. But, if all this is true, then it is a red herring to go chase for an SP if you are ill, stressed or bumped the car – because that could be the product of ANY counter-intention.
Geir,
The counter intention has to have within it the desire to harm or destroy, to make smaller, and dominate the other, and to deny wanted be do and have, and enforce wanted be do and have.
If that isn’t present then it was not suppressive. Kind of combination of psychosis, service fac, and inverted ARC. Of course the receiver has to have agreed to it, and have done something similar to another for it to have any power.
Look at me – what a poor little innocent victim I am of the big bad SP.
BS. Its an other determined, effect viewpoint, and we should not let beings get away with that.
All a bunch of pretending who is the bigger victim.
Listen to the “role of the Weakest Valence” from the 1st Melbourne ACC.
How is this for aristic creation Doc?
Picnic with friends in the theta universe and we play… [the players are bloggers at Geir Isene’s Bolg.
Here we are, my friend Indigo [sabre tooted pussy cat] and I sitting nowhere in no space on a huge boulder dangling our invisible feet into the void overlooking the Universe.
We are playing a game, I mock-up a flower he blows it a way and he mock-up a terrain where gazelles bouncing running wild and after them this huge sabre tooth cat in full pursuit I am looking at this wild savannah and listening to Indigos chuckles beside me.
I ask: how come you here than who is chasing the gazelles?
I: My own muck up I been wondering if I seat here could I be there too chasing the gazelles, so I am doing this experiment.
E: But why are you blowing away my flowers?
I: Because I want you to share my experiment.
E: Well OK.
We look on as the wild chase continues and finally the dust settles and the gazelles vanish in the shrubbery than the picture of the savannah slowly melts away only a panting cat with huge grin on his face remains in a distance, tongue lolling.
E: Now what, how did the experiment go within your reality??
I: Well, I rather do nothing. It is fun to mock-up put out the fear, hunger, the need, but after all, it has been done too many times I need to invent something different, totally different, I got it! I am brilliant, from now on the gazelles going to chase me.
With that though settled, Indigo moved into contentment, purred in silence and with invisible paws washed his invisible face only his tongue could be seen.
Whatever, after all, have body or don’t have one don’t make much difference we can play with or without the same way.
We continued observe in silence as the universe evolved front of us. Suddenly a hissing chuckle and tickling sensations’ was where I should have had my ears. Tanaja has oozed in, covered with stardust, a glutton of a Boa.
E: Tanaja, you been into food again, look at yourself you are huge you are bigger than that Milky Way.
T: I know,[ he sighed] I just can’t resist stardust, by the way that remark about my size was it invalidation, evaluation by any chance? Indigo stopped licking his fur and there were a twinkle in his eyes,.
E: Oh, read the content as you like wear the shoe if fits.”
T: A shoe, shoes, I don’t have feet how can I wear shoes?
El: Well mock some up.
In one instance, Tanaja had thousands of feet and on each foot a different shoe. There were runners, sandals from roman times, spiked shoes, blunt toed, moccasins, loafers, booths of every kind I even seen lumber jack unlaced booths, hundreds and hundreds of them made for different occasion to be worn in different lifetimes.. There were baby knitted booties, and bronzed baby shoes, booth for space walking, fur lined etc.. I even noticed he had duck feet and flippers for underwater among the many. And the ruby sleepers, I wondered how he got those!
What a sight, we role with laughter we were covered by stardust from head to toe.
Suddenly Peter appeared. His presence turned us into a question mark.
I T E: What’s new, we asked in union.
P: Not much, but I had to escape from Fairy Land, after all the fairies don’t have much variation in their games and that music and party in the garden every night, well I need a little variety in my life.
We look at him and ask again as one, you have a life?
We burst out in laughter and madly scrambled to dodge from his beautifully expressed “anger”, he was zapping us with huge blue sizzling thunder bolts. What a fun to catch those and throw them back till he cried out asked for forgiveness.
We, three of us settled back on our boulder and Peter in front of us in the empty space mocked up a beautiful camp fire including the snapping sounds of sparks and the breeze stirring the smoke about us. Oh memories! And we all stared into the firelight.
P: I have been wandering about and I went back to the old dig.
E I T: In echo: you went again back to Earth?
P: Yes,[he yawned invisibly of course] I was just curious how things were there, but everything is still the same same. I was looking over somebodies shoulder reading a blog and I seen that Marty and DM is still at it.
We nodded our invisible head. Yap, nothing has changed on Earth everything is still the same.
P: Where is Chris and rest of the gang?
El: Oh, Chris is gone to the Black Hole and doing on experiment how many times he could go through and if it is possible to burn off the “I” if is possible to erase that energy too. I believe he will set a record going through that Hole.
And Marildi and Valkov found a huge mock-up of on ancient library and they are rooting through, shifting the information to see if anything new can be found. We believe that they have because we have seen from that direction two pairs of boxing gloves bouncing about and some sparkles flying. Also sounds like thunder rumbled, they must be having wonderful time figthing over who is right or who is wron.
Vanier is back at Earth giving another go, hitting every being on the head with his invisible bat to knock the old beliefs out, that useless eastern philosophy and he is bent on spreading new reality, he has a new motto, “meditation get you nowhere so don’t bother with the om”.
And Geir went with friends on a holiday cruise.
You have to go see his new sail boat, first of course he needed the ocean, mocked up from dust of sapphire I helped with that part.
The white caps on the water formed by crystalline diamonds, it looks real real, for the deep water part he used space with all sort of critters swimming in the depth even has flocks of flamingos under water. Do birds swim?
Listen to this, while visiting, Indigo and I went for a dip and we seen down there a Road Runner being chased by a shark, a parrot standing on the whales head and giving direction which way to swim.
A school of fish reciting the abc and dolphins taking singing lessons from the canary. as you can see Geir real got his ocean scene sorted out.
But his sail boat is a beauty. He used a huge mock up of on old tree a giant. Now imagine half of the roots are sheared off and the rest is under water you know, becomes that think which keeps the boat stable. For sail the half of the branches he left on with leafs that is the front part of the boat. I think the branches are the masts, the leafs, act as the canvas for catching the wind to propel the boat forward.
The trunk of course is hallowed out, but some places the bark left intact and those parts are the cabin walls with port holes even. There is a mammoth swimming behind this boat and he blows the air from his trunk. The problem Geir has when the mammoth dissolves time to time the boat no longer moves than Geir has to blow the air at the sails himself.
We cut our visit sort since he does not serve peach nectar.
P: Fire looks great, let’s roast some marshmallows,
Ta: Well, I don’t eat marshmallows.
P: Ok, you can lick some sparkles from the fire, by the way: in one of my past life’s I was a fire eater in the circus.
Ta: What a fire eater do and how the earthly fire tastes?
P: Tanaja you have been eating stars for eons and you ask me about fire eaters?
El: PETER, demonstration please? You are fooling, Tanaja don’t believe him, and fire-eaters did not have fire coming out of their ears, he just joshing!
In: Well I don’t like sparkles; I rather sniff roasted whatever, with some tangy barbeque souse on it.
El: Ok, you sniff to your heart delight while you doing that I have glass of peach nectar, look out Tanaja, Tanaja you are slurping away too much sparkles from the fire , I smell fur, Indigo your coat is singed.
El: Peter, that is your second bag of marshmallows, and I am saturated through, overdosed on sugar too much peach nectar, I think I will solo more on peach nectar since I am addicted! And here comes Chris, Chris we are having a picnic are you going to have something?
Ch: No, I have had too much “nothing” already, I am up to my gills with nothing but I will have bourbon and branch water without bourbon and water and hold the ice too, here comes Marildi and Valkov just look at them they are soaked and dripping from ancient knowledge! Good thing we have fire going they can dry off. Tanaja don’t lick the flames and I smell singed fur.
I: What are they going to dry off I don’t see anything, they are invisible and what are they smelling? I don’t smell anything.
T: Oh, don’t mind them Indigo they are into human talk they all used to belong some blogging group waaaaaay back, except Peter he used to walk about way under on some patch of land called Australia and the rumours has it that once in one of his life he was very famous pirate Drake but I just don’t get it, how could he be a duck and a pirate at the same time.
I: ask Valkov I am sure he could do a research on ducks.
Ma: we have found a book about GODS. Is anyone wanted to know more about Gods? I smell burned fur, Indigo how come cats love heat? Why all these shoes are scattered here I never seen so many, are we planning universal garage sale and how odd they are not in pairs all singular and why one duck feet, where is the rest of the duck?
In: Marildi you ask too many questions I don’t know why cats love heat and I am not wearing my fur today, and we have not invited duck today that is the very logical answer to your question so that is the reason you don’t see duck here!
Va: Oh, I see a bat; Vanier is here, Vinnie I have few question for you, can invisible bats burn? If so, how long it will burn and what is the magnitude of the heat they give out? While you thinking about it, here have some popcorn. And I have my boxing gloves on, so look out.
Vin: I am ready when you are, on my way here I have heard a very philosophical question which could bring in great amount of new knowledge but we must have our filters to handle this. Do fish fly? Why is Tanaja slurping sparkles I thought he only eats stardust, I never understood boas, is something roasting with fur on?
Ch: Valkov take a good look at Vinnie’s bat, do you know that bat can hit one thousand head a day? Nothing but common sense pours forward from that thing, now that is one magic bat. Whose turn is mocking food up, and where is Geir I am starving!
M: I will call Geir, Geeeeeeiiiiiiiirrrrrrrrrr !
Everybody: good think we don’t have ear drums!
I: What drums have to do with Marildi’s voice?
Va: give me your head Indigo but keep your eyes, thanks, now do you see all this different bone pieces here, let me explain how they work………………….
G: Hi you guys good to be here, have I missed something? We sailed by Earth on the way here let me tell you, nothing have changed there and Marty and DM still at it.
What are we having for the main course; I smell burned fur, Tanaja you dripping stardust on everything you are the messiest eater I have ever seen and why are we waist deep in shoes?
I see popcorn and boxing gloves are we going to have a debate? But first I must have a theta shower; ah, that Earth is such a dusty place……
So Geir, what was that bullet in or whatever, you refer to about PTS? I’d like to read it.
It seems to be missing the defintion of ‘supression’ which I have understood as “A harmful action or intention against which one is unable to fight back.”
That is a lot more definitive than simply “any counter-intention”. A counterintention one is aware of is a lot different than one that is masked, hidden, invisible for any reason, or that the individual believes for whatever reason, cannot be countered.
Geir, you may be interested in the works of Gregory Bateson, who developed the concept of the “double bind” as a causative factor of schizophrenia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_Bateson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_bind
It just strikes me that any game involves opponents and counter intentions; those alone are not necessarily causative of true PTSness as I understand it. Which is very incompletely.
Take the game of soccer. Take Messi as your opponent. You are trying to defend your goal against the best soccer player of all times. He passes you, twice… no thrice., turns around, dribbles and SCOOOOORES! His intention was harmful to you in that game… and you were unable to fight back. Yep, that is suppression.
Now, instead of this exercise in “hunt the SP”, I would rather have a tech that parallels that of Aikido. It is not a matter of finding and handling SPs, it is a matter of training the person to handle Any counter-intention. That would be the Good Angle.
I just dunno, Geir. I imagine those Flag types could also take one of the all-comprehensive definitions of “responsibility” and use it to their ends, to convince OTs that they should take full responsibility for…by… Or they could do a number on what an OT should be capable of, or go on about postulates. And show all the “applicable references” too.
But you are a pretty darn reliable source and if you yourself have heard the tape, then I guess I should “see it to believe it.” Do you remember which one it was?
I can’t remember the tape – I will try to find it.
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/a-radical-new-view-of-the-upper-scientology-levels-ok-here-goes/#comment-4677
I would reeaally like to hear this taped lecture you say was quoted to OTs at Flag, if you can identify it.
My nose is really twitching at this, twitching in a major way.
To me it sounds like a huge outpoint, for Flag to be doing that to OTs.
I’ve been reading a lot of first-person accounts by people who have been there and here’s what I see:
Flag is, and has been for a long time, creating a dangerous environment for OTs especially. “Creating a dangerous environment “, per Ron’s Merchants of Chaos article. This used to be in the New Slant On Life book; I wonder if it’s still there in the new editions?
The Flag line appears to be “It’s a dangerous environment out there for you OTs! Full of entheta and SPs and counter-intentions that will make you go PTS! Beware! Beware! Beware! Beware! Red Alert! Red Alert!”
Of course this is Flag’s modus operandi across the boards. Same approach used to solict donations etc.
but to use this on OTs is criminal. Notice the effect is to push in anchor points, make the OT fearful and withdrawn and disconnect from the world at large.
This is the complete opposite of the view back in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s. Then we belived, and Ronbelived,that an OT was MORE able to create an effect and handle the environment, not less.
But the message today is that OTs are weaker, not stronger, and need to protect themselves from counter-intentions by not reaching to handle, but withdrawing, withdrawing, withdrawing.
That’s the out point.
Flag is instilling fear in the OTs in order to control them, isolate them, make them pliable.
It is to invalidate the OTs and prevent them from looking and seeing how things really are inside and outside the CoS.
Back in the day, we viewed OTs as being more capable of handling the dangerous environment, not less capable. Thatwas the whole point!
In conjuction with the fear-mongering drumbeat of dangerous environment,dangerous environment, hide, hide, hide, has been the suppression of training in the CoS.
Ron said distinctly that 50% or more of gains came from that side of the Bridge. He said that if you Cleared a person without training him, you were doing him a great disservice.
I’ll bet there are very few “ots” in recent years that had any more than the minimum required training to get on Solo auditing.
“If you know the Tech, it will protect you.”
I believe most of the people getting up to the OT levels in recent years, don’t know the Tech. So they are relatively defenseless.
I agree that this was the modus operandi at Flag. But the reference I was referring to acted in the other direction, actually. It mellowed down the hysteria around PTSness. And yes, LRH did explain how a person could be momentarily PTS – and he did mention the 20 minute example.
PTS def 2 from the Tech dic: “Is the manifestation of a postulate-counterpostulate”.
Well I hope this lecture can be located so I can hear/read the transcript at least!
But on the soccer game example: I do not agree that is necessarily “suppression”, in the SP/PTS tech sense. Although I suppose it could be extended to that. There are common elements, such as the postulate/counter postulate.
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/a-radical-new-view-of-the-upper-scientology-levels-ok-here-goes/#comment-4729.
Hubbard does cover this in DMSMH.
But when we are talking about SP, it is a more specialized definition because it’s a more specialized scenario.
Hmmm. Perhaps the difference is simply in how the SP ‘plays the game’, because of his mental/emotional set.
There is tons of material and observations in psychology , psychiatry and psychoanalysis on this area.
Freud observed that in many cases there was a family member or close person who appeared to want/need the patient to be ill, neurotic, or psychotic and worked at keeping it that way, and Freud viewed this kind of person as a barrier to the patient getting better. in some cases the only way the patient would get better was to break off the relationship.
The seeds of disconnection or reconfiguration of such destructive relationships as a therapeutic technique are right there.
“Change of environment”, not disconnection as it has come to be in the CoS.
As the old saying goes – Well. It’s a deep subject.
Which is hard to discuss because everyone seems to have their own take on it.
It cannot be the intention or how the SP plays the game – it has to be the effect that the receiver allows a counter-intention to have on him. It has nothing to do with an “SP” and all to do with the receiver. Or else one gives away responsibility… and that is perhaps the initial problem that makes for the situation – i.e. one does not take responsibility for the counter-intention and thus can become effect of it. Then looking for an SP is generating PTSness.
I personally like the broad ideas of SP and PTS and I think it should be treated as broad ideas. However, when it comes to counter-intention I think Hubbard meant entheta. Entheta enturbulates but having opposite goals in a game doesn’t necessarily mean entheta is involved.
Being outplayed by Messi doesn’t necessarily involve entheta, but if he screams profanities at you it does involve entheta.
The problem with “entheta” is that it is subjective. One man’s Theta is another man’s Entheta. Ref. Messi on the football field – my guess is that his opponents often get aggrevated, enturbulated and seriously annoyed or infuriated.
“Theta, below 2 .0 on the tone scale, we call entheta.”. Invalidation could also be used.
ENTHETA, 1 . means enturbulated theta (thought or life); especially refers to communications, which, based on lies and confusions, are slanderous, choppy or destructive in an attempt to overwhelm or suppress a person or group. (Scn AD) 2 . theta which has been confused and chaotically mixed with the material universe and which will lie in this confusion until death or some other process disenturbulates it. Theta, below 2 .0 on the tone scale, we call entheta. (SOS, p. 41) 3 . anger, sarcasm, despair, slyly destructive suggestions. (HTLTAE, p. 88)
— L. Ron Hubbard
Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary
1. Messi is not going below 2.0 by being a great soccer player, so any player being enturbulated is his own fault (not being able to accept somebodys else great capability).
2. Being invalidated means entheta is sent toward somebody and thus enturbulating that person.
So the first case means somebody enturbulates himself (and thus is his own fault), and the second case means he is enturbulated by another by having sub-2.0 energy sent at him (and is thus not his own fault).
That’s at least the way I interpret the difference.
Well, it doesn’t matter if someone beats you on 1.1 or on 22 on the tone scale, if you get enturbulated it is still your fault. So, my point stands; One man’s Theta is another mans Entheta.
The simplest way to illustrate it is probably like this:
A) No force toward a person (success creating jealousy in others etc)
B) Force toward a person (getting invalidated, hit, beaten up etc)
Both might create enturbulation, but only in case B does the offended person have the right to be upset about it (according to me).
That’s why I don’t consider Messis soccer playing suppressive, as opposed to Hitler killing people. Of course, this is all about definitions… and viewpoints..
Exactly – it boils down to viewpoints; it is subjective.
In the case of Messi, he does use force. Or make the example into the game of boxing… see? It is all subjective. It is a matter of what the receiver considers suppressive – and that is all a matter of what the receiver can take responsibility for.
I think being e.g. jealous is that persons own responsability and nobody’s else, contrary to being invalidated.
Being “attacked” (invalidated, beaten etc) is often upsetting to many people. This is something I wonder why it is so. Is it a consideration, implant or our “nature”? I remember Hubbard writing about soldiers being attacked in Pearl Harbor and there was a platoon that was ordered to throw something back at the planes, mostly small stones and cans (of course missing), but after the war that platoon was found to have less mental illness than the other soldiers that got attacked. This is interesting. Hubbard also claimed that if somebody was shot by a bullet and at the exact same time shot back he would not get harmed. I doubt that but the idea is interesting.
There is something upsetting about being hit or invalidated, having an evil force directed towards you. As to boxing, there’s first an agreement that “we will hit each other” so that removes the upsetting part. There seems to be a general agreement that “if being invalidated is not agreed upon” I will be upset by it.
The times I’ve been invalidated and “returned it” I’ve actually felt better. This fascinates me and I wonder why it is so. Perhaps some kind of an implant or strange consideration that has developed over the eons? Some kind of ridge seems to build up when I try to “return energy” in my mind, but if I do it in real life the energy disappears.
Has this changed for you since going up the bridge? Are you less easily upset nowadays?
I am less easily upset by the things I used to get upset about. I still get upset, though… but less easily.
Vinaire, I am curious about the kinds of things (briefly) that they are saying at ESMB and what stand you are taking when you give them a piece of your mind. Maybe I’ve seen you post similarly here and haven’t much noticed (which might be an indicator of my own bias, ha ha).
You ought to go to ESMB and experience it for yourself.
My stand at ESMB is the same that I take here… when you look at knowledge, you look at it without coloring it with additives, such as, who the source is, etc.
.
P.S. I meant that I might not notice the posts I’m in agreement with as much as I notice what I’m not in agreement with and thus more sensitive to.
Does knowledge exist in the forest, if there is no-one there to know it?
Do you really think that ‘knowledge’ exists apart from a ‘knower’?
Obviously not. You have said so yourself in many ways. As in your repeated statements that all one can know are one’s own considerations.
You contradict yourself repeatedly, apparently just to be oppositional to the statements of others.
If one is not looking then one won’t perceive. That seems pretty straightforward to me.
I don’t know what is out there. It is unknowable until I look. When I look and let my considerations come up to identify it, only then I perceive. But even then I only perceive those considerations, and not what is out there.
.
Vinnie sez;
“I don’t know what is out there. It is unknowable until I look. When I look and let my considerations come up to identify it, only then I perceive. But even then I only perceive those considerations, and not what is out there.”
Ah.
1. You ‘let your considerations come up’. Where do they come up from? Do you create your considerations,or do you consider they have another source?(there’s that word again!)
2. as for your last sentence, Hubbard says virtually the same thing about how a person perceives, in The Factors series of lectures.
The difference seems to be that he has the thetan(person) duplicating what is out there, then perceiving his duplicate, as near as I could understand it.
The major issue I see is, do your considerations duplicate ‘what is actually there’? They would have to, for as-isness to occur, wouldn’t they?
If you consistently (mis)identify the rhinocerous in the livingroom as an elephant or a moo-cow, then you are called out-reality and have a problem.
As when driving your car, if you see a green light when the light is actually red…..
So there is a little more to it than ‘you only see your considerations’.
In some way, a person does perceive what is actually there.
Even you do.
(1) Considerations come up from one’s filter (programming or conditining) mixed with one’s speculations. The unknowable simply provokes the considerations and speculations
(2) When one is looking through the filter one is mixing these considerations with one’s speculations. Thus, one cannot duplicate the considerations embedded in the filter. One only perceives one’s speculations as conditioned by the considerations from the filter.
(3) It is only when one looks at the filter, as in KHTK, that one duplicates and as-ises the considerations from the filter, and the filter itself on a gradient.
.
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/a-radical-new-view-of-the-upper-scientology-levels-ok-here-goes/#comment-4630
Vinnie, you contradict yourself frequently apparently in attempts to make yourself right when someone presents a different POV.
Your post above is a perfect example. You have devoted pages of text to defending your position that all one can know are one’s own considerations.
Then you turn around and claim there are no sources for anything, and no sources of knowledge. That’s the same gag Buddhists have been pulling for centuries. It’s just a thought-stopping gimmick. The temple is actually empty.
Let’s try this again:
“If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound?”
Most basic answer:
“No, because the definition of sound is “something that you hear.” No one’s there to hear the tree fall, so the tree doesn’t make a sound. This answer is valid as long as no details are observed technically.
Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/If_a_tree_falls_in_the_forest_and_no_one_is_around_to_hear_it_does_it_make_a_sound#ixzz1OLX3AnIW
There is no knowledge unless there is a knower.
There are no considerations except when there is a ‘considerer’.
There is no ‘looking’ except as there is someone ‘looking’.
The chicken and the egg arise simultaneously out of their ‘potential’ to exist.
The only source there is is the looker. When you look at Scientology, you are the source of what you perceive and not Hubbard.
.
“The only source there is is the looker.”
So you agree there is a source and there is a looker. Whew.
Marildi,
Just because he said it does not necessarily mean he agrees with what he said.
But we can try to hold him to it.
Exactly right, Valkov. We need to be “hold him to it” so as to reflect back to him any illogic or inconsistency that we perceive, or to give him a chance to clarify what he is trying to say. Or he can correct our misdulication. This goes for all of us of course, and then we get a productive discussion.
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/a-radical-new-view-of-the-upper-scientology-levels-ok-here-goes/#comment-4551
Vinnie sez, about my post above:
“This is a totally misguided point and useless point being raised in this discussion. It speaks volume about the fixations of the viewpoint presented.”
Well I guess you told me! I guess you felt I reeaally needed to know how misguided, useless, and fixated I am , eh Vinnie?
I admit I fully deserved it, for all the fun I have made of you at times.
Please, blast away anytime. It can be liberating to put aside the pretense of super-rational superior enlightment and just let it all hang out at times.
Sometimes an ad hom may actually be quite true and appropriate, and just what the situation calls for.
Because, “the only aberration is denial of self.”
Please see the points I have listed above. I shall also repeat them here:
Ok Here are some points for starters:
1) Knowledge should be examined for what it is. Attaching the consideration of some “source” to knowledge is attaching an unnecessary filter.
2) And on top of that defending the consideration of that “source’ is akin to identifying self with that “source”. It then becomes looking at knowledge through the filter of a layered “self.”
3) Those that are defending Hubbard as “source” or as “driving force” are not looking at knowledge for what it is. They are fixated on the idea of “creation” and are distracted by that fixation.
4) Such viewpoints are taking a shortcut by believing in a “source” and evaluating knowledge through the authorship of that “source”. This is a filter they have chosen out of sheer laziness.
The fundamental aberration is attachment to a self or viewpoint. One then never examines it.
.
Vinnie. I reject all your points out of hand. Some of them maybe valid, some maybe fantasy or delusion, it doesn’t matter. You present them in an authoritarian way without granting anyone else beingness.
Your statements have no use or practical application to me. They are useless. Additionally, they are couched in the language of authoritarianism. ‘Should’ this,’ought’ that, ‘must’ the other thing. It’s like a preachy parent talking down to little children. Yes yes, my identity, thoughts, and beliefs are far inferior to yours. Agreed. I just happen to like them a whole lot better than yours. You may claim yours is the truth while mine is just – whatever dismissive terms you want to use – but fortunately yours is just one man’s opinion and not necessarily relevant to my existence.
“If a tree falls in the forest….”
Let me add another example to those I have already posted:
There is no ‘other’ until a ‘self’ arises. There is nothing to identify with until ‘you’ create it. You cannot create it, until ‘you’ exist.
That’s the simple nature of reality.
LRH wrote the same way. And you write the same way too in expressing yourself.
I think the “authoritarianism” button in this case is part of the filter you are looking through.
.
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/a-radical-new-view-of-the-upper-scientology-levels-ok-here-goes/#comment-4635
Vinnie, I did read some of your points, and basically I think they are intellectualized baloney, because they all miss the point of life and living, knowing, looking, and seeing, and are couched in the language of superiority. They are essentially negative evaluations of what I write and have no other purpose I can see, than to put me back in my place.
And of course I don’t agree! I respect myself more than that! And who cares whether you do or not?
I don’t feel superior at all. I try to write in a neutral way as much as possible.
But, hey, you see what you see. It is your filter. You have to live with it until you decide to let it go.
.
Are you attached to the ideas or arguments you post here or in your KTHK essays?
May I infer that you are,and that because you are attached to them, you never examine them objectively for validity?
Many of your posts seem to infer – got that? INFER – that I and perhaps others, are “attached’ to their ideas and viewpoints,and therefore never examine them.
Does it ever occur to you that just because I write something or present a viewpoint or an ideas, that does NOT necessarily mean I am am “attached” to them and unable to examine them?
This seems to be a fixed idea of yours, that you state over and over. Have you ever examined this, that you might have such a fixed idea, that others are attached, whereas by inference because you comment on it, YOU are not as attached and therefore are ‘better’?
Since you seem to hold ‘non-attachment’ up as a virtue.
OK, if you wish, I am attached to many things. However I am aware that I am attached. In fact if I were not attached to them, they would not exist for me in my universe and I would not be able to examine them anyway, would I?
So you tell me, is there any value at all to ‘non-attachment’? Because if you are not ‘attached’ in some way you are not even perceiving it or ‘looking’ at it, therefore can have no knowledge of whatever you are ‘not-attached’ to.
I guess it’s a pretty good way of making things ‘unknowable’ – to yourself. 🙂
Well, only games and attachments can have any value at all 😉
Valkov, you are on a roll today! 🙂
Thanks Marildi!
I owe it all to Vinnie. He has inspired many of my best posts.
He is the Batman to my Joker, the Thor to my Loki, the perfect straight man to my endless japes and musings. Not to mention the music I steal from Youtube, having no musical talent myself.
I am in turn a test of his character, and the anvil upon which he will either sharpen or shatter the sword of his logic.
Without Vinnie, I am the sound of one hand clapping, or the sound of a tree falling in the forest when there is no-one there to hear.
But can he withstand the heat of the blacksmith’s forge and the blows of Vulcan’s hammer? Stay tuned for the next installment….
I am absolutely tuned in!
Yes, Vinnie does inspire comments and also gets us thinking. But aside from that, Valkov, you sure have one hell of a mind! Just wanted you to know that I have an appreciation for it and I’m sure others do too. Plus, it helps me articulate my own thoughts quite often. Thanks for all your hard work, both in your postings and in your background studies. 🙂
I appreciate Vin’s postings because they provoke my imagination.
I believe it.
(Now let’s see if Chris and Valkov can resist a play on the word “provoke.”
😉 )
The amount of upset shows how much one is feeling invalidated. That is a very. very hot button. It comes from attachment.
If you were not feeling invalidated and upset then I would have said that you are not attached.
.
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/a-radical-new-view-of-the-upper-scientology-levels-ok-here-goes/#comment-4692
What you consistently fail to understand is that I am not upset. I am having fun. But apparently, here’s why:
By your own dictum posted a little upstream of this, “you are the source of what you perceive”:
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/a-radical-new-view-of-the-upper-scientology-levels-ok-here-goes/#comment-4699
You do realize there is a name for that position? It is called “solipsism”.
It is exaltation of self as the only source, and a complete denial of the existence of other perceiving selves.
So much for humility, eh?
By your own logic, that I am upset is simply your consideration.
And you can deny that anything I say about you is an accurate perception on my part. Because it is “only Valkov’s consideration that I am like that, I am not really like that. Valkov can’t really perceive me because a person only perceives his own considerations.”
Psychologically, that might be called a ‘defensive structure’.
But hey, maybe sometimes I really do see you, Vinnie.
After all, it looks pretty silly to be advocating LOOKING if you really don’t believe that a person can see anything!
Reality is Agreement. And for there to be Agreement, there must be at least TWO.
Remember that question I asked you in a post oh, long ago? That you never answered?
Wasn’t it “Can you perceive the mock-ups of others?”
I call it out the way I see it. You call it out the way you see it. Others perceive it the way they see it.
That is the bottom line.
Agreement is an illusion, and at best a compromised one.
.
PTSness may come from compromising one’s reality in order to agree.
.
A person with a filter is already looking through a compromised reality, and he is PTS to that degree.
.
Vinaire, When Valkov rights to you he loughs, his energy shimmers Can you imegine Soap bubles in the air and fireworks the same time? and not in the night but in sunny day? The bubbles dancing the sparks glitter that is humor and he has cart load of it. He is not solid, his universe flows translucent.
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/a-radical-new-view-of-the-upper-scientology-levels-ok-here-goes/#comment-4635
Vinnie sez:
“1) Knowledge should be examined for what it is. Attaching the consideration of some “source” to knowledge is attaching an unnecessary filter.”
“Unnecessary” indeed! More sophistry. You have posted often that the only things one can know are his considerations, his own considerations. One would just be attaching considerations to other considerations.
Where does ‘necessary’ or ‘unnecessary’ come into it? Considerations are considerations, and are only as necessary AS ONE CONSIDERS THEM TO BE SO.
So to label my considerations as ‘unnecessary’ seems to be just a move in a game you are playing.
Please check out the definition of LOOKING.
KHTK 1: INTRODUCTION TO LOOKING
.
If you want to look at knowledge filtered through Hubbard then you may just look at knowledge filtered through Hubbard.
I am interested in knowledge as such.
.
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/a-radical-new-view-of-the-upper-scientology-levels-ok-here-goes/#comment-4699
Vinnie sez:
“When you look at Scientology, you are the source of what you perceive and not Hubbard.”
Then a little later Vinnie sez:
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/a-radical-new-view-of-the-upper-scientology-levels-ok-here-goes/#comment-4726
“If you want to look at knowledge filtered through Hubbard then you may just look at knowledge filtered through Hubbard.
I am interested in knowledge as such.”
Can Vinnie have it both ways? That I am ‘filtering through Hubbard’, and at the same time that ‘I am the source of what I perceive, and not Hubbard’?
It seems like no matter what I say, he finds a way to rebut it. Even if he must contradict himself to do so.
“This is not logical, Mr.Spock.”
Well, some people are “Yabut” people.
In Transactional Analysis there is described a social game called “Why Don’tYou/Yes But…”
It was the first such ‘game’ identified by Eric Berne.
A “3rd degree”(hard) version is “Corner”, which can drive a person nuts, as it is similar to the double bind scenario. A child who has a parent who plays “Corner” on him can end up with some problems. “Corner” is basically, no matter what you do, you’re wrong. Think serfac.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional_analysis
Why Don’t You/Yes But
“The first such game theorized was Why don’t you/Yes, But – in which one player (White) would pose a problem as if seeking help, and the other
player(s) (Black) would offer solutions (the “Why don’t you?” suggestion). This game was noticed as many patients played it in therapy and
psychiatry sessions, and inspired Berne to identify other interpersonal “games”.
White would point out a flaw in every Black player’s solution (the “Yes, but” response), until they all gave up in frustration. For example,
if someone’s life script was “to be hurt many times, and suffer and make others feel bad when I die” a game of “Why Don’t You, Yes But” might
proceed as follows……”
The person who is offering the rejected suggestions might be playing some game like “Why does this always happen to me” or some such, in which his ‘payoff’ is the rejection, which is used as a justifier of some ‘life position’, such as ‘it doesn’t pay to try to help people’.
Here are some additional points:
5) By being attached to a personality, one may find it difficult to properly critique that personality. That seems to be the case regarding Hubbard from where you stand. Your view is always going to be slanted.
6) Individuality seems to be based on the type of construction of the filter that one is looking through.
7) Absence of a filter does not make one into a “Borg.” And, by the way, “God” can also be a filter.
8) Mystery regarding Scientology did not start from 1980s. You just need to look and see what has been there all along.
9) “Founders,” “leaders,” “Scientology,” “Buddhism,” “branches,” etc., are just filters when looking at knowledge. Religion is that aspect of knowledge that seems to focus on self.
10) “Doctrine” is another filter that is usually created to enforce on others.
11) There is no need to codify knowledge if one can look without filters.
12) Knowledge is not a done deal either with Buddhism or with Scientology.
13) Knowledge does not depend on some territory or location.
14) Knowledge is not created by anybody but the looker himself or herself.
.
Vinaire, do you give credence to Logic 8: A datum can be evaluated only by a datum of comparable magnitude.
If so, not everything would be a filter. Knowledge by its very essence has to be relative, except for Basic Truth or Static or what I think you call unknowable – which I’m not sure you believe exists and in which case there is no such thing as knowledge at all…
P.S. So why bother? LOL
All logic is valid in the universe of considerations.
.
Hello Geir,
Here are some links I have wanted to share with you since the beginning of your blog. You may have already done research on the info.
http://www.probablefuture.com/p558.htm
http://www.oneuniversalmind.com/blog/remote-viewing-the-brain-how-science-recent-advances-in-research-explains-it
StarlightONE
Thanks for links.
Hubbardianen.
“It seems to me “going OT” means more getting a cleaner space than getting real OT-abilities”
When ones clears away the MEST. The OT abilities returne, one do not have to look for them.
As one in sessions as-is, some of the mass the OT abilities move in than disappear whe key-in happens.
So the abilities come and go but remain longer and longer as more stuff as-ised.
Than when one is out of the MEST, one is or have the abillity to create and experience at the same time. Cause over.
Hamre,
I haven’t resarched this utterly but I get the feeling most or some OT VIII’s have experienced temporary out-of-body experiences and some OT-phenomenon.
Scientific scrutiny is what I’m looking for. Perhaps there is no such thing as full OT and we are all children of God’s creation? I highly doubt the concept of God as defined of today but do believe in supreme beings.
There’s still a million dollar to be received for anybody who can show paranormal abilities at the James Randi Foundation.
Just get any OT VIII to show up some paranormal stuff and the world would be amazed. On the other hand Hubbard told us to not show OT-abilities since this would upset the MEST-people.
I think most sceptics would be amazed though.
I’m looking forward to the AWARE-report, lead by Dr. Sam Parnia, coming next year where out-of-body experiences in hospitals have been thoroughly investigated.
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/a-radical-new-view-of-the-upper-scientology-levels-ok-here-goes/#comment-4650
Marildi said: Okay, if viewpoint is not a static, what do you make of the statement that it never perishes? Maybe you don’t agree with LRH on that so, more to the point, what IS the definition of viewpoint as you are using it? Also, it makes no sense to say that static has no dimensions when that is part and parcel of the definition of the word.
Static is a dimension the contents of which are knowable to us only in the form of considerations. Viewpoint is that which converts those contents to considerations that can be known. Thus, viewpoint is a portal between these two dimensions.
I would not call the viewpoint imperishable, but it is at a different level compared to the perishable considerations. To me a viewpoint would ideally appear and disappear as is the case in NIRVANA. However, the viewpoint gets layered by the fixed consideration of beingness (thetan), and thus persists and appears imperishable.
Hubbard philosophy stops at beingness and does not go as deep as nirvana. Hubbard was actually derisive of nirvana:
“Thetans are individuals. They do not as they rise up the scale, merge with other individualities. They have the power of becoming anything they wish while still retaining their own individuality. They are first and foremost themselves. There is evidently no Nirvana. It is the feeling that one will merge and lose his own individuality that restrains the thetan from attempting to remedy his lot. His merging with the rest of the universe would be his becoming matter. This is the ultimate in cohesiveness and the ultimate in affinity, and is at the lowest point of the tone-scale.” – Hubbard, Scn 8-8008
Hubbard was very afraid of losing his individuality. He could not let the beingness go. He erroneously thought that losing individuality was merging with the rest of the universe. He didn’t realize that the universe is being created through that beingness. So, when the beingness is let go, the universe is also let go. That was Hubbard’s crashing misunderstood.
.
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/a-radical-new-view-of-the-upper-scientology-levels-ok-here-goes/#comment-4669
“Static is a dimension the contents of which are knowable to us only in the form of considerations.”
Nonsense.
Static is knowable by direct personal experience. Whole religious movements and teachings have been founded on that. Including many of the extant teachings in India involving “God-realization”.
It is the idea of Gnosticism, or even experiencing “nirvana”.
Sure, you can always say “Everything is consideration”, but that’s literally nonsense because you might just as well say “Everything is hemoglobin.” It’s a pointless observation of no-distinction, no-differentiation.
I agree that pounding that point becomes pointless.
I think Hubbard was afraid of nothing. If you can speculate, so can I.
You seem to promote the idea that letting go of beingness is somehow a good thing. I’d like to point out that one must be able to assume a beingness before he can let go of it. One can’t let go of what one does not have in the first place. One must first acquire it.
So being able to acquire is just as important as being able to let go.
It’s basic reach-and-withdraw. I think you are on a stuck flow.
You misunderstand what I have written.
.
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/a-radical-new-view-of-the-upper-scientology-levels-ok-here-goes/#comment-4724
Vin,
It is entirely possible I misunderstood what you have written.
What do you think I misunderstood?
I think that you misunderstand the word “attachment” as it is used in Hinduism. Maybe it translates as “A=A=A” or as “identification” in Scientology.
One is entirely unaware of what one is attached to, and it is only through precise looking that one may become aware of it.
.
You say that viewpoint is a *portal* between the knowable and the unknowable. It would then have to have some actual access to the unknowable or it would not in any true sense be a portal, right?
Yes, at the moment I view the fundamental viewpoint as a portal between unknowable (that cannot be considered and expressed as a form) and knowable (that can be considered and expressed as a form). This is just a speculation or theory, which is developing. It may have access to the unknowable but not in any form that we know of.
I don’t know how an inspiration comes about. It just comes about.
.
This is where you lose me – if you are calling viewpoint a PORTAL to the unknowable, then you must have the consideration that it has access to the unknowable – or you wouldn’t be using a word that denotes access or connection.
And please don’t tell me to read something or other. This is a simple matter of telling me what YOU mean by a word as YOU are using it. If you’ve decided that was not the right choice of words, let’s go back to what you mean by viewpoint. As I’ve said, we’re never going to get anywhere with these discussions if we can’t agree on what the words we’re using mean, right?
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/a-radical-new-view-of-the-upper-scientology-levels-ok-here-goes/#comment-4650
You are a terrific person Marildi! You are kind and sensitive, smart but most of all, you want to know. These questions of yours are not joking.
Look into your own heart and ask this question.
There are no more authorities here for what is in your own heart. Just look and believe yourself and IN yourself.
Chris, that was very well received, thank you!
And I agree about there being no authorities here – or anywhere for that matter. I’m not too bad about believing in myself, I’m getting there. 🙂 But I took what you said as a vote of confidence! And it’s a good thing for all of us to keep in mind while exchanging ideas, expanding views with our blog friends – like you!
Vinaire, isn’t direct experience of Unknowable part of the Buddhist Eightfold Path? And doesn’t that make it a valid route? In Scn this is at the awareness level of KNOW, above LOOK. I think that’s the basic point that many of us have in mind.
I don’t know what Buddha understood or what Hubbard understood. I only know of my interpretation of what they might have understood. What I understand I have tried to express it the best way I can. If you have question about Buddhism, I would advise you to study Buddhism directly. My understanding of nirvana is expressed in this essay: Essay #16: NIRVANA
I can only assume that the experience of Unknowable is the existence without attachment. I believe that the Buddhist Eightfold path aims for this non-attachment where one finally can be totally exterior to any attachment. Scientology may call it being exterior to any identification. To me the two are the same. The level of LOOK in Know to Mystery scale is “looking to know.” I do not fully understand what the level of KNOW above LOOK is. Maybe it is “Know to know” but that doesn’t make sense to me. Maybe the understanding will dawn upon me some day.
.
My understanding of “knowing to know” (i.e. knowing in order to know) means that you simply KNOW, directly. You become aware of some truth or isness by direct “contact” or pervasion, by merging with it, “becoming it.” And (you’ll be happy to know) there is a complete bypass of any filters of consideration.
And this is duly covered in the Route to Infinity tape/course. I did this OT hatting course onboard the Freewinds – and the exercise at the end drills this ability to know by pervading. And it does work 🙂
Wow, that’s a good example of how what are called OT abilities can be drilled in. This sort of thing could be included along with your OP idea, huh? (And the masterminding continues…)
The drills would be across from the auditing, on the training side of your OT Bridge. (Make that co-masterminding – ha ha!)
Hello again Geir,
I would like you to look at another link it is on Robert Dam’s website. He is an OT V in Denmark:
http://www.robertdam-cos.dk/SRI.html
Go to the link Stanford Research Institute Remote Viewing Program
There were 2 Scientologists mentioned in the link who supposedly helped the program with LRH data on exteriorization.
Would like to hear your viewpoints on all the links I have sent you.
StarlightONE
I read Robert Dam’s pages during my 2-year research before I left the CoS. I will plow through the links when I have time and then get back to you – maybe in a separate blog post.
Very interesting study.
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/a-radical-new-view-of-the-upper-scientology-levels-ok-here-goes/#comment-4677
Isene: “The basis behind PTSness is suppression. LRH goes so far in a tape that is often cited to OTs at Flag that any counter-intention could cause PTSness, even as brief as, let’s say 20 minutes of it. So, if Any counter-intention can make for a PTS, and Any game consists of barriers (counter-intentions – as there is nothing in a game but agreements), then a person can become PTS to any intention not aligned with his own for as brief as a split second. Then it seems that any person would be prone to PTSness every day for shorter or longer times. It becomes the common state in any game. Now one would of course only handle PTSness as it affects the progress in auditing – but the fixation on finding an SP seems to contradict the reference in the above mentioned tape.”
This is a very interesting post. It shows that anybody involved in a game is PTS. Hubbard was involved in many games. He must have been terribly prone to PTSness.
.
As I remember, Hubbard used to be full of anger most of the time, and people had to be extremely careful around him.
.
Good Morning Geir.
There is a new post in my Blog.
It is about how one can know, see the future when one uses the Technology.
I have not put it in your blog because I greatly worry of the bat.
Please read it and if you like to have it in your sight by all means it can be copied.
Thank you and do have a beautiful day. Elizabeth
Geir wrote: “If the above is the actuality, then one could dispense with all the confidentiality or sci-fi and treat the Bridge as a continuous handling of reactive and analytical viewpoints in order for the person to “collect himself” and “become whole”. The processes would be just the same, but the whole perspective would be dramatically different. It would make the whole Bridge less mystical or intriguing, less controversial or sexy. But it would also make the whole Bridge an exercise in 100% Responsibility.”
Chris writes: I always suspected this since my day one in Scientology. Then I was told and went into agreement with “The Bridge to Total Freedom.”
Since 1976, Elizabeth Hamre has been daily practicing this very Scientology that you predict “could” be practiced. Aren’t you at least a little curious how this could have gone on un-noticed right under our “Looking on all channels perception?” I dare to say that she has no solo auditing equal anywhere. She never brags. She tells nice stories and gives insightful commentary about things that are possible. She has a huge sense of humor and loves life. Yes, she still has a body and pays bills and eats (a little bit) and makes friends and many usual things. But when she goes to church, like a good girl, 3 times per day, she solo audits each item that pops up. I suspect she has no “looming” items left (and now I have just given her her next item! hahaha!)
I say let’s applaud her and quiz her about her adventures solo’ing . . . Isn’t anyone just a little curious? Well, at least anyone who is interested in this type of Bridge that Geir describes.
For those who already have their mind made up what type of box this will have to fit in, or for those who have never sat and watched their TA blow down, I get it. You can continue on status quo and give this piece of Geir’s subject the brush off and a critical thought.
But if you like the feeling of your mouth drawn up into a smile so big and tight that it fairly cramps your face, then I highly recommend this. AND for those who care – it is free and unrestricted except by your own consideration.
Geir can contribute here if he wishes (I am making sooo funny! it is Geir’s blog! hahaha! . . . come on Geir, lets hear some adventures cleaning closet! Juice it up! What did you do on OT VIII (I used the Roman Numerals and used the word numerals instead of numbers like I am supposed to ! Now no one is offended! hahaha!)
Maybe it’s just me, maybe this is just nearer the “entry point” of my case and so satisfies. But truthfully, I got involved in Scientology to see how deep the rabbit hole went. Really. It is just a great and satisfying adventure and you’ve no one to regulate how fast or how far you go except yourself. What more can you ask for? (I ended that sentence with preposition on purpose – I can change it if anyone requests me to do so! hahaha!)
LRH once said “You can be the sunset or the sandstorm, and you know? You would know what you are doing.” Doesn’t anyone believe that anymore? Geir is so correct to bat back the covertly hostile comments about Scientology Tech by people who have not used it.
Chris says today, “You can solo on your own and you know? The physics are the same as if you were carefully supervised and regulated. You will know what you are doing!” hahaha! And if you get yourself a little jammed up, well, there’s lots and lots of help around!
LRH once said, “How come your necks are so precious when mine’s not?” I think that’s a fair question. Are we for real or just mentally masturbating here?
Well? (hahaha! I say these things “seriously” but it’s not serious!) What’s in your “heart-of-hearts?” You don’t quite know? Com’on! Let’s look!
Firstly; I think it boils down to Solo-ing one’s way to one’s own. One really has to take responsibility for one’s own situation and given some simple tools, one will have to clean up one’s own act. Yes, this is what I believe.
Right now I am into research as to how things really are; What are the basic agreements that makes for this game. And by understanding these agreements, I know I will have an easier time Solo-ing my way to where I want to go.
I wasn’t sure how you were using the word “solo-ing.” Maybe the obvious – solo auditing. Or was it in some sort of broader sense?
Solo auditing.
Chris, Amen.
Also, I’d like to apologize to Vinaire for being hateful to him on this thread and others…
It is not his fault that he cannot complete a comm cycle. He will learn and I will wait! He is still my cyber buddy and although this means nothing to him, one day it will! I have the patience of an oyster!
What year was that, Vinnie?
Well Chris I’m glad you posted this. I myself feel a bit ashamed at times, that I mistreat Vinnie the way I do sometimes.
But I had a visit from my alter-ego Bad Valkov just a little while ago, and he told me he thought I ought to continue to kick Vinnie in his intellectual shins occasionally because he needs to learn to cease mocking me up as being that way.
So I’m glad to hear there are good people like you and Geir who are willing to be patient with him.
hahaha! no shame required! your writing is consistently eloquent and playful – thoroughly enjoy the interaction! We are all good people here – but sometimes we just need to take a powder! hahaha!
Vin doesn’t understand how we want to play but I have hope. I’m thinking maybe a summer of mixing concrete or hot mop roofing in Arizona would be the appropriate process! (This gets all that significance in balance! AND the health of his prostate! hahaha)
Valkov, somebody has to play Good Cop and sombody has to play Bad Cop. Not necessarily type casting. 😉
Chris, 😀
I just added the following essay to my Blog:
Essay #17: ZERO, ONE, INFINITY, AND GOD
Before reading this essay start playing the song YELLOW by Coldplay in the background as it appears in VINAIRE’S PLAYLIST at Grooveshark.
By the way, my son is the Director of Marketing at Grooveshark.
🙂
I’m going to check it out.
That’s cool about your son!
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/a-radical-new-view-of-the-upper-scientology-levels-ok-here-goes/#comment-4729
Isene said: Take the game of soccer. Take Messi as your opponent. You are trying to defend your goal against the best soccer player of all times. He passes you, twice… no thrice., turns around, dribbles and SCOOOOORES! His intention was harmful to you in that game… and you were unable to fight back. Yep, that is suppression.
Now, instead of this exercise in “hunt the SP”, I would rather have a tech that parallels that of Aikido. It is not a matter of finding and handling SPs, it is a matter of training the person to handle Any counter-intention. That would be the Good Angle.
That is an excellent example. It has been my view that Hubbard’s designation of “SP” was to identify those things that he, or his tech, could not handle. He wanted to protect his hide as well as his tech and organization.
I am sure that the number of “SPs” shall decline as the tech improves. There are people out there coming up with more workable tech than Hubbard’s. I sometimes wonder why some people are so slavish to Hubbard.
.
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/a-radical-new-view-of-the-upper-scientology-levels-ok-here-goes/#comment-4729
“That is an excellent example. It has been my view that Hubbard’s designation of “SP” was to identify those things that he, or his tech, could not handle. He wanted to protect his hide as well as his tech and organization.”
I have the impression that the tech has been available for a longtime, but has never been used much. Here are some references on “The Master Process”, Suppressed Person Rundown, and PTS Rundown:
THE MASTER PROCESS
http://www.lightlink.com/archive/homer/jm2.memo
PTS Rundown
Suppressed Person Rundown
http://www.sgmt.at/ClearbirdE2010/ethics2004/book/sp_rd.htm
http://www.suppressiveperson.org/sp/archives/518
I read “suppression” as having more than one nuance, as well as orders of magnitude.
Being overwhelmed by an exceptional player in a game of soccer is one.
Being overwhelmed by an atomic bomb when living in Hiroshima is something else. That one you will have to deal with in your next life if you are lucky enough to get good auditing.
Another kind is what I would call “insidious suppression”. This is covert and difficult to spot the source of, because it conceals itself, and often also because it is a person you depend on, as a parent,for example.
This is a “double bind” situation. You can’t fight back because you are 6 years old, small, and need have a parent taking care of you. Or you are old, infirm, and bedridden, but the nurse wants you to succumb.
The double bind concept was forwarded by Gregory Bateson in th e1950s. He was not a psychologist, but a cyberneticist and anthropologist.
I think it is very relevant to any discussion of “suppression”, so here’s a quick synopsis with link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_bind
A double bind is an emotionally distressing dilemma in communication in which an individual (or group) receives two or more conflicting messages, in which one message negates the other. This creates a situation in which a successful response to one message results in a failed response to the other (and vice versa), so that the person will be automatically wrong regardless of response.
The double bind occurs when the person cannot confront the inherent dilemma, and therefore cannot resolve it or opt out of the situation.
For example, if your employer tells you to do a job, but doesn’t allow enough time for you to do it, and you are in danger of losing your job if you question the situation, you are in a double bind.
Double bind theory was first described by Gregory Bateson and his colleagues in the 1950s.
Double binds are often utilized as a form of control without open coercion—the use of confusion makes them difficult to respond to or resist.
A double bind generally includes different levels of abstraction in orders of messages, and these messages can be stated or implicit within the context of the situation, or conveyed by tone of voice or body language.
Further complications arise when frequent double binds are part of an ongoing relationship to which the person or group is committed.
Double bind theory is more clearly understood in the context of complex systems and cybernetics because human communication and also the mind itself function in an interactive manner similar to ecosystems. Complex systems theory helps us understand the interdependence of the parts of a message and provides “an ordering of what to the Newtonian looks like chaos.”
(A related concept from Transactional Analysis theory is called the “duplex transaction”. The double bind is a destructive form of duplex transaction. – V.)
To me, this is what is meant by “suppression” in the Ethics materials I am familiar with, which is not all of them by any means.
Granted this is a specialized definition but I think that’s what Hubbard meant.
In a soccer game you know what you’re up against and are there willingly.
In “suppression”, you don’t necessarily know you are in a contest or war, that you even have an opponent. You just know something is wrong, and can’t even identify the source of the problem easily.
There are some HCOBs related to “insanity” that are relevant.
Addition: If you read the article on “double bind”, it goes into some detail about what exactly the structure of a double bind is. One of the characteristics is that one must not comment or communicate about the contradictory demands being placed on one.
The double bind explains exactly what happens to a person who is in the CoS.
An SP operates by placing all he deals with in double bind situations. That, I believe is what the definition of ‘suppression’ in the Ethics materials relates to.
There a re a lot of games and contests that go on in living, but they are not “suppression”. Being bested by a very good player in a game is not “suppression”. He out plays you, you lose he wins. That is not suppression in the scientology sense.
Suppression involves a hidden and continuous nullification of your beingness and ability to choose.
At least that was the definition of suppression in the 1970s. It may have been altered since then. That wouldn’t surprise me, as the CoS has gone suppressive in some major ways in recent decades.
Any well and completely done PTS CS-1 should allow the SP, if any, on a person’s case to pop into view.
PTS CS-1 is done muzzled so there is no ‘leading’ happening. It is basically a word clearing of the bulletin on the 12 antisocial and the 12 social characteristics.
The rest can be handled by auditing.
I see a lack of direct training in how to handle counter-intention in Scientology. The effort is on handling the suppression and the situation rather than the fact that the person goes effect of counter-intentions in the first place. Yes, this is all handled on a general gradient as one goes up the bridge – but a surgical course on handling counter-intentions should be taught.
That seems like it would be a course that “keeps at bay” the CI of case as well as the CI in life (which both sides of the Bridge eventually handle fully). LRH pretty much did that with the HQS Course (especially the original). It may not quite be “a surgical course” but it is one incredible treasure chest of basics for life – training in communication (think of TR 0 alone!) including Upper Indoc (intention, OMG!), the basics in Problems of Work (a treasure chest in itself), a fundamental understanding of the mind, the “slam-dunk” objective processes (co-audited, no less), Assists, etc.
Yes, yes – the original HQS course was excellent. But it was no direct approach to handling counter-intention.
OK Geir, but I don’t understand what you feel is missing.
I feel that right from the beginning, the Comm Course and then the HQS course etc, are all about handling counter-intention.
Training is all about handling counter-intention, I thought.
“Suppression” is not simply counter-intention. It is a specialized form of behavior in which counter-intention is masked, concealed.
I disagree that suppression has to be concealed to be suppression. Hitler outright attacked other European countries, and I believe we agree that it was suppressive.
What is missing is a direct drilling on how to handle counter-intention.
Much like martial arts – yes you will get skills in fighting by doing gymnastics, training in the gym, running and playing soccer. But, you will get much better much faster by attending a class in Aikido. I would like to see a mental Aikido class.
I think you’re on the right track with martial arts. In fact, there’s a technique in tai chi called Push Hands, which is meant to be a tool in self-awareness. It a sort of sparring technique which involves two people simply pushing against one another’s hands, which anyone in almost any physical condition coud do. Its purpose is to become accustomed to the ebb and flow of physical energy expressed in motion and how you yourself respond to it.
Now, that isn’t really a “mental Aikido,” but consider the datum in Self Analysis that “a person will do with his thoughts what he has done with the matter, energy, space, time and organisms around him – thoughts being an approximation in symbological form of the physical universe.”
(Well, would you look at that, Geir, between the two of us, we have just arrived at a “Eureka!” 😀 )
Simply excellent.
I still don’t really get what you are looking for.
The main problem in a PTS situation as I understand it is the PTS person is committing overts on the suppressor.
The ‘aikido’ one must use is on one’s self, as in the Suppressed Person rundown. Or in applying Act One. The fact is, the SP/PTS are a kind of team. There is a choice made, to be PTS.
I don’t see what kind of “mental aikido” any European country could have used on Nazi Germany, to “handle” Germany’s aggression. This becomes complex. Did no-one realize Germany was arming for war, preparing for aggression against countries?
One can’t handle what one doesn’t perceive.
There are 4 closely related words in English – suppress, oppress, repress, and depress.
They all have the general sense of “push down”, “press down”, or “hold back”. Here are some definitions:
SUPPRESSION, SUPPRESS
A. Definition of SUPPRESSION – Merriam-Webster
1
: an act or instance of suppressing : the state of being suppressed
2
: the conscious intentional exclusion from consciousness of a thought or feeling
B. Collins English Dictionary
suppression [səˈprɛʃən]
n
1. the act or process of suppressing or the condition of being suppressed
2. (Psychoanalysis) the conscious avoidance of unpleasant thoughts Compare ‘repression’
3. (Electronics) the act or process of suppressing a frequency, oscillation, etc.
4. (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Biology) the failure of an organ or part to develop
5. (Medicine) the cessation of any physiological process
SUPPRESS
sup·press (s-prs)
tr.v. sup·pressed, sup·press·ing, sup·press·es
1. To put an end to forcibly; subdue.
2. To curtail or prohibit the activities of.
3. To keep from being revealed, published, or circulated.
4. To deliberately exclude (unacceptable desires or thoughts) from the mind.
5. To inhibit the expression of (an impulse, for example); check: suppress a smile.
6. To reduce the incidence or severity of (a hemorrhage or cough, for example); arrest.
1. Forcibly put an end to.
2. Prevent the development, action, or expression of (a feeling, impulse, idea, etc.); restrain.
1. Forcibly put an end to
– the uprising was savagely suppressed
2. Prevent the development, action, or expression of (a feeling, impulse, idea, etc.); restrain
– she could not suppress a rising panic
3. Prevent the dissemination of (information)
– the report had been suppressed
4. Prevent or inhibit (a process or reaction)
– use of the drug suppressed the immune response
5. Partly or wholly eliminate (electrical interference)
6. Consciously inhibit (an unpleasant idea or memory) to avoid considering it
I think in the Ethics tech “suppress” has a specialized meaning, when used in Suppressive Person(or Group, which refers to specific motives,intentions, and behaviors. Goals, if you will. Goals of destruction. Anyone knows it is frowned upon by society to openly express such sentiments. So they are usually more-or-less concealed.
Germany didn’t announce, “We are building up our military so we can invade surrounding countries and eventually subjugate the entire world, killing off the inferior races so the Aryans can have their land. Have a nice day!”
In the beginning I believe Hitler was even seen as “good for Germany”, because he created jobs and put people to work.
Was Hitler an SP, or was he PTS? That is an unanswered question. For all practical purposes he could be considered an SP,but technically he might have been very PTS.
I think the answers are all there in the Ethics tech, but I think we would have to dig for them, because Flag has been putting it’s own spin on it, altering it here and there,omitting some of it, cherry-picking it for their own purposes.
I think we’ve just scratched the surface of what the Ethics tech actually contains – or originally contained.
The unused Rundowns are just one example of that.
But as far as “aikido” against counter-intentions, I guess my reservation might be – who gets to learn it?
Martial arts are not so good in the hands of bullies, for example.
The Sales field contains a lot of ‘tech’ for ‘handling counter-intentions’
also. I think there is a lot of knowledge and tech available.
Some sales techniques are kinda 1.1 and suppressive. I wouldn’t want some of those salesmen type stop learn even more “aikido” for dealing with my counter-intention’ to buying their stuff!
My conclusion is you need specify what kind of ‘tech’ you are looking for. A simple ‘aikido’ for handling all counter-intentions seems too broad. Maybe you are looking for an impossible short-cut, like the ‘one-shot clear’ idea Hubbard once had.
One needs exercises in how to handle incoming counter-intentions. Specific drills in that area.
As for the definitions; Messi is indeed wilfully suppressing his opponents on the field.
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/a-radical-new-view-of-the-upper-scientology-levels-ok-here-goes/#comment-4811
Counter-intentions are handled by communication. What else do you need?
The TRs are all there. The only time a problem arises is when the counter-intention is hidden. One can’t effectively handle what one does not perceive.
The “Eastern approach” is there too, in theory. It is an application of “reach and withdraw”. The problem is a person’s communication becomes “ridge-y” and ceases to flow easily as CI becomes ‘internalized’. (engrams, GPMs, etc)
Education, TRs, and auditing deal with this..
I assume you must have in mind upper level type drills for OTs, because a person who still has a lot of case probably couldn’t use what you envision. He would need the basic understandings first.
And yes, Messi does ‘suppress’ his opponents, but it is not an out-Ethics situation. If you are playing against Messi, you are there by your own choice and are trying to do the same to him. He may suppress your scoring chances by his superior defensive play, or overcome your defensive skills and score against you, but it is an explicitly understood contest.
Scientology Ethics deals with something else, in it’s concept of a Suppressive Person.
What else do I need? Something that works on the majority of the cases in getting them to the point where they are able to handle suppression (not the suppressor, but the incoming suppression) in no more than 6 months – from right off the street to black belt in mental Aikido.
So, if one is part of the second world war willingly, then there is no suppression?
Well, you’re the “free will guy”. If you’re fighting in WWII of your own free will, are you being suppressed, or feeling suppressed?
Ruth Minshull has an example in “Miracles for Breakfast”, of giving one of her kids a “time-out” for something he did that she she considered he ought not to have done. He said “OK” and went to his room.
It bugged her that he did not protest the confinement. So a little later she told him, “You know you’re being punished, right?”
He considered this briefly and replied, “I’m not being punished.”
The question is, does the person view it as an “incoming counter-intention”? If he is exterior or pan-determined about it, it is not “incoming”. It never “impacts” him, it just sails right on through or below him or whatever.
So the solution is to remove he his own counter-intentions to what is. How can you do that, short of auditing him to Clear or something like that?
A-ha 🙂
Now we are on the track. Indeed; “How can you do that, short of auditing him to Clear or something like that?”
I say; There must be a set of processes or drills to accomplish that in a more straightwire fashion – because none of the Clears I have met are able to handle suppression like what we are talking about here.
Also; By your own post, the suppressive situation has nothing to do with the suppressor and all to do with the receiver. Hence, there is nothing essentially different between Hitler and Messi – they are both presenting a counter-intention that the opponent can choose to handle.
Very interesting post. I can’t help but suspect the Flag terminals (or the powers that be, behind them) who were showing OTs the tape about PTSness that Geir referred to, of having something like this double bind thing in mind – as one possibility. That way, whenever anybody went PTS (to the Church) they might be convinced or persuaded that, “well, that’s life.”
Cynical, aren’t I? heh heh
I hate to be the realist and challenge the optimistic idiot (more correctly, you should have said “genius”). Because you’ve come up with a very exciting idea, I must admit. But… “invulnerable” sounds pretty absolute, doesn’t it. And very much like this definition of Clear in the Tech Dict: “a person who can have or not have anything at will in the physical universe” (such as route canals without anesthesia). Or this other one, “a Clear in an absolute sense would be somebody who could confront everything in the past, present and future.” Maybe even like the ultimate Cleared Theta Clear (more marvelous yet) – because any CI, whether in the physical universe or in his own (the mental energy forces) could be seen as CI that would be nullified. I guess Valkov was saying something similar when he mentioned “a one-shot Clear.”
But with all that said, the idea you have is just like the magical EP of the Suppressed Person Rundown, where no matter how much time or distance there may be, the SP originates a friendly flow to the PTS person. I think it’s the same exact phenomenon/principle – the pc as-is’s all of his resistence, you could say, toward the SP – and in the theta universe only, nothing in the physical. I can totally see what what you’re talking about as a simple, streamlined route.
Maybe not as a reasonably short course, though. 😦 What do you say?
I say yes. Right on.
I would like to see a straight, shortest-possible route to get there.
Geir, sorry, something goofy happening with either my computer (or me, ha ha) or this humongous thread (the reply box format looks completely different). The comment I just posted should have been under your comment: “If you was invulnerable to counter-intentions, you didn’t need the PTS/SP tech for defence.” Maybe you can move it?
Can’t move 😦
Right on to your right on! Hey, maybe this mental aikido course could still be an entry level course where the product is just learning the technique. It would probably even have the potential for huge immediate results the way TR 0 does. Welp, all you need to do now is figure out the course. 🙂
Actually, it occurs to me that VInaire’s KHTK might just be your course! In that case, I go back to my “Push Hands” or some such, as a physical approach undercut.
BTW, this OP has spawned several interesting sub-threads. What do you think about posting a new OP, “A radical new view of…comments continued.” Maybe transfer the comments of this one from a certain date forward, .to get this humongous thread into an easier-to-follow, more managable form. (This is in response to your own 😦 .)
I would love for WordPress to get better forum-like functionality…
Valkov, the way I picture it is that this basic course in CI would simply bring up the individual’s awareness of forces and flows and his own responses to them. He would then be better able to spot the flow of CI, to start with – and would not be as likely to respond with a “knee jerk,” which is the key thing. He would also essentially be drilled on optimum responses in a basic sense and that, in itself, I think would be pretty workable a great deal of the time. But of course, once he had learned the PTS/SP data and tech (which this course by no means would replace) it would be even more workable, obviously. (Just theorizing with ya all.)
The basic trap is to resist or counter or stop any incoming counterintention.
Yes, I see that from the concepts of martial arts. And then after that basic ability is achieved, in the real world there might be a need to know more about how to defeat, which is where the PTS/SP tech comes in and supplements
If you was invulnerable to counter-intentions, you didn’t need the PTS/SP tech for defence.
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/a-radical-new-view-of-the-upper-scientology-levels-ok-here-goes/#comment-4828
The term “Counter-intention” implies opposition.
I think a basic education about the 3 flows covers it. In bullbaiting,the coach mocks up counter-intentions to the student auditor.
Nah, I have never seen anyone be able to tackle heavy suppression without becoming the adverse effect of it… well actually I have, but the person was not a Scientologist. I want a sure-fire way for people to get a black belt in suppression-handling in months.
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/a-radical-new-view-of-the-upper-scientology-levels-ok-here-goes/#comment-4835
Sure, but if you were invulnerable to counter-intention from the very start you wouldn’t need any scientology or any other tech either, would you?
I think Ethics is a lot more than “defensive” tech anyway, it is all about how to live successfully and ‘flourish and prosper’. It is about how and why a person sometimes goes of the track
I think it is inter-related with all the rest of scientology concepts.
Geir… you have already ‘shown me’ acceptance level processing is valuable in handling suppression. From my view looking at the suppression is not the problem, it is what to do with it.
Sorry this comment is not in the right place. I didn’t know how to mangle it in the proper place.
I have also added a comments on Friedrich Nietzsche here:
Philosophy of self
.
Geir.
“””Firstly; I think it boils down to Solo-ing one’s way to one’s own. One really has to take responsibility for one’s own situation and given some simple tools, one will have to clean up one’s own act. Yes, this is what I believe.
Right now I am into research as to how things really are; What are the basic agreements that makes for this game. And by understanding these agreements, I know I will have an easier time Solo-ing my way to where I want to go.””””
Soloing is the tool which one uses to find out what are the basic agreements, what makes this game the game.
With solo one can find out how the game have come about, in solo session one can sort out which part is workable and which is garbage.
In solo sessions one can find dozens of agreements on the same subject and sort out all the confusion one has of the workability of scientology sort out the fact from fictions.
SOLO IS THE RESAECH into THE MEST UNIVERSE PERIOD, the rest is speculation Q and A.
Solo is the tool which opens up the universe and one sees the road very clearly which way one wants to go.
If one soloes and ones handles all the agreements the considerations than one ends up As-ising the MEST Universe. If one do not want that, than one should not bother with soloing, because that is the end Phenomenon.
Because using that simple tool, that will achieve the top of the chart,” cause over MEST” of which scientologists talk of dream of. There is not one being outside of me who has acheive that, what Ron put on the top that chart and has stepped out of the Physical Universe. To be cause over.
Yes, soloing gives reality what is MEST, life, what hold that in place, how it become and most of all in session one finds out what is ones power, knowledge and what is ones role in the MEST if one wish to continue the game here or not.
I believe you underestimate the power of research. If you do believe what you write, then answer me this; What is the exact point of creation for any given particle? What makes something gain mass, i.e. makes it solid. What makes the wavefunction collapse? What makes two individuals telepathically connected or not? Also, how would you describe “cause over MEST” – what is the exactness of it – how would that manifest, what would be the symptoms of someone who could honestly say they have reach such a state?
Geir,
if you care to know more of the realities of the being, self here, who stepped out of the MEST please read my articles.
I be posting more in the future and they all are the basic cognition’s of which Ron talks of.
The basic cognition’s are in which ones to the very last items, thought consideration, agreements are erased.
All. No more after that, that is all.
When you erase your MEST creation, you will not have the need to interpret your reality what is and what is not and how what ever been become as solid or not.
You will know how all was created And that creation was yours only. No matter what ever has been. It solely belonged to you.
Two universe can not be compared as I have explained to Marildi as on example THE Black cat thing.
It is no point to explaining how I know what I know. [Vanire, lots of “I’ here again]
When you will erease your MEST, that will be your reality your black pussy cat.
Here is your quote
” Actually, Static would be zero dimensions.”
That is a good one. When one is out, in that out there is nothing, unless I agree to be or something existing there, therefore if I do than I will experience that cause, that is having-ness, if you care to put a tag on it.
Soloing is the exploration of the universe, it do not make any different what name you call that.
But, only but, you can find which you have put there in the first place. nothing more nothing less.
How you have perceived, created experienced, altered, the MEST. I wpould be honored if somebody ask how aI have than , how i have walked out. But Iwill not answer challange since there is nothing to be challenged for[ did i say that right?].
If any one care to have my phone number they can call My universe is open.
One cannot be “out of the MEST universe” without also being “out of common agreement” (because that is all that MEST is) – and being “out of agreement” means “out” on all points of the ARC triangle, which also means out of touch, out of communication with. The fact that you post here violates the assumption that you are “out of the MEST universe”.
Geir, I don’t think Elizabeth means “out of the MEST universe” in that way. It’s more like she has handled the MEST agreements and considerations in her own mind and is out from under their influence and from being in agreement with them, including as regards seeing the future.
I read that post and I have to say – it is the best description of how to tell the future that I have ever heard or read! It’s actually very practical and applicable, interestingly enough. And it matches what I’ve read other OTs say on the various blogs about OT abilities (except that they always say they can only do it at times or under certain conditions). What I got from Elizabeth’s post is that it’s like a gradient approach that becomes more and more possible the bank is stripped off.
LRH says “Theta perception is dependent upon willingness to handle and to create space, energy and objects in view of the fact that the MEST universe can be established easily to be an illusion.” (Scn 8-8008) Elizabeth seems to have total certainty that it is an illusion, but it’s not an illiusion she cannot have or get back if she so desires, and for now at least, she does.
P.S. End of 2nd paragraph should read, “more and more possible AS the bank is stripped off.”
Again, I am out of the common agreement. There is no ARC triangle in the Theta Univesre If one would have any agreement on any of the point that is on agreement in the MEST Universe. Theta Universe hold no view points, there are no levels, there are no agreements since there is nothing to be agree about.
Geir,
There is a huge MU what is OT What is a OT ability. Every one should have their own definition what is OT, and not the meaning from the TECH dictionary.
There is also a posting an what is OT and where I am because of the as-ising the MEST. Please read the article.
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/a-radical-new-view-of-the-upper-scientology-levels-ok-here-goes/#comment-4750
There are some nuances here that are not being addressed. First off, one can be “out” of something but still connected. It is not necessarily an “all or nothing” thing. One can be ‘out’ of the body, for example, and return to it at will,or operate it ‘from outside’. Or one can be ‘stuck’ out of or in a body.
One can step out of one’s house but still see it and go back in it or communicate with it. There are gradients of ‘outness’ one can choose.
Same with the MEST universe.
What I believe Elizabeth is saying is that the more one Solos, the more ‘power of choice’ one achieves. One can reach and withdraw more easily, one can be completely ‘out’ but can decide at any moment to connect back up and communicate if one chooses. One can mock up whatever one wishes, but is not compelled to do so.
That’s ‘the road to freedom’. It’s the road to having choices, instead of obsessively and compulsively being tied to the “endless cycle of birth and death’, as the Buddhists out it.
That’s what I got into Scientology for, anyway. And I believe Elizabeth is saying that by Solo auditing I can as-is ever more of the old viewpoints, old agreements, old obsessions and compulsions to mock up that I have that I have forgotten I am using to keep myself ‘trapped’ in the MEST universe.
That I can achieve the freedom to have or not have the MEST universe or any part of it at any moment by my own present-time decision.
Like the slipping in and out of the static state or Native State at will, whenever I want to do so.
I recommend the 4th London ACC lectures for a lot of information on this.
My point is that one cannot be “completely out” without being completely out. What you perceive, you create.
To be clear, I wonder if “out” has a consistent definition relative to Theta?
We also are speaking of a state of being which has more choices than humanoids enjoy.
Elizabeth is not well drilled on this language being used but maybe we could try to understand her firstly and then disagree with her secondly. If we remember that she will not try to make an empirical argument to support or defend her claims, maybe we can strive to find common language for a meeting of our minds before we label her crackpot.
We are discussing a radical new view. Why flinch when it doesn’t go in the box?
No flinching registered. A discussion, yes.
Geir.
By the way to be cause over MESt, to create and because over, is the most simple thing to do.
Children do it all the time, than give it up because they being thought, have learned because of that they give up the ability of creating.[ The Mothere load article in the Blog explain how one loses in childhood the magic and gains the MEST in order to belong. Even LRH did not write about that piece how the Implants galore is handed down from generationn to generation. But he did not solo many hours as I have.
The coplications the figure-figure is as-ised in solo session.
After that the simplicity, the magical universe is there once more. Theta universe is a very simple place.
PS: All the scientologiests who read what I write, only few has asked what is is like to lose all the considerations. What is it like not be Human. All scientologists want that yet only few recognise the state when they read of it. And I would be happy to show all what it is like to be free of the Bank. To be self once more.
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/a-radical-new-view-of-the-upper-scientology-levels-ok-here-goes/#comment-4729
Not a good example at all. PTS’ness always refers to games conditions and never to games.
Vin’s example of compromising one’s own integrity in order to go into agreement causing PTSness is Standard Tech. Is it not?
It is not a good example for Vin as the cause for his disagreement is service facsimile cloaked in “integrity justification.”
On the other hand, I really liked his comment about the “hardening viewpoint” becoming the ego. I don’t know if this is technically important but it is an interesting way of saying it.
To be clear, I wonder if “out” has a consistent definition relative to Theta?
We also are speaking of a potential – possibly actual – state of being which has more choices than humanoids enjoy.
Elizabeth is not well drilled on the precise way we are using our machine language, but maybe we could try to understand her firstly and then disagree with her secondly. If we remember that she will not try to make an empirical argument to support or defend her claims, maybe we can strive to find common language for a meeting of our minds before we label her crackpot.
And again to be clear, she doesn’t need me to defend her, my intention is to capitalize on an opportunity to interview someone who has done something in Scientology from a radical new viewpoint.
sorry about the double posting-my screen showed me an error and assured me my comm did not go through when I see now that it did.
Valkov Thank you, well put.Elizabeth
Marildi, thank you. I have one more comment, statement to make I belive I have done my best as my abilities allow, I cant do more than that.
Open letter.
Here I am pouring out heart and soul, writing to you, in your blog and to your readers to understand what one can be achieve with solo auditing, to have that understanding that the TECH. works. You folks use terms scientific or closely related words and quoting from LRH., which is fine by me since only spelling gives me problems not my understanding of the words.
It seems that my simple way of expressions has causes immediate doubt of the state achieved, right off. No enough education BIG barriers. The Theta Universe is a very simple place, in fact one has no need to use words to create or to communicate or to receive communication. Telepathy, yes.. just one duplicates the others universe, very simple.
But I wonder how educated one needs to be in order to go into session pick- up the cans and confront the ITEM which is in this case the MEST Universe.!!
All the words expressions, to describe which are used here in this blog and in the others who hold the tech so close to heart, yet what I have been reading so far in the blogs I have not seen one report from any person who knows the Tech verbatim that the End Phenomenon has been achieved by use of that well quoted TECH. not one.
Than little old me show up and say: Hi you guys I did it. Huge belly lough all around, sure you did……
“That is impossible nobody can do that because nobody has so far it has not been done and that can’t happen, because the Tech does not work!”
If it would than we all would be “OUT” of the MEST universe.
YES it works, a thousand times it does! But it has to be applied not hashed in intellectual decisions.
But not one of you OT’s have soloed half of life time as I have. So how would you people know if that state is attainable or not?
And do you know why the good folks can’t duplicate the level which is achieved with about 120000 hours of solo auditing.[ Maybe the amount of hours is impossible to comprehend but that does not means it was not done. Since it was done, yes about that many, half of my life?
I was married to a CPA who was very good with the calculation the + and -.as. I also know just how much time is half of my life time.
I was in session every day much as 8 hours I have soloed.
There was one time one session lasted for 3days. It nearly finished off the body. No one will ever know unless Walks the walk of Solo Auditor, what discipline, what will power, what courage it takes to walk that lonely road.
No one will ever know just how many questions one asks, how many times one dies in one lifetime. How one crawl half unconscious at times
What the body is goes through and battered with immense amount of energy. How many times one falls on ones face and grits teeth get up and back to session.
One walks through Hell which is the MEST in every shape and form. The cycles of depressions, suicidal incidents one must fight since solo out since they are the commands from implant. Let’s not forget the greatest traps, the unknown, hidden items, the invisible which is only the covering on Hell, The state after death is very difficult to walk through, and I won’t leave out the greatest traps of all the PLEASURE MOMENTS since they are the most difficult to solo out.
I say there are traps there so well hidden one must use power of the greatest persistence willing to do anything any time battering the MEST to regain the power of self which is knowledge there are many straps which indicates there is no more they are there to trap the being to remain within the trap. Just how many times one believes it is finally over, than back to session with pick and shovel.
Finally when the days come one knows one is OUT, trust me there are new traps in the form of void and there are no paths no signs where is the Theta universe.
Now one is in-between universes MAST is gone ones one has been emptied One is hallow.
The agony of the emptiness, the void, the huge feeling of loss, new beginning new day, back to soloing and soloing alone to find the way out of the emptiness. One finds out is session even that void that emptiness is part of the MEST it is there to pull back the person into MEST the “Mama”. Hundreds more auditing hours needed to overcome that barrier alone!
The rewards pour in, one do not walk away from MEST one regains understanding on MEST down to the last rusty nail and even knows all about energy and how it works and what is. Power which can as-is everything can melts away titanium, which is fluff nothing more. MEST is made up from, by all kinds of energy, scientist can’t even imagine of!
There is knowledge gained incomprehensible magnitude form of understanding and one knows “self” and what ones role is in the universe and that incredible knowledge one has accumulated from the cognitions what affect it has on the universe.
That attained level is not duplicable in the MEST Long as one has the MEST reality. From that reality Theta do not exists. Words, knowing words will not do the trick to free one from the grips of the MEST.
One has to duplicate, experience in order to know, knowing the meaning of the words is not good enough.
The cog is simple, very simple if you could duplicate what I am writing about, than I still would be in the MEST.
Theta can duplicate MEST because Theta creates MEST. But MEST can’t duplicate Theta.
PS: I have attested to 3 different OTVII’s on the Emeter to this state I had F/T on each occasion yet not one has believed because there is no such a thing as duplication of Native state, whatever.
If you care to do the same and put me on the emeter and ask any questions unknown to me, you are welcome to do so. Or ask a class XII to do it that is fine with me, any time.
To be believed or not, or acknowledged or not will not diminishes the achieved State of Intangible, Infinite.
As I do not discuss others achieved state of OTVIII if ones have achieved or not than why, should be any “discussion” or “debate “about mine if it exists or not after all it is on the GREAT CHART as LRH written it up.
Question would be acceptable that would be welcome. Thank You.
Elizabeth Hamre.
I have seen no belly laughs.
It is a simple matter of “extraordinary claims demands extraordinary proofs”. That’s all.
Anyone “out of the MEST universe” as you put it should be able to have a root canal without anesthesia and enjoy it. Etc. That would be extraordinary proof. Anyone can claim anything on any blog.
You have missed the point, I dont have to proof and i dont have the need to do.
Can you demostrate that you have achieved OTVIII? outside of paying for it and being audited by somebody?
But why not setisfy your doubting nature why not fallow up on that offer? Than you would have your proof.
I believe you miss the point. I do not disbelieve you – But, it is you that claim and then complain that people are skeptical. You claim, you prove. Or else people will have a right to be skeptical. Of course, you don’t have to throw out any claims – but that is your choice. You cannot expect anyone to simply take your word for it. That would incidentally be contrary to LRH’s essay “How to study Scientology”.
Apart from that – “out of the MEST universe” is easy to prove with the root canal example.
About the “root canal”.
I had an acquaintance a few years ago who was a builder who operated heavy equipment. One night he was messing around with a CAT, which is like a small bulldozer/front loader. As he retracted the blade of it he carelessly left his hand in the way and crushed all 4 bones of his little finger on one hand. He wrapped it up and drove himself to the local Emergency Room, and sat watching as the Doctor surgically removed the irreparable tissues from the edge of his hand. He had refused anesthesia. When done, he drove himself home.
He did not say he “enjoyed” the experience, but he clearly found it interesting and was able to confront it quite well. I venture to say that most people would have been overwhelmed.
As far as I know, he had not done the OT levels,but was Clear and had much of the early FPRD auditing.
So, about the root canal. Is it that simple? I think this is a trick question that contains a hidden standard. Let’s work out the steps.
1. One is exterior to the MEST universe. But still has a connection of some kind, a remote viewpoint or something, or has no connection, but is able to create a connection at will.
2. OK, so one ‘has’ this body that needs a root canal. Perhaps it hurts already. One decides to take the body in to the dentist to get it done.
3. well, one might be able to do all this, but still have the consideration that a “root canal is not enjoyable, it hurts too much!” That after all, is part of the usual MEST agreement, right? One would need to change his/her mind about that, before one one could then postulate enjoying it, right?
One does not need to be”OT” or “exterior” to enjoy pain. There are people who are at “masochism”. So perhaps one would have to familiarize oneself with that level of beingness called “masochist” so one could duplicate it and go in and enjoy the root canal. That might be one way to do it.
4.My point is there can be complex considerations involved with this business of living. One can achieve high states without achieving the complete erasure of all considerations related to it. Or one could erase them, but would need to mock up a different set upon going back in to the MEST universe for some reason. But would one even need to actually go back in? Perhaps one could send the body to the dentist from a remote position outside, and watch the proceedings with interest from afar.
5. That pretty well sums up why I think your ‘test’ contains a hidden standard,or at least some assumptions that are not necessarily the only possible ones.
6. Your ‘test’ implies the assumption at least that Elizabeth MUST be able to do this(enjoy the pain of a root canal, with or without anesthetic), to prove what she says, or what she says is not true.
7. HIDDEN STANDARD, 1. a hidden standard is a problem a person thinks must be resolved before auditing can be seen to have worked. It’s a standard by which to judge Scn or auditing or the auditor. This hidden standard is always an old problem of long duration. It is a postulate-counter-postulate situation. The source of the counter-postulate was suppressive to the pc. (HCOB 8 Nov 65) 2. is not just a physical or mental difficulty but one by which the pc measures his case gains. A case measurement thing used secretly by the pc. (BTB 18 Sept 72) Abbr. HS.
— L. Ron Hubbard
Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary
8. I might add that although it says “by which the pc measures his case gains”, but there are other flows in life and a person can just as well use it to measure the case gains of others. Either way he is invalidating either himself or another, if there is a hidden standard involved.
Methinks Valkov is complicating matters.
IF one is totally exterior, then one COULD decide to enjoy the root canal. IF one cannot enjoy it, one is not totally exterior. No hidden standard. Only a standard.
Just like: IF one is exterior with full perception and can freely move about, one COULD look into another room.
I may be over complicating things, but how so?
Perhaps you have in mind a different definition of “exterior”?
The “one-shot clear” turned out not to be a viable or long-term solution because a person could be exteriorized from the body by the one command, but later would come back into the body and had trouble exteriorizng again. And also even while exterior, he was not necessarily able to perceive his environment directly or fix up the body.
My point is simply that one can “exteriorize” (assume a viewpoint ‘outside’ of some game) without resolving all the considerations he has about the game.
What a person could or couldn’t do from the exterior position would be a very individual matter. And may not depend on his “exteriorization” but on other considerations he still held/
I suppose the root canal test could be the test for a particular degree of achievement, perhaps as a EP of some level, but it seems arbitrary to me. It seems to set a standard for “exterior” that is arbitrary.
To me “exterior” means simply ” a viewpoint outside of” without any implications of what one can do from there.
But then you are not talking about the original premise for this discussion “totally out of the MEST universe”.
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/a-radical-new-view-of-the-upper-scientology-levels-ok-here-goes/#comment-4883
Well it appears we may not understand that phrase in quite the same way.
What do you mean by “Totally out of the MEST universe”? To me it is simple – it is like being totally out of my house, or totally out of my car, or totally out of my shoes. I’m here, my car is over there.
I’m here, the MEST universe is over there….
How else should I understand it?
And also, are you sure you understand what Elizabeth meant by it, when she first posted that statement? Maybe you two aren’t on the same page as to it’s meaning, either.
Perhaps the problem word is “totally”?
Elizabeth, I totally got it. And it is true that some will not believe you just because of the language you use to communicate.
For others, like Geir, the language won’t be a barrier, but the barrier for them is that there’s no evidence other than your subjective reality. Others also feel that it isn’t a path that has been “proven” by the fact of many others having taken it. So even if they believe that you yourself have managed to follow that path, they have no way of feeling confident that they or others will be successful.
For others still, the barrier might be that the route that you’ve described is very, very difficult and may even endanger their physical health. And even if physical health isn’t a consideration, some want a smoother route, one that is a more gradual climb. They don’t want to climb the steep side of the mountain, but to take a path that slowly and gradually winds to the top.
I see all of the above as possible viewpoints of Scientologists of all levels, not just OTs. (And non-Scientologists too, for that matter). You’ve done your best and now it’s up to each individual. But I’m sure I don’t have to tell you that. 🙂
Marildi, My Path was mine to walk, others will walk their own. There is no out gradient One can confront what one can confront at that moment in session. No more no less. I have not started from the top, I have crawled out from Hell on all fours.
When any one can proof any attainment on any levels outside of F/N GI. I too can do that also. I have offered still stands.
What processes did you solo?
Are you asking me Gear?
Yes. I am curious as to the processes you have used and their sequence.
Do you have a write-up on how you solo with self-C/Sing? How is it different from LOOKING?
One difference may be that LOOKING is monitored by attention, whereas, soloing is monitored by an e-meter. Is there any other difference?
.
Vinaire, if it would make any diffence to you how i do what I do than gladly would give that information. Since you would be looking at that info trhough filter well I cant see how you could duplicate the meaning
What is making you postulate that?
.
Vin, YOU are making her postulate that! She is simply turning your own thesis, that one can only be aware of one’s own considerations, back on you.
It’s obvious that if your thesis is true, duplication is not possible!
Elizabeth is not pointing out the inconsistency in the generating filter. She seems to be introducing the inconsistency from her receiving filter by not addressing the question asked.
You seem to be doing the same thing.
.
Vinnie, she was mocking you, turning your own thesis about what a person can and cannot know, upon yourself.
Like Ruth Minshull’s son I consider I am not being mocked. Now you may happily muse over your counter-intention.
.
Got you. I see that others have accepted the offer you made in your open letter and other posts, to answer any questions, and I will eagerly wait for your answers too so I can get a better understanding!
Elizabeth,
Let me say that KHTK Looking is much simpler, and maybe faster, than solo auditing as it allows the mind to be unstacked in a natural fashion. The EP is not any lesser than what you are talking about.
~Vinaire
.
Vinaire, thanks for the offer, kind of you. Solo auditing means exemaning something by that I mean is taking all the added, piled stuff which that thought, object , subject accumulates since it was postulated into existance. While I am exemine I learn about its journey to find that original postulate. solo auditing is like archaiological work for what ever I will find that I am willing to go on extra mile. In this case solo audit, I am in no hurry.
There seems to be some confusion on how I am using the word “Source,” so let me summarize my theory here.
(1) Absolutes are attainable, so there is no absolute source. In the KHTK terminology the ultimate source is unknowable (cannot be known).
(2) Most people stop at SELF as the source, and never look beyond it.
(3) The basic SELF comes into being from the unknowable dimension and then disappears back into the unknowable dimension.
(4) The SELF acts as an interface between the unknowable and knowable dimensions.
(5) The SELF interfaces with the knowable dimension through considerations.
(6) The SELF may interface with the unknowable dimension, but there are no considerations involved in that interface.
(7) The SELF appears to generate considerations, alter those considerations, then recover and duplicate the original considerations.
(8) Thus, SELF appears as a source. The actual source that underlies SELF is unknowable.
(9) The mechanism to alter a consideration may be called a FILTER.
(10) The filter may be a layer of consideration slapped over the SELF to make its basic considerations appear as permanent and lasting perceptions.
(11) The self as know it is actually the basic SELF covered with layers upon layers of filters.
(12) Perceptions result from looking through the filter.
(13) Duplication occurs from looking at the filter, which is what KHTK aims at.
.
Correction of typo on the first point:
(1) Absolutes are unattainable, so there is no absolute source. In the KHTK terminology the ultimate source is unknowable (cannot be known).
Thanks for this, Vinaire.
Okay, I got that what you are calling “unknowable” you believe does at least EXIST, as you are stating things about it, such as on 3, 4, 5 and 6. It’s good to know that you agree with most of us that there is an existence beyond considerations.
The term “unknowable” may, however, be a misnomer to the degree that those same points (3, 4, 5 and 6) do SAY something KNOWN about unknowable and thus it is not entirely unknown or unknowable. The term itself is what is confusing for people sometimes.
Here’s my main question. On those points about unknowable (3, 4, 5 and 6) – how did you come to those conclusions? Or, how do you know those things? Or, if they are simply your considerations, where did those considerations come from?
Marildi – hey! – after months I think we’ve pretty well established that there is only only one way to talk about the unknowable and that is to say something knowable about it. (sigh)
This groundhog day loop smacks of implant material, doesn’t it?
Chris, you rascal, I think a new day has dawned. Some light is shining through for me at least. 😉
I thank you back for your appreciative comments.
To me EXIST applies to considerations and to the derivatives from considerations. Yes, I am postulating an unknowable dimension, which is a part of my theory. A theory may only approximate; it cannot be exact because absolutes are unattainable.
I don’t know if “unknowable” is a misnomer or not. It seems to fit nicely in my current theory because it keeps on pulling the theory into greater and greater depths. This theory continues to develop. I have no idea where it might end up.
The answer to your question, “How did you come to those conclusions?” lies in KHTK 13: LOOKING AT KNOWLEDGE. That is the procedure I use continually and iteratively.
.
I see what you mean about the term Unknowable, and in a sense I can see it as fitting too. Besides, “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” Ok, I’m with you on that, but in discussions you might have to make it clear at times that you postulate there IS such a dimension and that it is interfaced with this other dimension of considerations, the Knowable. And WITHIN the former concept there is nothing knowable (perhaps by definition, as you define it?), while within the latter there is but it is composed only of considerations. (Am I still with you?)
Getting to what you said about coming to your conclusions by means of the LOOKING method, if i got that right aren’t you supposed to now look at THOSE considerations as well? If you’ve done so, what occurred?
I am glad that I am able to clarify what “unknowable” symbolizes, a bit better. It is becoming clearer, in a way, to me too. From intuition to expression is a bit of a journey.
One use of “unknowable” is that it makes the postulates and assumptions stand out, and then one can work on bringing about greater consistency. In the absence of “unknowable” the postulates and assumptions may remain hidden. As I develop my theory, it is very clear to me what are postulates and what are inconsistent assumptions.
Again, to me, the primary constituent of “knowable” is a manifestation. “Unknowable” refers to absence of manifestation. The primary form of a manifestation is consideration. I have maintained this from the very beginning. Maybe I did not emphasize it enough.
Looking leads to as-ising the considerations of both the generating and receiving filters. This brings about clarity, and more fundamental considerations come to view. As you work to maintain consistency, the obfuscating considerations dissolve, and a deeper understanding emerges. But it may not be easy to express that deeper understanding in a way that others can also understand it.
You may understand what I mean by “unknowable” but many others on this blog still may not. They would have to as-is the obfuscating considerations of the filter, the same way that I did.
It is an interesting process. Sometimes, I find myself looking at filters that others are carrying around.
.
Okay, let me give this a try. You are saying that whatever is not manifested in the physical universe is lumped into a category called Unknowable, simply because it is unknowable WITHIN the manifestations of the physical universe, considerations being some of those manifestations. Further, you use the concept of Unknowable as a starting point in looking at datums/considerations in order to determine their consistency and depending on their concsistency you may or may not assume/adopt them as your own consideration/postulate..
I also get that you are saying there are considerations or assumptions that have knowingly or unknowingly come about as a result of looking through filters (previous considerations/assumptions, yours or another’s), and that through LOOKING at them you will spot the inconsistencies and can then clear those away, while maintaining the consistent ones.
(I take the risk, I know, of showing that I didn’t understand at all! LOL)
Now, would you agree that within all those “assumed” considerations (which may or may not be consistent), there are original, self-created considerations called postulates (such as the ones belonging to the theories you have written)? And that, in addition to one’s own oriiginal postulates, there are the original postulates of others which, if you find them to be consistent, you may assume/adopt as your own and these then become your postulates too?
P.S.
Add to the end of the first paragraph – (and until then these considerations are still in the category/dimension of Unknowable).
And add to the end of the last paragraph – I assume this is what you mean by “intuition.”
Wow! That is a very complicated interpretation indeed! How does one know that there is something that is not manifestaed? And if one thinks that way then that would be a manifested speculation.
Looks like you are postulating a theory here.
.
Aw, shucks. I wasn’t going for complicated, I meant it as a simplified summary. I might have extrapolated a bit in those first two paragraphs I wrote, but in those two what does and doesn’t align with your theory?
My last paragraph was an extrapolated question, based mainly on your mention of “intuition.” And didn’t you say somewhere earlier on this thread that you believe in spirituality?
You asked, “How does one know that there is something that is not manifested?” Well, as Shakespeare would say – THAT is the question. .
It’s midnight here. Over to you…
I would say that it is not that there is NO ‘absolute source’ but that one is not likely to BE and remain THE absolute source for long. One passes through Native State or Static on the way to somewhere/someone else.
Oddly enough, it is as though Static or Native State is an unstable state that for ‘balance’ must manifest somehow.
Pure “Potential” is like the sound of one hand clapping.
Valkov,
“One passes through Native State or Static on the way to somewhere/someone else”.
The native state, you are outside on the side line and viewing a parade passing by front of you.
You see, you observe but not partake. The original postulate, mocking up the parade was not yours so it has not affect on you, but you can experience something by viewing the show. it is up to you. like or not what ever.
By those thought, you add something to the parade and your consideration becomes part of that parade, part of the other persons postulate.
And your consideration of that parade will be the connection= the memory you will have
. Again it will be up to you to up keep that connection or not.
Could “other person” be a consideration similar to the consideration of “self”?
.
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/a-radical-new-view-of-the-upper-scientology-levels-ok-here-goes/#comment-4803
I believe that point was stated by Hubbard as “Absolutes are unattainable IN THIS UNIVERSE”.
That does not refute an absolute source at all.
A consideration such as the one above is a part of MEST universe. 🙂
.
Nonsense. I’m on to that trick. That is the fallacy of “begging the question”.
Begging the Question:
A form of circular reasoning in which a conclusion is derived from premises that presuppose the conclusion.
Try stepping outside of your mental box. Take an exterior view.
It should be obvious even to you that the map is not the territory. Get real, man!
Actually Vin, I do most of my considering outside of the MEST universe.
I can’t think with this “outside the MEST universe”. As MEST is only agreement, it sounds like you think that MEST is actually an independent “thing” existing on its own…
I’m trying to think with the Axioms in The Phoenix Lectures, like Axiom11, Axiom 14 etc.
I am basically saying that the MEST universe does, or can, exist in a larger space. Space, then particles, then motion etc.
Continuous alter-is of an as-isness causes persistence. If you don’t constantly recall that you are doing it, it appears to exist “by itself”. That’s how things come to exist “on their own”, isn’t it?
You may disagree that something exists, but it may continue to exist for others. It doesn’t work to not-is such agreements.
Can you as-is the mock-ups of others and cause them to vanish FOR THOSE OTHERS?
Since I am not aware of constantly creating the MEST universe, for me it does exist “on it’s own”. It’s an automaticity perhaps, but if I’m not aware of constantly creating it, it exists “on it’s own” for me. Maybe not for you.
That’s where the real meaning of “Reality is Agreement” comes in. Our realities can differ. Each person will have his own individual reality, since each one is an individual person. Reality is viewpoint. My reality is that the universe ticks right along all by itself without any attention from me.
For example, who could be more individual than Vinaire?
Here is where I see a trap; Thinking of oneself as “outside the MEST universe” may put oneself in automatically creating the MEST universe. The goal is not to go “outside the MEST universe”, but instead see it for what it is.
That one thinks of the MEST universe as something other than one’s own creation would make an automaticity trap and would make the person identify with those agreements unwittingly and thus wanting “to go outside”.
Congratulations!
.
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/a-radical-new-view-of-the-upper-scientology-levels-ok-here-goes/#comment-4934
I’m not sure if I get your entire meaning or or not. Some of the words may be problematic, but….
I think one had better think of the MEST universe as something other than one’s own creation as well as one’s own, because it is not SOLELY one’s own creation. If one thinks of it as solely one’s own creation, one will be mis-owning it. The MEST universe is a composite of the creations of many beings.
Read my comment again.
Then; What YOU see, YOU create. If you and I created something, just you and I, then nobody else would see it (unless we build it with buildning blocks that others also creates, of course).
This I believe is the very essense of this discussion and of Life, Universe and Everything. This, misunderstood, is the trap methinks.
Here is Elizabeth’s comment on one of my posts above:
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/a-radical-new-view-of-the-upper-scientology-levels-ok-here-goes/#comment-4944
She expresses something very similar to what I am saying.
Here’s my post,,that she was commenting on:
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/a-radical-new-view-of-the-upper-scientology-levels-ok-here-goes/#comment-4842
It seems the terms in question in this discussion have to do with the concepts of “exterior” and “interior”, which I notice you are not using.
So it appears we are not using a common vocabulary.
Geir, here’s a thought I wanted to squeeze in. On TRs 8 & 9 the coach mocks up counter-intention to try to throw the student off from his own intention. How would the drill for getting a person able to handle “suppressive” counter-intentions be different? Or if it’s a matter of CI is CI, do you have in mind how those upper indoc drills would be improved upon?
I’m thinking your answer might help clarify for us what you are envisioning, as specifically as you’ve worked it out so far, if you have yet. Maybe we can help, you never know! I can picture both Valkov and myself in the role of optimistic idiot/genius (as the case may be. :-))
I don’t have it yet – even as OT VIII. I want direct processes that would make me not resist any counter-intention. Or a drill. Or a simple realization (or a huge and wild one).
+1
When one is looking at knowledge, there is the apparent source through which the “knowledge” has been generated. And then there is another apparent source that is interpreting that “knowledge” into what is finally being perceived. These apparent sources may also be called FILTERS from a totally exterior viewpoint.
Thus, when one looks at Scientology, there is the apparent source (or generation filter) called Hubbard, and then there is the apparent source of interpretation (or receiving filter) called the perceiving self.
This may have appeared illogical to Valkov. But I hope I have explained it more clearly here.
.
Correction:
There are two apparent sources of knowledge:
(1) Generating filter
(2) Receiving filter
.
Suppression comes about as the interaction between the generating and receiving filters become more judgmental, resistant and solid.
.
Vinaire
, supressed, being supressed comes from fearing of loss, none confront on the incoming information. dont make big thing about it, it is very simple, can i or cant I hadle the situation. I am blaming others for my plight or taking responsiblity for, excepting what is happening now, we are the cause. whatever however,
exactly so –
Elizabeth,
I think a reason for the non-confront is because the incoming information is on 2 levels – the apparent information, and the concealed destructive information.
Or sometimes, both messages are apparent, but they contradict each other causing paralysis of the analytical mind, because they both communicate loss.
These are the ‘double bind’ and ‘duplex transactions’ I mentioned in earlier posts.
You are right about the fear of loss. The SP specializes in sending messages that either one you choose, you will lose.
Looking for an “SP” would be like looking for a generating filter that is most judgmental, resistant, and solid toward the receiving filter.
But if the receiving filter is not at all judgmental, resistant, and solid in itself then the generating filter cannot bring about any suppression.
.
Right, the Eastern way. I think again of the Push Hand technique, where two people are using there hands to push against the other’s. This quote is from the book “T’ai chi & QiGong”: “So as your hand pushes toward your opponent, if your opponent is stiff, this will likely uproot his stance, causing him to lose his balance. If he is supple and yielding, he will absorb your attack and respond in kind…If you’re opponent is pushy and abrupt, he will likely overextend himself as he attacks. This attack isn’t violent; it’s just his arm extending into your chest or heart area. When he overextends, he will come in off-balance if you yield. When he retreats to try to catch his balance, he is vulnerable. A slight push can send a larger, more powerful opponent reeling when he is out of center.”
Sorry Vinaire, not giving anwers but I have been out galliventing I happen to be a nursery hound, And i only know filters like they use in cars, furnaces etc….. I know my car has 2.
Hello Geir,
Here are 2 more links 1.Remote Viewing and Influencing and 2.Quantum Physics
I believe others on the blog. would enjoy the links also as they relate to this thread.
http://www.probablefuture.com/p221.htm
http://www.probablefuture.com/p558.htm
Nice post. I’m on it.
Who is StarlightONE anyway? I checked out your link and what it lacks in provable data it more than makes up for in sparkling generalities! But what a good price! For only $277 or 3 payments of only $99 one can be limited only by one’s imagination! . . . I placed my order straight-a-way.
Chris, thanks for your comment. However, the links above are just a small part of the whole website, http://www.probablefuture.com
In the LRH book Scn 8-80, he writes about wavelengths and the energy fields in and around the body, and is for me a way of looking at thought and energy. Looking at the mechanics of the physical universe is a way to understand the universe beyond those mechanics.
The first link above, Core of Remote Viewing and Influencing, is about brain waves and Quantum Physics. And the comments and discussions here (on viewpoints, considerations, looking, theta universe and physical universe, theta and static) brought that link to mind. I see remote viewing and influencing as a way to look at the mechanics of the physical universe and the “theta” universe. The link has info about scientists who have researched Quantum Physics with the idea that outside the physical universe no time and space exist.
StarlightONE
Just wanted to point out some interesting thoughts written by Terril Park on ESMB, where he concludes that both Inc I and II are about “running explosions” and that Hubbard stated that explosions is a “definite basis of every engram”.
It might have started out with Hubbard discovering that the OT-auditing worked, and after that made up a story (OT III) that he perhaps thought was true.
Link:
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?20928-OT-III-A-new-look&highlight=running+explosions
Quote from Terril Park:
“From pab 12:-
“The explosion is apparently a very definite basis in all engrams and,
for our purposes here, can be considered to be basicbasic. And it could be remarked with this PAB that basicbasic for all cases has been discovered and is being delivered into your hands to be run,”
“What exactly is the cycle of the explosion? One gets the preclear to
get nothingness, then a growing expanse of whiteness, then turn the whiteness black, have the black dwindle and get nothingness again. You will readily see the similarity of this to Black and White Processing and, indeed this is the furthest extension of Black and White Processing but is many times more effective and usefull.”
“….It does not matter how poorly the preclear runs this. It does not matter if the nearest approach to whiteness is simply the idea that something might be white if he could see it”
Note that there was a whole book dedicated to black and white processing, Scn 8-80
PAB 12 recomends running explosions between each step of the Six Steps to Self-Auditing.
[removed the rest of the post – so as not to scare off too many still in the CoS :]
I ran the concept of Explosion using KHTK approach. It was fabulous.
.
I am thinking that “whac-a-mole” is the most natural method for unstacking the mind.
Is that anything like “whac-a-vin”?
God help me, sometimes I just can’t shut Bad Valkov up!
I actually liked his(Vin’s) post about the generating filter and the receiving filter interaction. It is a step towards a theory of Two-way Comm, and an acknowledgement that another might exist, and two Solipsisms might actually be able to communicate!
“Chris, ” whac-a-mole” ? i need to know that, could be for me a new Path to walk on.
Elizabeth, it’s a carnival game in which mechanical moles pop their heads out of the floor of the game, and you score points by whacking them with a mallet. The more you whack them, the faster they pop out of the many holes in the floor.
Hello every one, and Geir you also asked . Elizabeth Hamre’s Blog.
I have been working all morning to put words how i have used the TECH. i have had a article on it but I had to revise it. There is more of course, but the basic how and what I have done is in understandably form. My eyesight ……. Dont forget I am after all going blind even knowing it is a past postulate wont repair the cataract. I need luch nice cup of coffe among the flowers. Later I get back …… Elizabeth
PTS SP Tech: As for the definitions; Messi is indeed wilfully suppressing his opponents on the field.
Yes, Messi is suppressing his opponents – as he should.
Done within futbol this is not covered by PTS/SP Tech at all. PTS/SP tech only apply once out-ethics contributions by Messi or his opponents come into the equation.
Here are a few possible results and there would be more. If Messi does the following:
First Condition:
1. Suppresses his opponents by fair means or by cheating from “outside” the game, and
2. Opponents know it and consider they cannot do anything about it. PTS Type 1
3. Possible result: sprain ankle trying to defend against him.
Second Condition:
4. Suppresses his opponents fairly and by not cheating at all (no out-ethics contribution), and
5. Opponents know it or not and consider they cannot do anything about it. PTS Typs 2
6. Possible result: Opponent sprains ankle in the locker room.
Third Condition:
7. Suppresses his opponents fairly or by cheating – with or without out-ethics contribution and
8. Opponent thinks Messi is the Devil… PTS Type 3
9. Possible result: Murder/Suicide at party after the game.
hahahaha! Well, anyway, in the examples the point is that there must be an out-ethics contribution by the opponent and the contribution by Messi? Irrelevant. An opponent could go PTS to any player, cheerleader, or spectator.
Everyone’s formidable contributions here notwithstanding, my conclusion about PTS/SP Tech is that it begins and ends with oneself.
Chris,
Your analysis of SP/PTS is entirely consistent with what I have heard about the Suppressed Person Rundown. That apparently brings about a miraculous change IN THE APPARENT SP’s atittude towards the person being ‘suppressed’. This seems to come about because this auditing resolves what the PTS person has done and is doing to create and maintain the the SP/PTS situation s/he is in.
This rundown has of course been entirely suppressed within the CoS.
So indeed it all begins and ends with oneself. “Victim” is a role one assumes in a game.
Specific suppressive games (like alcoholism,drug addiction, etc) have been studied in some detail in Transactional Analysis. This area of social psychology uses a triangle called the “Drama Triangle”
whose 3 corners are Persecutor, Victim, Rescuer.
Perhaps I didn’t make it clear in my post above, but the PTS person is audited, but that brings about a major change in the “SP” who has been suppressing him.
True ‘action at a distance’.
Valkov, “True action at a distance” if very real for me.
While doing FPRD and very intensively and making good progress, I awoke one Saturday morning and just thought I’d give my mother a telephone call.
She answered the phone and said that “Last night I slept very well for a change, and when I woke this morning I was thinking everything is going to be alright.” She was speaking very generally – nothing specific was exchanged between us, and I didn’t even tell her what I had been doing.
My reality on this is of course subjective but quite real for me that because the previous evening I had been confronting an out-ethics situation of mine toward her last life. Upon resolving this in my universe, SHE from a distance of 2000 miles away experienced instant relief. In this example, I was the suppressor and she the PTS victim. It is real to me that this process would work equally well turned around the other direction.
Thanks Chris. It makes sense to me. As my first auditor told me, “Each person in a relationship is 100% responsible for it. He is not just responsible for 50% of it.”
Any decent psychologist recognizes the principle, but they just don’t have the tech to really handle it.
“.PTSness may come from compromising one’s reality in order to agree.”
PTsness comes from none confront, blame, placing the responsiblitity for ones own cave in on somebody else shoulder that they arethe cause….. therefore going into agreement that the other is better stronger, more powerful, smarter, knows more etc… etc…
Geir through solo auditing i have found out that I am on extraordinary being, can do extraordinary things and I dont have to proof anything to anybody in order to belong to have agreement in order to have be or not any place any time. That it self is etraordinary knowledge.
That is correct. One does not have to prove anything. One does not need to force one’s realizations on others either. But one may announce one’s findings and let others deal with it the way they want to. If they have questions, then answer them to best of your ability. But you have the right not to answer if you feel that you are being forced.
.
The U-K-U Theory
U-K-U stands for Unknowable-Knowable-Unknowable. Unknowable is what cannot be known. Knowable is time, matter, energy, space, and consideration.
A being (spirit, soul, self) is made up of considerations. Its core forms the interface between the knowable and the unknowable. Rest of the being is made up of layers upon layers of considerations that act as a filter to the native awareness of the being.
.
I just can’t get down with “unknowable”.
The word means simply “can never be known”.
If something ‘can never be known’, what is to say about it? It needs to have a specific referent in order to be meaningful.
Might as well use a word that has no meaning, such as “flergulflitzel”.
Unknowable sounds so – Kant-ish. Like “I Kant know it”.
You seem to be using a filtered definition of unknowable. So, take a look at your filter.
My definition of unknowble is THAT which is beyond consideration. It is a dimension independent of the dimension of consideration.
.
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/a-radical-new-view-of-the-upper-scientology-levels-ok-here-goes/#comment-4895
Ha ha ha ha ha HO HO Ho Ho HO HU ! ROTFL. You have provoked Bad Valkov. Your gonna get it now.
I generally use definitions from recognized English language dictionaries.
You seem to use individuated (Hindividuated? Vindividuated?) definitions you make up and add to the poor hapless word you’ve chosen to represent your latest incomprehensibilty.
Here are some common definitions of “unknown”. Pardon me all to hell for trying to communicate in standard English.
**************************
un·know·a·ble (n-n-bl)
adj.
Impossible to know, especially being beyond the range of human experience or understanding: the unknowable mysteries of life.
un·knowa·bili·ty, un·knowa·ble·ness n.
un·knowa·ble n.
un·knowa·bly adv.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
unknowable [ʌnˈnəʊəbəl]
adj
1. incapable of being known or understood
2.
a. beyond human understanding
b. (as noun) the unknowable
unknowableness , unknowability n
unknowably adv
Unknowable [ʌnˈnəʊəbəl]
n
(Philosophy)
the Philosophy the ultimate reality that underlies all phenomena but cannot be known
***************************
By the way, ANY language is a ‘filter’. My point is, your thinking is just as filtered as anyone else’s. It’s a given. That’s why we have dictionaries Metastatements about ‘filters’ are useless
“Language shapes the way we think, and determines what we can think about.
We dissect nature along lines laid down by our native language.
Language is not simply a reporting device for experience but a defining framework for it.”
Google Benjamin Lee Whorf, or start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/a-radical-new-view-of-the-upper-scientology-levels-ok-here-goes/#comment-4895
If your definition of unknowable is “THAT which is beyond consideration”, then why do you keep considering it and wasting bandwidth posting your considerations about that which is beyond consideration?
Are you some kind of petard, that you enjoy being hoisted by?
Is that an example of your thinking “outside of the MEST universe”?
Am I upsetting you, Valkov? Am I the source of your anger? Am I the absolute source?
.
If your definition of unknowable is “THAT which is beyond consideration”, then why do you keep considering it and wasting bandwidth posting your considerations about that which is beyond consideration?
Because I am in the universe of consideration and it is fun speculating a state that could be “beyond consideration.”
Looks like you are having a problem with this.
.
I agree that the speculation upon unknowable gives rise to much.
I think that speculation gives rise to the being (individuality) itself.
LOL!
Geir: ” I agree that the speculation upon unknowable gives rise to much.”
It may give rise to much, but how much of THAT do we want to wade around in?
Bad Valkov wants to know. 🙂
Well, whole branches of Astrophysics have been created. Pure fun, really 😉
Vin: “Because I am in the universe of consideration and it is fun speculating a state that could be “beyond consideration.”
Speculation basically means ‘looking’. However you are not using it that way here, you are using it in the sense of ‘conjecture upon little or no evidence’.
If you enjoy doing that, OK. Carry on.
I have debated for a few days to do write this or not. I know a challenge when I read one. So I respond. I was not going to bother but it is only fair to you. Do to fair play I hope you will post this too.
I don’t know about root canals, had a few in the past, but I only had one of this a huge auto head on collision.
A woman has driven into my lane I was going 34 miles an hour she has going about the same speed.
After the collision for nine day I was totally out of the MEST felt nothing I sang, danced inside my skin so to speak and had incredible amount of energy has few hours of sleep that period and the world was a beautiful place to be. The tent day I have reconnected to the body collapsed and passed out and when I have come too, I was in Hell.
I have lost all capabilities of understanding what others talked about, I have heard the sounds but there were no meanings to the spoken words, I could not read, my speech most of the time was almost incoherent, I passed out regularly, could not focus. The x-rays showed the left brain was lose, sort of slushy, last all connection.
I could hardly able to move only shuffled, and sobbed, screamed great deal, the depression in the deepest form I have fallen into. The pain was unbearable mind boggling headaches, yet I refused drugs to ease the pain.
Of course there was eating disorder, I could not stop eating. Slowly I have worked out of that state, year and a half after the car accident I was able to make a decision to teach my self how to read again. But I still had problems moving I could only shuffle my feet dragging them.
[At that time in that none existence, my husband packed up and left me penniless, with two dogs, sold the house and I had to move out into apartment but I had to put the dogs to sleep first, Which was very painful experience.
I still had difficulty functioning but I had to make a living, I have asked our former cleaning lady to show me how to clean house professionally and I learned, I hired myself out to clean houses since that did not required thinking and I could do the work slowly take my time.
I re-learned to read, word by word one or two sentence a day I read at times, with great effort. I am speed reader now, I don’t have left side of the brain working as it was before since the right side has taken over.
But I can compute with the speed of light at glance. I know, solo auditing taken me out of that condition, and I did not go into agreement with the Doctors that I will not be able to move my neck and the spine will collapse.
Nothing wrong with my neck or the spine and I am slim as a reed.
I have no problem understanding any underlying energy flows being aimed at me or others, intentions; whatever they are I read those flows like others do books. I register them, I understand and let it go by, and you want proof of OT ability. This here I offer. No root canal, since I lost all my teeth in the car accident too, 27 of them. By the way what are your OT abilities? I see quiet few but we all have OT abilities.
But some persons believe the ability need to be manifesting itself in the MEST universe otherwise it is not existing.
In my reality is the opposite.[ in the other hand, MEST Universe is a manifestation of OT abilities]
Did you read in my blog about in the Future what is going to happen to Earth?
It was not posted as a fairy tale, but seeing and knowing the future.
You ask for proof. Go on the emeter and check it out it will read positive. But to have the correct reading the person need to be unbiased to the subject and to the originator to that subject, play, we can, do have a lovely day!
PS: In sessions I have found my postulate to cause that accident, yet it was she who driven into my side, I have found all the postulates for the agony, the pain etc.. I have pulled all that in the order of to confront the worsts, the Hell and to be able to come out as a winner. I know how to confront and as-is MEST. My OT ability.
That accident was in 94. Since then the ability to confront and handle any MEST has increased have become immeasurable in comparisons. Thank you Geir, it is fun to partake with communication in your Blog. Elizabeth
Now we’re talking.
Now, to be able to consistently be in a state where one can be in a game or not by choice – that is a great goal.
The sentence that is most relevant in this post from Elizabeth is:
“But to have the correct reading the person need to be unbiased to the subject and to the originator to that subject…”
E-meter is simply a prop and a via. The underlying ability is to follow non-optimum attention and recognize what ia there per KHTK principles.
.
Elizabeth, where you say in your P.S. that you know how to confront and handle MEST, are you talking about MENTAL Matter Energy Space Time (MEST)?
Yes, of course, Marildi you said a light has come on, I would love to hear about it.
Elizabeth, thanks. I just wanted to confirm that you did mean MENTAL MEST, because I don’t think everybody was understanding it that way. Some might be thinking you meant you were out of the physical universe of MEST. But if you do meant that, explain a bit more what you mean by “out” (which might come across as having no connection whatsoever, for example).
As for what I said about a light coming on, if I remember right that was in reference to my getting a better understanding of Vinaire’s ideas. (I think! :-))
P.S. Elizabeth, I also just posted a reply to Vinaire which explains my understanding of what he has said. We’ll soon see how close (or far off) I am!
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/a-radical-new-view-of-the-upper-scientology-levels-ok-here-goes/#comment-4906
Geir has posted on an earlier thread, that he is not down with the idea of “mental MEST”, that it’s all just MEST. Apparently rejecting the distinction between “the MEST universe” as the common co-created (and not necessarily knowingly co-created) composite universe we share, and the individual universes of which each of us is the sole creator.
I feel that the words “being” and “universe” need fresh interpretations.
.
Valkov, I saw Geir’s recent comment before this one of yours and made a comment essentially about mental MEST (in the other two universes) vs. the MEST universe, near the bottom of the page. Please see.
Yes, what other MEST is there?
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/a-radical-new-view-of-the-upper-scientology-levels-ok-here-goes/#comment-4883
Geir: But then you are not talking about the original premise for this discussion “totally out of the MEST universe”.
It seems that the only way one can be “totally out of the MEST universe” is by dissolving the MEST universe, otherwise one may always get sucked back into the MEST universe.
But I believe that one can be “totally out of the MEST universe” by dissolving all attachments to the MEST universe. One may then extinguish even the basic SELF at will and then recreate it again.
.
Vinaire, I was just looking at the definitions of Clear when posting a comment above, and I believe what you say here is essentially one of the “relatively absolute” (haha) definitions/concepts of Clear in the Tech Dict – “simply an Awareness of Awarenss Unit that knows it’s an Awareness of Awareness Unit, can create energy at will, and can handle and control, erase or recreate an Analytical or Reactive Mind” (originally in Dianetics 55).
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/a-radical-new-view-of-the-upper-scientology-levels-ok-here-goes/#comment-4892
“It seems that the only way one can be “totally out of the MEST universe” is by dissolving the MEST universe, otherwise one may always get sucked back into the MEST universe.”
Yes Vin, I think ultimately you may be right about this.
1. As-is all of your own considerations about and connections to the MEST universe, thus freeing yourself (perhaps). This is what Theravada teaches. Concentrate on freeing yourself.
2. Actually dissolve the entire MEST universe. Here’s my view on that:
One can’t do this by oneself, because the shared MEST universe is a composite co-creation of a tremendous number of beings. It won’t as-is completely until all beings take responsibility for their parts of it’s creation and ownership of the parts they created..
One being can only as-is his considerations and connections to it, not the entire thing itself, because others are involved in creating the whole thing.
I think this is the reason for the common belief or precept among wisdom schools that “None of us will make it out until all of us make it out.”
This is sometimes illustrated by the “ladder analogy”: when a person takes a step up the ladder, before he can take the next step up, he must bring another up to the step he just stepped up from.
If one stops creating something it ceases to exist. For oneself. Including the so-called MEST universe. You cannot stop create something for others. You can influence others to create or not create. Two beings could still create a MEST universe while others don’t. It would then only exist for those two.
The individuality exists only within a universe and not “outside’ of it. What is “outside” is unknowable.
Hubbard simply had a fixation on individuality and that is what made him condemn NIRVANA in Scen 8-8008. Hubbard’s fixation has spread through Scientology like a virus. His was a “Semitic” philosophy in “Vedic” disguise.
.
Valkov, your viewpoint expressed under point (2) is what Hubbard says too, and I think that Hubbard is in error.
The basic assumptions seems to be that a being is separate from the universe it is creating. I don’t think so. I think that a universe is the “being expanded”. So, talking about a being exterior to the universe does not make much sense to me. The core of the beings probably forms the surface of the universe that is interfacing with the unknowable. The rest of the universe is simply made up of the filter layers of the beings. And in those overlapping filter layers are the vectors of intention/counter-intention.
I doubt if there is anything called a personal universe because the idea of “another” is part of one’s universe.
I am going to chew on this for a while.
.
Okay, everyone, here’s the two-part “Gradient Scale of Exteriorization” from Creation of Human Ability (and also the latest edition of Scn 0-8). Elizabeth started this topic of “out of the MEST” and I think you’ll see her descriptions in this scale (actually two scales). I also see the OP and other topics mentioned on this thread.
LRH:
“There is a gradient scale of exteriorization which could be described as follows:
First, the thetan without contact with a universe;
Then, a thetan in full contact with a universe:
Then, a thetan in contact with part of a universe, who considers the remainder of the universe barred to him;
Then, a thetan in a universe without any contact with any part of the universe;
Then, a thetan unknowingly in contact with a large part of a universe.
“The first condition would be a true Static, The last condition is called, colloquially, in Scientology, ‘buttered all over the universe.’
“As it is with a universe, such as the physical universe, so it is with physical bodies. The thetan, who has already gone through the cycle on the universe itself, may be in contact with a physical body in the same order:
At first he would be without association with a physical body;
Then, with occasional contact with bodies;
Then, with a fixed contact on one body but exteriorized;
Then, interiorized into a body but easy to exteriorize;
Then, in contact with and interiorized into a body, but withdrawn from the various parts of the body;
Then, obsessively ‘buttered all through the body’;
Then, obsessively and unknowingly drawn down to some small portion of the body, and so forth.
“This is the gradient scale which includes inversion and then inversion of the inversion. The auditor will discover preclears are very variable in the matter of exteriorization. Some preclears, even when they have a dark field, exteriorize rather easily. Others, after a great deal of work, are still found to be difficult to exteriorize. The matter of exteriorization is the matter of which level of inversion the preclear is in.
“One of the more difficult levels to work is so inverted that he thinks that a thetan is running him. In other words, here is a thetan functioning in a body and actually running it through various covert communication lines, who yet believes he is a body to such an extent that he considers himself, or any life around him to be some other being. …
What about a “thetan” exterior to itself? Please see
KHTK 14: THE SELF AS THE LOOKER
.
I think that every life form is suppressing some other life form, while not being aware of it. Is a “Suppressive” person always aware of suppressing another person or persons?
Could Hubbard himself be suppressive to all those people he himself declared to be suppressive? Could Hubbard be considered suppressive for originating policies of disconnection and Fair Game and enforcing them.
.
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/a-radical-new-view-of-the-upper-scientology-levels-ok-here-goes/#comment-4894
Sure. Hubbard wrote about “suppressors” as early as DMSMH, and supposedly earlier in “Excalibur”.
And no doubt he acted to suppress various people and activities at times. That is a natural part of living, and unavoidable.
But that does not make a person a “Suppressive Person”. That’s a hearse of a different color.
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/a-radical-new-view-of-the-upper-scientology-levels-ok-here-goes/#comment-4957
hearse – hahaha!
A “suppressive person” seems to be a filter that actively overwhelms other filters.
Hubbard was quite and overwhelming filter.
.
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/a-radical-new-view-of-the-upper-scientology-levels-ok-here-goes#comment-4891
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/a-radical-new-view-of-the-upper-scientology-levels-ok-here-goes/#comment-4883
Well it appears we may not understand that phrase in quite the same way.
The word “out” might contain the inconsistency.
Unknowable is not a “dimension beyond consideration at all. ”
It is not “a dimension” by definition, and it is utterly your consideration.
Chris, he isn’t using the physics definition but this one: an aspect or factor, side; a feature or distinctive part of something. We could get tangled up in those words too but not if we just go for the concept. I understand the dimension “Unknowable” to be one realm (“the distinctive part” definition) of what exists.
Ah, semantics! (I know, I know, it’s kinda my mantra. 🙂 )
Right you are Marildi – Unknowable is neither any of those definitions either. neti neti
It’s either something or not and he is going to pick which he thinks it is or not. So far he says both depending on convenience of the filter.
A person can conceive of things being caused or not. Without a sense of this, I’m not sure how we can have a metaphysical discussion.
I hear you, Chris. I’m just holding out on the premise that if all the terms being used are defined the same way, we’ll have a chance of spotting misduplication or misunderstanding or inconsistency. For starters, at least. Capiche, you rascal ? (Meant fondly! Defined as “a mischievous person” – not the other definition! ha ha ha )
Vinaire
“,But I believe that one can be “totally out of the MEST universe” by dissolving all attachments to the MEST universe. One may then extinguish even the basic SELF at will and then recreate it again.”
”
Very good, you have expressed my thoughts. thank You/
Valkov, I just can’t resist, on SP, PTS
Once upon the time when my enemy become to nasty, done too much harm I set a trap. I cut the buggers, roasted them over the pit than I licked even bones clean, and thrown the bones back in the fire.
This action was good not only eliminated the enemy but there was
food in plenty and the warmth of the fire.
I believed “Two birds with one stone. ” have originated from there someplace where ever that location was.
Please continue to read on don’t panic, I have given up that practise also the clubs and the fire no longer burns in the pit.
Now I solo audit on the en-theta and please believe the amount
was not small over the years which flooded my universe in order to
stop my advancement and once and for all eliminate me as a spiritual
being. [Not to my surprize I was the cause for both side]
Oh, it was incredible to watch the evil forces at work!!! .[ recognised every one since I could compare the incoming flows to those I used to have, I too have had a large sacksful myself, evil intentions that is! Innocence, I was not in that department.
I had a few trick up in my sleeves too, I been sainted in the past glorified, to this day I still wonder why!
Solo auditing works on everything. I never believed a cannibal even if audited remains a cannibal.
As St Hill after finished with the OT levels the church offered a Integrity Rundown. That was very expensive in comparison to the cost of other levels but I bought 3 intensive.
It was great fun to look in nooks under stones in the forgotten parts of the universe for my dark deeds; I use up all the 3 intensive. Now, still the fun questions are in session of concerning the O/W’s. I root for them like pig for truffles.
This right here is the model attitude for making progress “up the bridge” – “out of MEST” – “nirvana” – whatever one wants to call it… A rose by any other name smells as sweet.
hahaha Elizabeth “I never believed a cannibal even if audited remains a cannibal.” I totally agree with this. You’ve shown me a glimpse of something. Audited thoroughly, I can see the light at the end of the tunnel – I may not be a cannibal much longer! haha!
Elizabeth, you said, “I never believed a cannibal even if audited remains a cannibal.” I thought about it and remembered something LRH said that contradicts the cannibal statement. It was in relation to ethics tech and it was something to the effect that, of course after being thoroughly audited ethics ethics tech would no longer be of great importance for an individual (roughly paraphrased, I don’t recall the reference to look it up). With that latter statement, I believe LRH even corrected himself on his earlier cannibal statement, and is in agreement with what you have found for yourself, directly.
In fact, you’ve said quite a few wise things in your posts, and I just wanted you to know that they have not gone unnoticed. And by the way, I think no one has responded to your offer to go on the meter as proof because meter reactions are considered to be subjective anyway. But I’ll say this, your comments may not prove some things, but they prove a lot!
You are very smart and well prepared. Everybody knows the “cannibal quote.” This is why Elizabeth used it. She means to contradict LRH. I do too.
Once you’ve walked the walk of “whac-a-mole” you will contradict it as well! hahaha!
Not to be too mysterious, I’ll write that if we handled everything that could come up, we would soon consider the Bridge to Total Freedom to be “minimalist.” NOT degrading LRH or the bridge. Just saying the current Bridge takes only a dozen or so years to do. Flag is currently promising 18 months. That’s all I mean. When you address your “case” you are addressing the entirety of MEST. Walk outside and look up at the indigo sky. That’s the idea.
A well solo’d cannibal would, at a point, simply “read” on eating people. This is because cannibals are not one-lifers. They are more than the culture in which they were raised. He would take it up as an item and through handling his consideration on doing it, it is predicted (by me) that it would fall away. Soon after that, maybe meat would come up and he’d handle that. Or maybe for him that order would be reversed. Keep in mind your reference says a “cleared cannibal is still a cannibal.” Elizabeth’s walking the walk of the solo auditor entails quite a bit (understating) more than “clear.” Or maybe her definition of clear is bigger. Either way – that dude is going to get the idea that eating people is odd. Then maybe ice cream, but you get the idea.
A few comments here were made on the desirability of unstacking the mind “naturally.” Some of us trusted LRH’s bridge to do that…unstack the mind naturally. But I have to say that although happy with my “bridge” auditing, it did not always address my mind “naturally.”
Whac-a-mole on the other hand handles what comes up. All other aspects of processing and chain running apply. Programming and case supervision apply. Not going squirrelly here – handling what comes up and what comes up and what comes up . . . for a long time.
No the cannibal would not remain a cannibal, nor human, nor . . . ?
According to Valkov, absolutes are attainable outside the universe. This is fascinating.
So, the source of Scientology is outside the universe. This may be so because Hubbard is dead.
.
Vinaire,
“So, the source of Scientology is outside the universe. This may be so because Hubbard is dead”.
A sparkle, sense of humor! thank for the lough.
Good joke, Vin!
However you do understand that I meant the source of the MEST universe is outside of the MEST universe, right?
It is unknowable. I am not ready to make the assumption that you are making because I do not have full understanding of the MEST universe.
What do you say MEST universe is? Are considerations part of the MEST universe?
.
Hubbard may be alive again somewhere, and not necessarily still dead. The source of the knowledge that is Scientology or any valid knowledge may well be “outside” of the universe because it encompasses the universe and more. “Source” in Hubbard’s sense is a transmission point. Perhaps a ‘portal’, as a word you have used. An aware, knowing transmission point or portal.
Acoording to my theory, Hubbard was another filter through which unknowable looked.
Reincarnation is an interesting subject. It may be simply the continuation of a filter after its detachment from a body. A filter may be duplicated, fragmented or dissolved.
.
He truly didn’t say that.
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/a-radical-new-view-of-the-upper-scientology-levels-ok-here-goes/#comment-4864
Marildi: “…What do you think about posting a new OP, “A radical new view of…comments continued…”
I like the above suggestion. Simply create the space for it and let the readers fill it. No need to transfer any comments. Readers can link their comments in the new space to the comments in the old space.
.
The problem with linked comments for me on my computer is that it takes forever when I click on the comment link for it to come up, when the thread is this big.
I may find a better theme to fix it…
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/a-radical-new-view-of-the-upper-scientology-levels-ok-here-goes/#comment-4915
Marildi: Add to the end of the first paragraph – (and until then these considerations are still in the category/dimension of Unknowable).
And add to the end of the last paragraph – I assume this is what you mean by “intuition.”
I do not think that intuition is an unmanifested consideration that resides in unknowable. Intuition is something that suddenly hits you as you are contemplating over a bunch of considerations to make sense out of them. The intuition seems to explain them a lot better and make its much simpler. Where does the intuition reside before it is manifested? I don’t know. It just appears and the confusion just disappears.
.
Upstream here you stated:
“I find that abilities in their purity belong to the dimension of “unknowable.” We may say that the dimension of “unknowable” is the dimension of pure abilities.
On the other hand the dimension of knowable is the dimension of forms and considerations. These two dimensions are independent of each other like “x” and “y” coordinates.
The being, soul, individual, person, or thetan belong to the “knowable” dimension. Abilities do not reside in the thetan. Abilities seem to reside in the “unknowable’ dimension. The thetan seems to modulate the abilities the same way as a lens modulates the rays of light. Please see Comments on Descartes’ Works”
Yes, I did say that, and that was part of my speculations toward a theory. My current speculation is that abilities might be a part of the interface between SELF and the unknowable (or absolute, or Brahma).
.
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/a-radical-new-view-of-the-upper-scientology-levels-ok-here-goes/#comment-4919
“Valkov:…You seem to use individuated (Hindividuated? Vindividuated?) definitions you make up and add to the poor hapless word you’ve chosen to represent your latest incomprehensibilty… “
Obviously you are getting so upset that you have started to add added inapplicables to your communication as if it will make you appear witty.
That “bad Valkov” is just your filter that can’t spot inconsistencies. You spiritual master Hubbard did the same thing that you are accusing me of. I thought you’ll adore me for it rather than accuse me. Well I’ll chalk that off as another inconsistency.
.
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/a-radical-new-view-of-the-upper-scientology-levels-ok-here-goes/#comment-4939
Bad Valkov is simply my human side. Do you reject it, or consider it unworthy? Sounds like it, because you keep analyzing it in a minimalizing way, reducing it to “filters” and all that. Example:
“That “Bad Valkov” is JUST your filter that can’t spot inconsistencies.” The word “just” is very telling – it states the inconsequential nature, the smallness of Bad Valkov, Bad Valkov is not a person, he’s just a filter, he can be dismissed without further consideration. In the same sentence you tie in an inability – “can’t spot inconsistencies”.
Fact is, I have spotted and posted about some of your inconsistencies. Did it upset you? Can you ever forgive me for doing that?
In the end, Vinnie, there are only “filters”, there is nothing else.
Why don’t you try validating Bad Valkov for a change?
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/a-radical-new-view-of-the-upper-scientology-levels-ok-here-goes/#comment-4939
Nice, Vin, very nice. How low can you go?
You position me as Hubbard’s “spiritual slave”, then, by calling him my “spiritual master”?
I call that propaganda.
Are you sure it is not you who are upset?
Quite the set of filters you have there, yourself.
I wonder if you two will mellow down a bit and try to figure out the actual differences. Because it could result in wisdom for many if you do.
Geir, you are right as usual. I have been entirely distemperate with Vinnie lately and it is to no good effect.
However there is nothing to figure out. I have just learned Vinnie is a Gemini, who are among the most idiosyncratic thinkers, who often reside in a universe parallel to, but a little offset from everyone else’s in the world.
I am an Aquarius, who can be every bit as bad.
Those are my filters, and I’m stickin’ to them.
Vinnie is OK in my book, for a ________, _________, __________, _________, and ________ ________!
See? I’m mellowing already! 🙂
According to my theory, Vinaire is a filter too, and so is Geir.
You don’t have to accept it though. You may ridge against it if you wish.
Please don’t feel suppressed by me.
Am I the source?
The absolute source?
If I am then you are too. The only difference is in the filters.
.
“Honest Ossifer, we don’t mean no-one no harm, Ossifer, there’s nobody here but us pore ole filters.”
A filter created by self can be very suppressive to itself.
.
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/a-radical-new-view-of-the-upper-scientology-levels-ok-here-goes/#comment-4933
Miraldi said: “Aw, shucks. I wasn’t going for complicated, I meant it as a simplified summary…”
If one doesn’t know then it is better to admit that one doesn’t know instead of speculating. We simply don’t know where the intuition comes from, or where it resides before it manifests itself. So, let’s just say, “Intuition simply appears.” Why make it more complicated? Just recognize what is there without adding any speculation to it.
Spirituality is simply the essence of something. One may say that the spirituality of the sun is to shine and give warmth. The word for this is “dharma” in Indian philosophy. From this viewpoint spirituality is not a matter of belief. It is a matter of looking.
.
1. For the word “intuition” I had the concept of “direct perception of truth, fact, etc. independent of any reasoning process; immediate apprehension” (Random House). How are you defining it?
2. All the definitions that I see for “spirituality” are akin to “pertaining to the spirit” or to “immaterial nature”. Shine and warmth are physical universe properties. How are you defining “spirituality”?
3. An earlier comment of yours (in “An Aspect of Freedom”) was “I am not negating spirituality and promoting materialism. I am simply questioning what people believe in the name of spirituality.” How does that fit in with your theory of Unknowable?
Please number your responses as above for me, so I’m sure to know how they relate.
Nice questions. I am curious about the the responses from Vin.
(1) From Wikipedia: The term intuition is used to describe “thoughts and preferences that come to mind quickly and without much reflection”. “The word ‘intuition’ comes from the Latin word ‘intueri’, which is often roughly translated as meaning ‘to look inside’’ or ‘to contemplate’.” So it seems that intuition appears without effort when one is looking. It is not connected to any thinking (logical) activity. All thinking occurs in the filter. So, intuition bypasses the filter. It may take some time before it can be fully expressed through language to another. But then it may not mean much to another person unless effects can be created using that intuition that are real in terms of
their experience.
(2) From Wikipedia: “The English word spirit (from Latin spiritus “breath”) has many differing
meanings and connotations, all of them relating to a non-corporeal substance contrasted with the material body.” I see spirit as the abstraction
underlying concrete forms. Abilities, thoughts, feelings, characteristics, etc. are abstract in different degrees compared to physical objects. Moving in the direction of abstraction is akin to moving in the direction of spirit. Human spirit is a special case of the general sketch that I have presented.
(3) From Knowable to Unknowable there seems to be a scale of abstraction or spirituality. Abstraction gets finer and more encompassing as one moves from Knowable towards Unknowable. This stretch could keep on going and may be considered infinite.
.
Thanks, I see that we are using those words basically the same way. And I don’t have a problem understanding any of the comments you made on those words, no inconsistency for me. Cool!
No inconsistency on (3) either. And I was happy to see that you do include in your theories a whole area of Knowable that isn’t just considerations stemming from other considerations. Thanks for the clarification.
Now, a couple comments back you said,”How does one know that there is something that is not manifested? And if one thinks that way then that would be a manifested speculation.”
I see “speculation” as potentially no different from “intuition.” Thus one COULD speculate/postulate that there is something that is not manifested – if that were one’s intuition. Right? And since you yourself are postulating theories, presumably based on intuition and not the filters of consideration, why not postulate an unmanifested Cause for that intuition? It just seems to make your system of thought incomplete to say “intuition simply appears,” as you worded it earlier.
Actually, you did say, just above, “I see spirit as the abstraction underlying concrete forms.” Essentially, what that says to me is that you are not only stating that there IS an underlying cause but are naming it, as “Spirit” – and with that I think you’ve handled a lot of the objections you have had!
BTW, hope you had a nice birthday. You know, in the States, at 65 you are officially a senior citizen. Maybe that consideration will be incorporated into the various filters around and you will get more respect for your wisdom. Ho ho ho. (Your word “filter” is very descriptive and fitting, I must say – as long as you don’t apply it to a person (especially me, ha ha) and go out of comm like philosophers of old did with, in their case, very esoteric language. You gotta keep your fans listenin’.)
I find speculation to be contrived but not so with intuition. An intuition simply appears and happens to fill in the gaps in a way that logic cannot. It is hard to verbalize intuition except through postuates. I do not know if anything causes intuition so I do not want to make that assumption.
Looking requires seeing things as they are without assuming anything. So when I say, “Intuition simply appears,” that is what I actually see.
I am using the word “spirit” in the sense of essence, which is deeper and abstract. To me spirit is not a thing, but a dimension of abstraction that can go deeper and deeper. When people generally say “cause” or “spirit” they seem to imply something with a form. I am using “spirit” in a formless sense.
In a few hours the family and close relatives shall be gathering at the Columbia Restaurant in Sand key for this birthday event. My daughter and I shall be sharing the glow as we both have the same birthday. I am wrapping up my work life whereas, she is starting hers. It is coming to a full circle. Frankly speaking I do not feel wise or mature. I do not think that I ever grew up. I just like solving mathematical equations. Life has been a mathematical equation for me, and people give a damn about my viewpoint. So, I just stay in my corner and do my thing.
Thanks for your wishes.
.
Have a great one.
Vinaire, you say, “I find speculation to be contrived but not so with intuition.”
Sounds right to me (which was why I used the alternate word, “postulate,” with regard to theories). I would like to add that intuition is at the level of Know, just above Look on the scale. You were saying earlier that you didn’t understand what “Know” means – I suggest that whenever you have had an intuition you were at Know! By definition.
Okay, if you don’t feel that you Know, intuitively, whether there is such a thing as “spirit” then maybe you’re right not to assume it. And I probably don’t need to tell you, but some people do feel they have Knowingness about the actuality of spirit, and that their knowingness is not in the dimension of “mere consideration,” which is on a lower level of the scale – sometimes at Look, sometimes way down at Think (figure-figure).
But the bottom line today is – bon appetit and enjoy the celebration of your 65th birthday and many more years of mathematical philosophizing!
Thank you Geir. We had a wonderful celebration this evening at the beach.
.
Happy Birthday Vinnie.
Gemini. I shoulda guessed!
Thank you, Valkov, for your birthday wishes.
.
Good Morning Geir. You were right; if one claims something which others have no reality on one should have the proof how that wins come about. What one has done in order to have such on extraordinary wins, OT abilities? Please read, but you don’t have to post this, up to you. This is a very short summery what I have confronted Sort of explains the gains, wins I have and I have the right to claim.
I had 3 more car accident; I pulled them in for the same reason,
I was half beaten to dead by one of the husbands hospitalised another one poisoned me slowly I was very ill for about six months before that but was stopped, he wanted to kill me so he would not have to give up the half of the practice,
I had been a refugee could not speak English I worked as a dishwasher, lived in six different countries,
I had enough to confront every situating plus. Worked as waitress 19 years, very hard job requires metal and physical attention, for 14 years I cleaned house not much metal challenge but hell on the body.
By then OT abilities kicked in and were used I could work with unknown speed by humans standard yet cleaned to perfection because the speed I could clean 2 houses a day and had.
Have been miss-diagnosed, nearly killed me because the doctor would not give me antibiotic. Full body infection.
After one of the car accident I was on morphine for 3/12 years, huge dozes I went off that by myself without any help I did that at home. I was not addicted to the stuff but going off was the darkest hell to confront. On this it was my decision to go off not the doctors. I had enough drug, I chose pain.
I am well and healthy 71, no teeth mind you!
I don’t take any kind of drugs or alcohol,
I don’t like alcohol yet on purpose I would get drunk over and over in order to confront every affect I have solo audited about dozen times, Confronted on whole track. Huge charges were blown while drunk.
Same as I have done as I have done with the morphine. Soloed out whole track drug addictions [by the end taking 270gm a day enough to kill a horse.]
I believed and still do to confront the incoming MEST through experiences of every kind, mental or physical that whatever that is.
As you know before one can be free on has to go through.
This was, and still is my idea my reality how to confront the physical Universe. From the immense amount of tress the body was put through, from brutally beaten, hard work , car accidents also the battering of energy by daily auditing had incredible affects an the body that had to be handled in sessions too.
Thyroid , stopped working mind boggling pain and headaches loss of hair [all regrown] I fixed the Thyroid problem was slow recovery but I did it alone.
Why I have done all this, why because for me this was the Life time to confront the MEST universe
So far I had the most wonderful wild journey Great life, adventure of all adventures. If I would need to re-do in order to gain what I have I would not hesitate for a second start all over again.
The Tech works. Solo auditing is the key the magical key to the Universe, of course will power, dedication but most of all that hunger that incredible desire to know. That fire which was ignited by the Tech is still burning. Yet I am very aware just starting this is just the beginning…………………….
After soloing for this long now, have you stopped creating problems in your life?
Valkov, Geir. One can only, confront as-is one’s own creation that includes all the connections one had over the eons to any other creations. To people= beings spiritual whatever would one likes to name things, places, thoughts of any kind on any matter to anything.
I mean OUT by that. One no longer has the connection to the past because one has confronted as-ised, that includes all the places one have ever been outside of Earth, other worlds galaxies etc..
After when one have severed all the connection, agreements, thought, consideration because of as-ising, after that one is no longer affected and one becomes a happy trouble free bystander just looking an as the Parade going by. Than one can decide to play or not, by getting back into the game.
By the way, after the amount of hours I mentioned solo auditing the 0’s are correct. One lifetime takes nothing to audit out but behind one present time thought, there is that long chain or that many faceted diamond seats beautifully hidden.
To explain the work of 38 years and how was the end result achieved; one just can’t put that down in few short essays.
I wonder if this thread will exceed 1000 comments…
For some of us who don’t have the highest high-tech computers or the highest high-speed internet service, the comm lags in operation are already highest ever! This monster is getting pretty unwieldy. And we owe it all to Vinaire. D-: (Vinaire, why are you so much fun to tease? But at the same time, don’t forget, you spark interest!)
I wonder if any other blog thread has a record of over 1,000. (Where’s the world’s best data scavenger? Valkov?)
Typo in above. D-: should have been 😀 Ha!
Wanted to let you know, I’ve heard from a couple of people that they have sort of given up trying to navigate this thread because of how long it takes. But I know your on it. Just saying, for your info.
I know… I have a solution and it is coming soon. Wnat to see if this one can pass a 1000 comments first *grin*
A simple solution would be what Marildi suggested earlier. Start another page in continuation with this. You may still add the comments to see if they exceed 1000.
Nah, I want to see the number “1000” beside the blog post. Just to see if it can be done. After besting that Level Boss, I will take this blog to the next level 😉
Alright, have your way!
.
I know… I have a solution and it is coming soon. Want to see if this one can pass a 1000 comments first *grin*
Sure no more, one can look at and confront just so many walls before all the walls vanish than ,one can just walk out free. Part of the walls were the confrontation on winning or losing. Big thing around this Planet, that concept have and. hold great importance to each individual. The problems were not problems but lessons to learn from, there is a great difference.
I never run problems in sessions because to me they were not.
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/a-radical-new-view-of-the-upper-scientology-levels-ok-here-goes/#comment-4957
Then; What YOU see, YOU create. If you and I created something, just you and I, then nobody else would see it (unless we build it with buildning blocks that others also creates, of course). This I believe is the very essense of this discussion and of Life, Universe and Everything. This, misunderstood, is the trap methinks.
Help me out. I thought this is what we have ever been saying. There are universes. The universe of my wife and I lying in bed in the dark talking to one another about the day, work, kids, strategies – is a universe as in your example. Only she and I can see it. Even the kids down the hall don’t see it – doesn’t exist. Elizabeth Hamre has been auditing her own universe including her attachments to the physical universe for 38 years. She is in the self-proclaimed position of participating or not in the MEST game. This is both enviable and consistent.
What do you mean by trap? . . . the misunderstanding of ______ resulting in the hidden standards that we make up about OTs? The problem with demonstrating supernatural ability with reference to consensus MEST?
(and I think you have to check that little box below for notify me of follow-up comments to bring up the reply box – or maybe I misunderstand that)
Unfortunately the levels of comments only go that deep (except mine seems to go one deeper).
If one thinks of the MEST universe as something other than one’s own creation, one would be in trouble (as we all are 😉 ). I create what I see, you create what you see. If we create the same (roughly), we call it real among us. But to think that the creation is not yours or that it exist on its own or is “real”… that I think is the basic trap.
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/a-radical-new-view-of-the-upper-scientology-levels-ok-here-goes/#comment-4957
Geir, I do understand what you are writing.
Here’s a metaphor for the permanence of MEST: What if we thought of MEST as a big old wooden house, and a solo auditor as a single termite. The termite would be handling what was right in front of him and would remove some wood. This would not be much and only the one termite would notice. But if we turn loose a billion billion termites, well the old house at a point would fall down.
My point isn’t that the termites created the house, although maybe it should be. My point is that a solo auditor working alone such as Elizabeth can potentially clean up their own universe and can address their every connection to MEST. For that individual the change would be huge and they would also have a MEST effect on say the hundred or so people with which they have any contact. That’s it and I think is the reason for the inability of a person to demonstrate” laboratory grade supernatural ability. ” The laboratory just isn’t equipped to pick up on the thread-like difference in the MEST around this one person. Thus imposing irrational, speculative and hidden standards on supernatural candidates.
So MEST is the individual’s creation and he experiences his own slant on the MEST, but as-is’ing MEST requires the same consensus which created it. I don’t know what the quorum consensus is in numbers but wouldn’t it be substantial?
People who are in pretty good shape tend to begin caring about others, don’t they? Generally? When we process people on “all” dynamics, we aren’t handling “all THE dynamics.” We are auditing that one person’s considerations toward “all” those dynamics.
Processes boasting End Phenomena of results on “all” dynamics mean the audited person’s considerations toward “all” dynamics. It is my consideration that a person can use standard auditing practices to handle his own universe but then must resort to other processes such as marital counselling and education to handle his 2nd dynamic, and ecological practices to audit out the insanity on the 6th dynamic, etc.,.
Or if we cleared the planet for reals . . .
My point is that each termite continually creates the house as he sees it.
Each and every one of us will have to deal with our own creations ultimately. Simply and only.
Good. Then we are agreed. I shall carry on.
What is needed is a grass roots movement with very simple technology. The last one was started by Buddha 2500 years ago. It would be interesting to look at why it fizzled out after 1000 years or so, when Christianity really got going and Islam arrived on the scene.
Now we need to start another one.
.
Vinaire dont start me on that subject. It simply fizzled out because it was not and is not the true path. We have here a very simple technology which is working just fine and this simple technology only existing one in the universe.
For a very simple reason.This tech was created to reverse the affects of the implants. The man was a genius making them, therefore he was elected to create technology which will un-do, revel the implants. and that was his amend project.
He is truly a brilliant player, creater of great games.
Right you are.
It seems that intention and counter-intention needs to be understood better. The first thing that comes to mind is intention/counter-intention being an inconsistency. The same person can carry them. It is like two vectors opposing each other.
INTENTION in itself has a strong sense of being directed. Therefore, it can be represented as a vector and not just scalar. The basic sense is that of “stretching out”. How can “direction”, which is a vector property, be associated with a thought to turn it into an intention?
Intention would have to do with bringing about a certain state of affairs. It is converting a visualization into reality. The question then is, “What is the difference between visualization and reality? Here we get into the area of two different selves, and the agreement and disagreement between them.
So, what is a self? If we regard it as an interface between unknowable and knowable, or as a portal through which considerations appear, then “direction” may be looked upon as the nature of the postulate, and “magnitude” may be looked upon as the force behind it. This would give us a vector.
The basic inconsistency would be the inconsistency in the nature of two postulates. The most basic postulate is the self itself. Hence, the most basic inconsistency would be in the nature of two selves. What determines the nature of a self? It is the filter that a self acquires.
Thus, intention would have to do something with the filter. What is a filter? A filter is what a person is looking through and not looking at. Thus, a filter is relatively fixed in space and contributes to the nature of perception as well as postulation.
Thus, basic intention is pretty much the nature of one’s filter.
.
In the absence of filters there would be no inconsistencies and no intentions/counter-intentions either. Postulates, percptions, intentions, etc, will all be quite dynamic. These would be coming into being and dissolving continually.
Maybe this is happening now also but at a very slow rate and frequency.
.
Vinaire,
” In the absence of filters there would be no inconsistencies and no intentions/counter-intentions either. Postulates, percptions, intentions, etc, will all be quite dynamic. These would be coming into being and dissolving continually.
To bad we use different wording because of what you describe here is OT abilities without, Bank, MEST. fantastic.
PTS’ness is a spiritual matter. Its not clear to me what
I don’t have it yet – even as OT VIII. I want direct processes that would make me not resist any counter-intention. Or a drill. Or a simple realization (or a huge and wild one).
What would be an example of resisting and not resisting counter-intention. So I can better understand your query.
Example:
A person criticizes you. You could try to resist, stop or counter the criticism – out load or just inside you. This cements the criticism. If you let it pass right through you, you simply wouldn’t get hurt,
Okay, here’s our course – “Super TR 0 Bullbait on Counter Intention.” The current drill on Pro TR’s has a product for TR 0 as “good, reasonable confront.” On this Super course you would have the student on a meter so that any reaction would be noted and flunked .
All you need now is to work out what the exact product would be and what sort of drills on CI would achieve that. Simple… :-).
🙂
And we would add a set of auditing procedures to more easily reach that EP.
Oooooh, wish I had the issues for the Pro TRs clay table auditing and the TRs Repair LIst. These could be extrapolated from – you know, in true anthill innovation style..
Yep. That would be a good start.
Or, create some simple KHTK exercises. 🙂
.
Go for it, Vinaire.
Isene said, “I want direct processes that would make me not resist any counter-intention. Or a drill. Or a simple realization (or a huge and wild one).”
Maybe you should have a blog post and get some brainstorming going on this – “It’s so crazy it just might work.” (The immortal words of Gabby Hayes, movie cowboy of old.)
Here’s a couple of questions I was hoping would have been answered in any specifics you may have come up with so far. How would “ANY counter-intention” be different from pretty much the whole bank of charge that impinges on an individual? And please say more about what you mean by “handling suppression” , in terms of mechanics especially.
🙂 Great idea on the blog post — I am contemplating moving this blog to the next level; by starting to blog twice per week, at the same two days per week. Higher post frequency should spread the comments over more blog posts, making the navigation easier.
As for handling suppression; I believe that a person that does not attempt to stop, resist or counter incoming counter-intentions would be invulnerable to suppression. Getting to the point where one would be so serene regarding counter-intentions could be difficult – or really easy, I don’t know yet. LRH did not seem to have reached this.
Let me celebrate my 65th birthday with this essay:
KHTK 14: THE SELF AS THE LOOKER
Happy birthday!!
Thank you. I love you all. 😀
.
+1 !
Happy Birthday Vin! Carry On!
Very happy Birthday to You. Wish you the very best! Elizabeth
Thanks for this celebration.
.
IGeir, you said, “If one thinks of the MEST universe as something other than one’s own creation, one would be in trouble (as we all are 😉 ). I create what I see, you create what you see. If we create the same (roughly), we call it real among us. But to think that the creation is not yours or that it exist on its own or is “real”… that I think is the basic trap.”
It seems to me that we have matter, energy, space and time and use of the term “MEST universe” is simply a way to talk about that specific sphere of M-E-S-T which is created jointly by all. And the term “theta universe” handily singles out the sphere of the other “two” universes (mine and all the “other fellow’s”), which are not jointly perceived by all – but which are also composed of the very same MEST (M-E-S-T), (facsimilies being just a higher, finer physical energy, and which also contain space and time). Basically it’s an agreed-upon use of words to differentiate and would probably be confusing to change it now.
But I do see what you mean and how it sets up an attitude, a viewpoint that may go in misguided directions. What Valkov said earlier about language itself being a filter and the mind-blowing quoted lines about language that he posted are all so applicable!:
“Language shapes the way we think, and determines what we can think about.
We dissect nature along lines laid down by our native language.
Language is not simply a reporting device for experience but a defining framework for it.”
Maybe the “mental aikido” checksheet or rundown should include (after reading certain references) a big clay demo on how MEST includes both the “MEST universe” and the “theta universe” (theta universe being the other two universes of MEST/M-E-S-T); and then another big clay demo showing how he himself (the student) has created and is still creating it those universes. Next, there could be clay demos on counter-intention, suppression, the phenomenon of the Suppressed Person Rundown… Well, nevermind, that’s still on the drawing board, to be submitted later.
Optimistically yours, Marildi 🙂
🙂
I see it like this: There is no MEST universe. And it is not something that is jointly created. It is like this: I create what I see. You create what you see. Because of synchronization, we agree to create very similar views. And we continue to do so. We do not jointly create something that thenafter “exists” somehow.
I’m not quite getting the difference between “MEST universe / jointly created” and “similar views / because of synchronization”.
Maybe just more about what you mean by “synchronization” would do it.
The difference lies in:
1) W create something together that Exists thereafter.
2) You continuously create a view, and so do I and we agree to continuously create the “same” view.
In 1) you have a MEST universe Existing, in 2) you have two synchronized views continually created. It is a subtle difference. But a difference nevertheless.
Geir,
I will have to put any response to this view of yours on the back burner until I can integrate it with the Four of Existence Conditions and the first 4 postulates conceptual framework.
………Four Conditions of Existence, that is.
Similar to cliche arguments between creationists and evolutionists, it is easier and less work to argue if one can reduce an argument to the ridiculous “either / or. ”
The concept or argument of oneness vs. separateness may morph toward neither one nor the other but toward an as yet un-named condition of existence.
I am curious since you brought up the concept of the Planck second interval as a possible timing activity for the alternate creation and then subsequent destruction of the physical universe.
In the LRH Sci Fi series “Mission Earth” he used a similar concept to design a “time drive” engine which powered the “Tug One.” This engine changed its location in space by changing its location in time. Through the use of some additional accessory equipment, it was thusly able to drag the entire tug-boat along with it. It used some type of pulse interval such as the Planck second. If the universe in which we exist is blinking on and off, I am curious for how long it is off and for how long it is on. It is wondrous to think that there might not be anymore motion in the physical universe than there is motion within the individual frames of movie film.
And what enormous energy that would require. When creating “something” from “nothing” is power a relevant subject? We wouldn’t know that yet since though we all create, we don’t seem to be able to much about it with precision.
My point re the Planck second was that it seems to serve as the rhythm stick for creation, not destruction. That we create all that we view every Planck second.
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/a-radical-new-view-of-the-upper-scientology-levels-ok-here-goes/#comment-5083
Chris,
Seeing ‘reality’ (samsara, maya), the apparency of existence, as still frames is a perception that some Buddhists have commented upon early on, as something they perceived(obnosed) in meditation. Motion is thus an apparency.
As LRH put it, the true cycle of action is: create – create – create – create – cease creating. This implies to me that there are intervals of no manifestation between pulses of manifestation(creation).
Persistence is achieved by introducing a ‘lie’ such as misownership – “I’m not doing that”, for example. But one continues to create it in fact, “behind one’s back”, so to speak. Or with his left hand, while his right hand is putting on a show of some other activity.
First and second postulates.
It’s all in the Axioms, actually.
Axiom 32
Anything which is not directly observed tends to persist.
Axiom 33
Any as-isness which is altered by not-isness (by force) tends to persist.
Axiom 34
Any isness, when altered by force, tends to persist.
Axiom 35
The ultimate truth is a static.
A static has no mass, meaning, mobility, no wavelength, no time, no location in space, no space. This has the technical name of “basic truth.”
Axiom 36
A lie is a second postulate, statement or condition designed to mask a primary postulate which is permitted to remain.
EXAMPLES: Neither truth nor a lie is a motion or alteration of a particle from one position to another.
A lie is a statement that a particle having moved did not move, or a statement that a particle, not having moved, did move.
The basic lie is that a consideration which was made was not made or that it was different.
Axiom 37
When a primary consideration is altered but still exists, persistence is achieved for the altering consideration.
All persistence depends on the basic truth, but the persistence is of the altering consideration, for the basic truth has neither persistence nor impersistence.
The ‘synchronization’ factor is not directly mentioned in the Axioms that I know of, but in lectures I think I have heard some mention of it.
Many universes could simultaneously be running on slightly different “Planck rhythms” or whatever you physics types wanna call them. These would be invisible to each other but travel between them (for the being) is theoretically possible by his changing his operating interval. Multiverses are thus entirely possible.
Hubbard definitely talks about this in some lectures having to do with time and universes, but I’ll have to track down which, I don’t recall offhand. He talks about it in terms of another universe running a microsecond “behind” this one, and by the same token others running microseconds”ahead” of this one. And that by changing one’s consideration of the ‘interval’ he was running on, one could slip from one universe to another or extend his perception to other universes.
He explored similar ideas in some of his fiction, too.
How we come to be running on any particular ‘interval’ is not explained in the limited listening I have done. I have assumed we are running on a rhythm that was implanted and fixed in us by some ne-‘er-do-wells a long the line somewhere. Otherwise perhaps like any musician we could choose our own operating tempo and kiss this Earth goodbye any time we wished. And return for a visit anytime we wished also.
This ‘tempo synchronization’ business might be another thread topic all it’s own. Better clone yourself, Geir. 🙂
MEST universe is that which is persisting. The persistence depends on the degree of modification occurring in the filters. There are no separate “three” universes as Hubbard believed. “I”, “You”, “Another” are all incorporated in the same filter. It is all perception through the filters one is carrying.
.
I find the “3 universes” are a convenient and useful arbitrary, much as the 8 dynamics are an arbitrary but useful theoretical construct to think with, breaking down for analyzis a large overall view into smaller bits. Much like zooming in and zooming out.
It’s all filters anyway. If we want to abandon filters we will need to abandon language and conceptual thinking entirely.
After all this talk, I’m certainly ready to stop talking. How many ways and how many times can one say “a filter is a filter is a filter is a filter is a ……”?
It’s just perseveration.
Yes Marildi.
And at the end of the course, the Practical will be to join the Sea Org and work at Flag directly with David Miscavige and the IAS (International Association of Suppressives).
“The Supreme Test of a Thetan Is the Ability to Make Things Go Right.”
Good one, Valkov!. Yes, a commensurate practical. 😀
I got that you were sort of half kidding and half not with the addition of the Supreme Test quote…
But I look at it as Big Think – and that was a good contribution you just made! A clean, direct handling of DM’s suppressive flows. Awesome!
Marildi, it is true my post was in the class of taking things to an absurd but logical extreme. The fact is, I don’t think one person, acting alone, could do it. See my link to the ESMB thread about “Group Beingness” and “Mutual Out Ruds”:
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?4780-Failed-Group-Beingness-Mass-amp-Mutual-Out-Ruds
LRH referred to the limitations even an individual OT experiences, when he spoke about his experiences in Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe), of trying to find out how much counter-intention an unassisted OT could actually handle all by himself.
I believe it was this experiment/experience which led to his decision to form an”OT org” – the eventual Sea Org. I now believe the Sea Org might have worked out better if training and processing of all the SO staff up to ClassVI or VIII and OTIII had been expedited the way it was intended to be.
DM is by now surrounded by hard-core enablers, cronies of the same antisocial stripe, the high-rollering reges of the IAS, the crooked greedy “investors” like the Feshbachs,etc. It is a group beingness that must be dealt with. 30 years ago he might have been dealt with one-on-one. Not likely, today. An individual could “take him out” in some way, but the group beingness would remain to be dealt with.
It will take a group to accomplish this. This group is building outside of the CoS, around Marty’s blog, here, Scientology-cult and many other blogs and sites, Friends of LRH, SaveScientology.com, all the Freezone sites, Ron’s Org etc. All of them in many places around the world..
Reach and withdraw applies. .Marty, Mike and all the others are directly challenging DM’s leadership from outside. It couldn’t happen inside.. But the group(s) are building and eventually there will be enough savvy knowledgeable theta outside to as-is the scene within the CoS effectively.
In re: groups, LRH also commented more than once about how free thetans were overcome by organized legions of MESTbeings each of whom might be individually less powerful than a free thetan, but organized under a group beingness they won and beat the free ones down.
Rome is a good example, in her conquest of the wild trinbes who opposed her.
So I think the “Invulnerability Course” is a good idea, but my suggestion of an individual practical like that I do think is over-reaching what is actually possible for a single person to do in the actual CoS situation.
Valkov, I tend to agree that one person, acting alone, couldn’t do it. And I too had thought about the Rhodesia experiment and the fact that OT’s have to be organized or they can be beaten by a better-organized group of “MEST beings,” as per History of Man. I think LRH was talking in those two instances about operating in the physical universe, though, and we’re now talking about the theta universe.
However, theta universe is simply that area of MEST which is of a higher wave length. And even postulates by definition are considerations and as such are concepts, which are defined as higher, finer waves = MEST. And with postulates we’re in the realm of intentions and counter-intentions – still MEST. Thus magnitude comes into the picture. You and I and Chris, with his post today about magnitude, seem to have a similar view going.
What was cool about your “optimistic idiot” Course Practical idea to handle DM was it sparked the idea of a less extreme, more conceivable possibility. That would be to have a whole group of “OT’s” (the way S.O. members are defined, BTW) put onto the project of counter-postulating DM and his enablers – a project not unlike group prayer, come to think of it, which has even been demonstrated in the physical universe to be valid. As you say, this sort of thing is already going on in a general way by all these Independents and their group/s (and Marty and others are also operating in the physical universe to handle DM). But maybe that theta universe handling could and should be done even more deliberately and systematically, the way group prayer experiments have been done – i.e. organized!
However, this is still essentially force/counter-force – albeit in the theta universe. And I wasn’t being sarcastic in my last reply to you. I thought your so-called optimistic-idiot idea really did lead in the direction of “a clean, direct handling of DM’s suppressive flows” – with the notion of, maybe not one but a whole group of, “Geir’s course” graduate/s taking on DM with a martial arts approach in the theta universe, somehow… maybe a Suppressed Group Rundown, run on a whole group. “We come back.” 🙂
🙂
One thing that intrigues me is many posters’ use of the term “Theta Universe”. Now what is that, the “Theta Universe”?
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/a-radical-new-view-of-the-upper-scientology-levels-ok-here-goes/#comment-5104
What do posters mean by “theta universe”?
Uh-oh, THIS had better be a new thread, methinks!
There are going to be a LOT of comments on this!
Geir, I understand theta universe to be that M-E-S-T created by “theta” which is not perceivable by virtually everybody the way the physical universe is. It probably would be more precise to say theta universes (plural) – each universe of (mental) MEST being created individually by thetans and (generally speaking) only perceivable by the individual creating it and not by the others.
This is from a certain “level of viewing,” and your idea about oneness and Elizabeth’s idea of “I” not being the ultimate, are a higher level of viewing I would say. But the term “theta universe” is a handy one to keep within a common reality – and is probably needed in order to go from there to talk about a higher level of viewing and understanding. What do you think?
I will make this a separate blog post. Hold that answer and reiterate in a day or two 🙂
Geir, I been thinking about your comment of me pulling in problems. since you have seen it as problems, not as confronting the MEST U.
Which is to bad that you have no reality on the accomplishment and no acknowledgement.
Every person who wants to achieve the End Phenomenon as I have will need to handlein the future all the items which pertaining to the MEST U.
If cant do that in one life time, than one need to come back again and again since only you can confront=asis your own universe no one can do that for you.
I am on extraordinary being can do extraordinary deeds which I have found out about “self ‘in solo sessions that is the only reason I could do just that in one life time.
I believe I am a great solo auditor with on incredible discipline, work ethic to be able to do such accomplishment
. Until one not walked that PATH. The Path of Light than has no reality of the accomplishment which is understandable. .
PS: The Path, The Path of Light that name was given by ‘Aliens” [ whom I call friends and free spirits since they never had human bodies and never lived in the MEST U, ] It is named so, because of the “light” turns on at the cognition dissolves the regular energy which is the MEST U. and made from. That pure light is the Theta Power.
Elizabeth, if you know then you know; you don’t need to convince anybody. Desire for acknowledgement can be a weakness.
.
Vinaire,
you have missed the point, since the wins are mine with or without aknowledgement, They remain the same. no matter what. But on the journey I have gained knowledge in directions which LRH never looked. Some of the things i have discovered which are vital to attain the EP. are not in any bulletins, tapes books etc… I could have been helpful. This was my sole reason opening up. i have known there is no reality on my universe” we talking here looking at the black Cat”
By the way Aknowledgements are anchor points which hold the being sort of silidify one into MEST. Myyy commmpuuuteer isss slllloooowwww.
Let Geir have his way with 1000 post. You have to be patient with children…
Maybe you could teach him your way and make him behave better. 😀
.
Hi Elizabeth,
I read your previous post about Acknowledgements. I never considered them that way before but I see how they could be like that.
In my own universe, my own Ideal Scene, Ideal or Perfect Acknowledgement is one which completely frees one rather than creating another anchor point for one. It’s supposed to as-is, not persist.
yes, you are ringht
, The problems is I keep forgetting to write that the acknowledgement which i have been written about was originaly used in the theta u. There things had to be anchored down continually, because you looked around before you knew it things just, disappeared. Now with a good solid ack. that did the job. the mock-up, it was anchored. Magic, it remained in the same place, what a having-ness.
Elizabeth, I would like to suggest that you may have misunderstood Geir’s question about whether you still created problems.
These questions from Geir are usually very straightforward requests for information out of curiosity and interest, not implications of any kind about you.
As “problems” are often considered to be”the spiceof life”, as LRH wrote, “Life poses problems for it’s own solution”.
Without problems we would have no game, nothing to keep us interested and playing at life.
You may not be used to Geir’s blunt style, but I think he was just asking if you still create problems for yourself to solve to maintain an interest in life?
He will correct me if I’m wrong, but I think he asked exactly what he was curious about or interested in knowing, without any implications or inferences about you at all. Geir is very straighforward and guileless that way.
IMHO, so sez Valkov, Intergalactic Interpreter Extraordinaire, I come in peace.
Valkov; Good interpretation.
Thanks Geir. It points out how a simple direct question might be misinterpreted because of the invalidation, hidden standards, and people one runs into who are in “games conditions” towards one. One can learn to expect it and become defensive, thinking any incoming question has to have a trick to it, may contain a counter-intention, etc.
To be suspicious is a lesson many of us learn as we grow up. We then have to unlearn it to have just simple direct honest comm.
An area like “self improvement” can unfortunately can just be a terribly fertile breeding ground for this kind of defensiveness, because of the number of invalidators and evaluators it attracts, who play up a status-consciousness about who is more advanced, who is more enlightened, and introduce all those kind of standards which introvert one.
Whew!
Thanks for a very good comment, Valkov.
Well said Valkov – yet again!
I thank you both for that. Right I am not used to have very much communication at all. Greir, Valkov I am here to learn and there is a lot to lear,
I never have debated or look at different view points. From 82 till 2010 august is a long time not communication on the subject of which holds the breath of live. I believe I have entered a new faze. Correction, or being given new reality is very welcome.
Elizabeth, I loved your posts today! Heart warming and eye opening. 🙂
Marildi, thank you.
I would like to share this, few days back my best friend the Indogo a Sabre Toothed tiger [ write up in my blog] got tired waiting around here waiting for me to drop the body he has decided to go for new adventures.
As he was leaving I called after him since I felt a ping of loss. “dont forget to come back!” He answered back with a new experession I have never heard before ” I have left my love” and the void was filled with affinity.
Me too Elizabeth.
Your Saber Toothed Tiger post is one of my favorites. And I love this endless end……
Valkov. I got that
“.You may not be used to Geir’s blunt style, but I think he was just asking if you still create problems for yourself to solve to maintain an interest in life?”
I am not used to any style communication. Yes, i still create problems for self to confront. I write here!!!!
I have come out of the cave. I am learning to communicate, interact with others and working up to have enough courage to face my own self invalidation. Strugling, still hiding, holding back knowledge should I, should I no?. Am i ready to give or others are not ready receive?. I know because of that I judge otheres and that is not right. yet……..I hesitate.
I belive i need to confront my own creation a ghost of my past.
My computer is so slow what i post today gets there tomorrow on the other hand Norway is a great distance from here { smile] , and the comment box do not clear out i need to do that with backspaceing. with computers I am not on the genius level, remember logical side the IQ is lower than the frogs bottom.
the comment boxes are not clearing out for me, either. And I have been getting a message that some script on the page has stopped running, too.
You can clear the comment box out faster by highlighting all the text and hitting the spacebar.
Geir’s blog is a safe evironment for communicating.
That’s why we like it.
I found a really interesting technical thread on ESMB here:
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?4780-Failed-Group-Beingness-Mass-amp-Mutual-Out-Ruds
I think I’ll see if I can find the original thread he is referring to…..
. Valkov, Geir. I just had a small cognition after reading the Interpretations of Valkov.
I am learning how to apply of what I have learned since 82. I am to learn to be with others who has the same view points just being expressed with different words.
Valkov, I like what Ron said about problems. very fitting. Great.
Since I have run out of problems I have been looking for other view points to learn from, a continuation a path to walk on.
Just had a new Cog. Thanks to you both. Cog. Curse of power: leaves one in the illusion that one is alone, there is only one way, having power has huge draw backs. I am looking at those now. No wonder I believed I walk alone, sad state. to be in. You are all my new teachers, teaching me to share the creation. I would be honored if you except that post
PS; Good to be a student for a change. PS Geir I have a article on ” I” I am going to post in my blog. Care to look it over here too and see if it fits with the view points?
Sure
Cognition, Solidity=I.
My Universe was shattered, rattled and taken apart. If you ever seen a cartoon Sylvester the CAT, when something hits him he just falls into many different pieces? Well, that is how it felt.
The realization, the cognition had the power of the strongest thunderbolt one ever can perceive.
It had to happen sometimes, after all just how long one can solo audit and look at so many combinations of words the consideration one’s own and others?
So where was I, in solo session on considerations, mine, yours, others, and theirs etc…
As I said I like [like, wrong word, I live to explore!!!!] to explore,
make, put together, different combinations of words which gives
different concepts so different than there are different meaning, different affects. Therefore when those concepts audited, confronted brings cognition on different level about the same item.
You can see, how I have taken the MEST Universe apart little pieces by
little piece at time. [ in some session in huge chunks]
Back to the Thunderbolt.
Over the years, I put in many hours solo auditing on that subject, “SOLID”s, and the words connected with or too in every possible combinations., channels.
But this cognition I had few days back,[ last march] still burning the debris, the remains of the MEST Universe while the Theta Universe
realigns itself once more.[ cant realign itself since it is not like the MEST. Here in theta only knowledge exists without any energy= thought considerations.]
As I said I was looking at “SOLID”.
The cog, is not easy to explain, but here it is, every time one say “I” with that single letter, one’s drives on anchor point into one’s own universe, establish self as the creator. Holds one,
makes one remaining solidly in that consideration, agreement, one
lives because the “I”, confirms one’s existence, With the letter “I”
the being refers to self, that letter holds the whole concept THAT
SELF, ones Universe in place, it gives location, the “I” activates all
the memory, all ones considerations, agreements, one’s whole track, all
the experiences in one universe is locked in with the key which is
“I”. THE LETTER “I” IS THE RIBBON WHICH ONES UNIVERSE IS TIED UP WITH
AND ANCHORED INTO THE MEST UNIVERSE.
This cognition is the most important of all cogitations one can ever have yet without the other cogitations in place this would not come.
Can you see, I was looking as “solid” and I have found the meaning of “I”.
With that, I have found the most solid item.
“The “I”….. The “I” is which segregated the being, makes it into a singular entity.
This “I” its importance gives existence which gives all the problems all the ARC B’s with others and things in general, with the MEST UNIVERSE, for the spiritual being, to have and to hold.
One defends that “I” with the entire power one hold in one’s Universe. Flaming swords, Guns, use of law, in and out of law courts, have good rip roaring war, have a few divorces, greed, killing, poison, or just roll over somebody with the steam roller.
We, defend that “I” with the last breath of the body if that is needed to be done to keep it alive to remain connected into the MEST U be part of the family, the group.
In order to remain intact, to remain and represent the bank, the track, all our recalls, the so called our LIVES we have and had, which is our having-ness.
How spiritual one can be with a solid core in place as “I”???
In Infinite there is no “I” yet there is everything what one ever imagined since it was created by the Infinite. Cause over.
IT IS the “I” who has the limitations, the barriers, the solidity, walls, the not know, the doubts, the beginning and the end.
Ron’s Technology is so incredible, so powerful; it can give one the true freedom which can’t be described with words since that concept do not exists in the human vocabularies, in human reality.
We all have had sins, Ron had his too, but with the gift he has given, he washed away all his, his gift doesn’t have a value because it can’t be valued.
As each of us walk the well-marked PATH OF KNOWLEDGE, THE BRIDGE, only when, as we do, by taking courses and have
auditing and solo than, as our reality level becomes different we can
understand the value of his great gift.
When something is intangible as knowledge is, than it last for Infinite. Nothing and no one can destroy the Intangible, the Infinite Knowledge. Now this is my reality, my cognition.
If it reads has meaning in any way to you [have reality on] that is great if not that is great.
When times comes while on the Path of Knowledge the words which formed the concepts here and you have read it, will become real to you. Knowing that you know, I walk beside you and give you support in a form of knowledge. Elizabeth
Incredible post, Elizabeth. It relates to so much of what has been talked about in this thread. Thanks for sharing your cognition!
You said earlier that you are learning here – and so are we all.
P.S. Specifically about your post – what a concept! I will keep it with me to contemplate…
There was two parts to the cognition.
First one was in March than a few days back I was writing and as I write I see the pictures, of which I want to convey with words, looking for expression how the picture could be described and to be seen.
As I was writing I put the “I” down and something else happened, like a huge slash of brilliant light bolt like thing went across the picture I was describing. At first I thought it was the beginning the history how the writing has started.
But that could not have been since the picture, the bolt of light which nailed the picture down was waaaaaaaaay back where solidity has not existed.
Than I had realised the “I” slash represented self, the creator of that mock-up and has anchored that creation into space. The “I” is the identifier that I have created that mock-up, therefore established self in the Universe. The 2 cognition fitted into each other and become one
The bottom line of Scientology is “I” for individuality.
OT Levels give boost to the “I”.
.
On the contrary, OT levels as-is the “I” How can you make on statemant on which you dont have reality, or with your satement you want to show that you have no reality?
Exactly. Pan-determinism is the result of successful processing. – Not compulsive self-determinism.
The cognitions are like pearls. Each one is born out of pain and suffering,
out of mystery, secrets, and darkness.
Yet how beautiful they are!
They can vary in momentarily importance before they vanish.
Yet they remain yours for ever in the form of invisible knowledge.
The basics are the rarest of all pearls, since only few exist!!!
They value buy your freedom out of the MEST Universe.
For your future you have my best, my postulate,
On endless string of pearls of great beauty.
endlesstringofpearls@gmail.com
Elizabeth’s story seems to me to be the most radical and unique story in all of Scientology of which I am aware.
The possibilities boggle the status quo.
Chris,”most radical and unique,” says it well. I had a similar thought – that of all the OT wins I have read and heard, none of them compare to Elizabeth’s. And with hers, there are insights to be had.
ditto
Her stories are pointing the way to a different paradigm for me.
Through many good comments about PTSness, the relative order of magnitude or comparable order of magnitudes of the terminals involved has yet to be discussed.
Regardless of your tactic, if you stand before a steamroller, it will roll over you. When the sun goes supernova we will be atomized, Right? So with all the examples of large suppressions such as war, I don’t quite follow the discussion of drills to ward off PTSness.
I am well aware of and quite familiar with the feelings of weakness and “at effect” that attends the PTS. (Watching the second hand slowly tick while waiting for the final bell at school and knowing that the bully is waiting to meet you out front at the flagpole.) This aspect of the subject seems simple to me at this level.
The ordering of magnitude of terminals throws another meaning into the mix, doesn’t it?
or are we having strictly a spiritual discussion?
It would be good to have drills that… if the you get stramrolled, then after the fact, you are not effect of the suppression.
OMG, I don’t know about anybody else but I wasn’t duplicating that you only meant one would not be the effect of suppression in terms of the aftereffects of any suppression occurring from here on out, i.e. being invulnerable to FURTHER potential Type II PTSness. In other words, you aren’t talking about handling PT/current suppression as such or even handling restimulated past suppression – just about eliminating the possibility of future restimulated suppression that occurs from now on. Right? (Sticking my neck out, knowing that I still may not have duplicated. LOL)
If I do have it right now, sounds like you have in mind a type of self-assist after an accident, a secondary, or any suppression, to handle the intention/counter-intention ridge that was created…
Bingo.
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/a-radical-new-view-of-the-upper-scientology-levels-ok-here-goes/#comment-5086
Well, this reminds me of nothing so much as some of the concepts Hubbard introduces in “Dianetics 55!” Like bullets and cannon balls having no effect on one if his confront is good enough.
Another thread?
Another thread. This one is beyond cumbersome…
I wouldn´t place real, heavy suppression at the level of counter intentions or counter efforts, my take is that suppression occurs the moment one agrees with the counter-postulate.
That would probably be at the essence of the games the being considers more important or valuable…….
How to keep our sight at the goal and not let ourselves be introverted?
Seems to me that the moment we enter in games with the idea of suppressing others we are doomed
Oh crap!, heavy suppression can occur at the level of effort if the being considers himsef MEST,… but that would be after MEST becomes the more valuable item in the game….I still want to believe that keeping our postulates towards, for example, a higher meaning for life,suppressive postulates would just past through us, not being OUR game…..
My point re the Planck second was that it seems to serve as the rhythm stick for creation, not destruction. That we create all that we view every Planck second.
I think “destruction” may be a misnomer in this context?
We are still together on motion? Stills only at the rate of 10^-43 per second? Creation pulse at that rate?
and the engine to drive it??? Raw creation from Nothing? Creation – the big bang – every planck second and then fizzling until the next pulse?
Creation every Planck second. When something isn’t created it isn’t “destroyed”, it simply doesn’t exist.
The “destruction” that occurs during as-isness in the mind when examined closely is simply the fizzling out of that which has ceased to be repetitiously created? No destruction ever anywhere – only the lack of creation? And thus there is decay – similar to the macro level – lack of maintenance.
Similar – but not quite. Because no creation equals non-existence. Completely.
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/a-radical-new-view-of-the-upper-scientology-levels-ok-here-goes/#comment-5089
Well,in terms of the Four Conditions of Existence, “destruction” would be the fourth one, “not-isness”.
In terms of the actual cycle of action, this is a “counter-creation” – a creation against a creation. It is anything but a ‘perfect duplicate’. This does not result in as-isness. It results in persistence of the not-ising consideration.
Someone say how there could be an automaticity so steady; so perpetual; so ancient; in the mind of every living thing – that it could utterly mask the truth below the awareness level of every living being ?
It is part of the game – or else the game would as-is. This is the basis for as-isness. Ref. Fundamentals of Thought.
I’m with you, Chris, in not being able to fathom “an automaticity so steady; so perpetual; so ancient; in the mind of every living thing – that it could utterly mask the truth below the awareness level of every living being?” Besides, wouldn’t it require that all beings now perceiving a MEST universe to have been present at the start? And if we were all there and in such total agreement, where would the game have been?
Firstly; This is what I have been aiming for for a long time; uncovering what creation actually is. Down to the exactness of it.
Then; Marildi said “Besides, wouldn’t it require that all beings now perceiving a MEST universe to have been present at the start? ”
Not necessarily. Also, what this requires is a whole-scale Not Know when you want to perceive something as “permanent”. And this is in accordance with Fundamentals of Thought.
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/a-radical-new-view-of-the-upper-scientology-levels-ok-here-goes/?replytocom=5117#respond
Theorectically, it’s as simple as creating or agreeing to a universe and then claiming that “I didn’t do it, God created it,or that devil Valkov or it happened by accident” or whatever. Alter-is. Second postulate. Creates an Isness (something that persists).
Now it’s also on automatic.
As my first auditor told me, “A thetan can do anything forever.’ That was probably a quote of LRon. It follows logically from the definition of a Static, which has no finite limits on what it can Be, Do,or Have.
Yes, Valkov, I too remember “A thetan can do anything forever” as a quote from Ron, don’t remember the ref. And in the P.S. comment of mine below, I had come to the same logic you state based on “no finite limits of Static,” but from there I still couldn’t align the data about thetans having incidents that were pre-MEST universe, etc. (see my comment, now just below this vertical sub-thread). I would add to that scenario described in my P.S. that it’s a way it could be that our Planck-second timed universe is only one of possibly many in the MEST universe.
I would like to find those basic postulates that makes up this universe; Like why the Planck constant, why the light speed in vacuum is the speed limit, why the charge of one electron, etc.
Basic postulates – that is exciting!
I met with someone one time who was a Scientologist but had originally been looking for truth through physics. That was hard for me to think with. But now it’s becoming more real because of you guys. 🙂
In it’s most basic, physics is the study of agreements 😉
P.S. Actually, I guess thetans could then come downscale from the total ARC at Original Creation, in order to have a game. One thing that still isn’t answered, though, is the fact that pc’s do seem to have before MEST universe incidents on their track.
Maybe Original Creation could be seen as – certain thetans creating and then others creating on top of that and so forth, on and on (rather than all at once), and thetans who “come along” at any of the later points would be duplicating the banks (time tracks) of the thetans before them and in that way acquire the same MEST universe bank. In this sense, there still would be total agreement, the synchronization of marching to the beat of the same Planck-second drummer. Plus, it could explaine how it is that some thetans are younger and some older – in the MEST universe at least.
Here is a picture at my latest birthday shared with my daughter.
Birthday 2011
.
Hey, thanks for posting the photo!
You both look radiant. Vinnie you look a little shy! I hope you had a very happy day! Happy Birthday again.
Nice photo , Vinaire. You have the brow of a Thinking Man (our kinda guy). And your daughter is beautiful!
Now we have a “picture” to go with your posts. 🙂
This question was left in my blog after his comment. I believe it is a very good one and to the point. [location Germany]
“But then the next question which raises in my mind is, how became the “I” to be so isolated, solid, defensive to be the “I”?”
You can read that in the second part of the cognition but let me explain.
When I am mocking-up scenes lets say a forest, next time I do on evening sunset, a beautiful creek, and I could go on with mock-up.
Now I discover that each time I put a slash like thunderbolt like affect through each picture I make than that picture remain there, stay there permanent.
IT IS NOW MINE, MINE MINE EUREKA! Now there is value, ownership knowing one can create, and solidity all established with one stroke, PLUS singularity! It is mine and dont want any one to fiddle around with my creation. Do not touch sign is used[ invisible of course]
I believer the reason for permanency is that to the original picture a new one was added in form of different energy= the lightning bolt therefore the two mixed energy could not desolate =, evaporate so easily.
It worked every time. Things just did not disappeared on me from than on. sooner or later one continue using something which works.
So the thunderbolt, the power that slash is the “I” I am the power which hold my universe in place. I am that power hold makes everything solid permanent, all mine! Huge having-ness,
We have created matter time energy and space
. But here I throw something at you I am totally clueless just how many beings have created and become aware of that first thunderbolt slashed across that mock-up. We all derand that “I” as our creation.
derand should read “DEFEND”
A major problem i have with communication,”I KNOW i HAVE communicated that concept already. To me is existing. Than I have to go into a different reality into MEST U and translate into different form of communication that picture which by now have dessolved.
HOLY COW!
We passed a 1000 comments on this blog post alone!
Congrats everyone. And thanks for all the contributions.
Now it’s time to move this blog up one level. I will see if I can put up a blog post twice per week from now on – to distribute the comments a bit (by picking up subthreads from busy posts and giving it due attention as separate posts).
It is only fair that I step it up given your massive contributions on my blog.
Another celebration coming up soon; June 20th marks the one year anniversary for this blog. By then we will also have passed 5000 comments on this blog (with a nicely upward sloping trend).
Thanks!
😀
Great win, especially for you!!!
Maybe you could write a couple of blog posts on some of these sub-threads. Immediately if not sooner. 🙂 I bet you’d increase the rate of comments for logistical reasons alone.
You guys inspire the hell out of me, I will try to keep up 😉
“I” offer a glass of theta bubbly in celebration !
“I” accept! Here’s to all our “I’s” and “other selves”!
I am writting something special, from the future. this will be for all of you.
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/a-radical-new-view-of-the-upper-scientology-levels-ok-here-goes/#comment-5078
Valkov: “Speculation basically means ‘looking’. However you are not using it that way here, you are using it in the sense of ‘conjecture upon little or no evidence’.”
What is evidence but an earlier speculation fixed in space!
.
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/a-radical-new-view-of-the-upper-scientology-levels-ok-here-goes/#comment-5119
Sorry Vin, but NO. This is again similar to the logical fallacy of Begging the Question. You attack what I said by changing the definition of a key word, to create a circularity. Your definition does not exist in any dictionary.
Here are the relevant conventional definitions of “speculation”. You can invent your own definitions for common words, but you are sowing confusion and misunderstanding when you do that.
Speculation
n.
1.
a. Contemplation or consideration of a subject; meditation.
b. A conclusion, opinion, or theory reached by conjecture.
c. Reasoning based on inconclusive evidence; conjecture or supposition.
The reason I said NO above, is that the accepted definitions of ‘speculation’ have to do with “isnesses”.
Definition “a” goes back to (derives from) LOOKING.
Definitions “b” and”c” are about ‘evidence’. Evidence is ISNESS. One contemplates or considers “evidence” and then draws a conclusion. If one has very little or no evidence to contemplate, one may still “speculate” or “conjecture” answers.
What you are attempting, is to create evidence that then fits with your conclusion.
You sometimes fail to get your meaning across because you refuse to use a common language with your readers.
You develop your own idiosyncratic definitions and then apparently wonder why you are misunderstood.
I’m starting to think you are doing this on purpose, to make yourself seem such a deep thinker that others can’t easily understand you.
If you want to be understood, you would be better served to speak the same language as your readers, instead of in what amounts to a private code of your own.
IF you really want to be understood.
Otherwise, carry on.
The ridges you find, you are creating yourself. You were a Word Clearer. Now apparently, you have gone over to the other side and have assumed the beingness of an Anti-Clearer, creating a Tower of Babel of idiosyncratic definitions with which to confuse your readers.
Yes, yes, I know, you will dismiss this as “Valkov’s filters” and no concern of yours. However, as you have said yourself, “:you create what you see”.
The only filters I have, are the ones you mock-up as being mine.
\
Valkov, love your spot-on comments about language.
I want to establish a couple directions.
Decay is the creation of decay? (Every Planck second)
Or decay is the intermittent lack of creation (increasingly skipping creating by the planck second. -Think turning down the speed of a variable frequency motor drive as analogy)
Regarding the impermanence of MEST: Does it as-is from creation to nonexistence during the course of each and every Planck second? Is the universe created and also gone everyPlanck second?
LRH describes why auditing works in a bulletin entitled the Magic of Communication. Describing how the PC as-ises mental mass by examining it, I get the idea that the entirety of this as-isness consists of our ceasing to create it. This seems simple but especially it seems consistent with several posts over the past days here on this thread, doesnt it?
If so, is this not huge?
Yep. Huge.
My hypothesis is that the universe is created afresh every Planck second and is in non-existence also every Planck second (in between every moment of creation).
Everything you see, you create, including any decay. You create the decay that you see. And so do I.
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/a-radical-new-view-of-the-upper-scientology-levels-ok-here-goes/#comment-5124
Is there any reason to assume the intervals (of non-existence) between pulses of creation are exactly one Planck second long? Couldn’t they be1/2 of a Planck second, or any other fraction of a Planck second?
I think what Chris is asking about decay has to do with the Four Conditions. Many forms of decay seem to be the action of postulate-counter postulate.
We may be creating it all, all of the time, but we seem to be following certain rules for how we do it, and the Four Conditions explain the mechanics we use in creating it all. Namely the Four Conditions or the First through Fourth Postulates. ” Decay” as I understand the word, would in most cases be a postulate/counter-postulate scene, or effort/counter -effort, force/counter-force type of thing.
Just about any natural process I can think of. Decay, decomposition, digestion etc. Especially biological processes. Benign bacteria in your intestines breakdown your food extracting nutrients etc. Nature is a vastness of complex systems running as processes all the time, breaking things up, down, and sideways and changing their forms. Basically looks like effort/counter-effort to me, on that mechanical level of things.
Aren’t we clever, to create and keep all that going? 🙂
This universe seems to be discrete – both in the lowest possible energy, smallest possible space and smallest possible time frame. And the Planck time would be that smallest possible time frame (5*10^-44s) – the time it takes for light in vacuum to travel one Planck length (1.6*10^-35m) – the smallest possible discernible length. This all seems to point to the size of each frame and to the separation between them in time.
Yes Valkov, it’s beyond clever! Geir duplicated my question. This pulsing of creation and the fizzling into oblivion every Planck second is a different look at things than what we were taught.
To reiterate:
1. We were taught that creation is the bringing forth of the creation of something, and
2. Destruction is bringing forth of the creation of the destruction of something.
Geir’s thread question over multiple subjects has always been “what happens in that moment?”
I’ve always wondered that too. This Planck second and length idea was new to me until he mentioned it. Now, it seems that OTs and Axioms point to the impermanence of MEST without repeated:
1. Creation, and
2. Alteration.
Your question about 1/2 Planck seconds is interesting and all but I’m not into the precision of the physics enough to care about those particulars just yet. My reason being that at the Static level of existence (not an oxymoron Vin) these short durations of time, while seemingly amazingly fast from our human viewpoint, become less amazingly important from the viewpoint of Native State.
So that I can imagine this activity, I use the analogy of:
1. A strobe, and
2. Fireworks.
I am seeing creation in the Planck second as the analogous flicker of a strobe. Everyone reading this would have seen a dance floor where a strobe is in use and creating the illusion of un-smooth motion. And fireworks rockets explode creating those beautiful burning blossoms, but only for a moment and then they burn out. In my analogy, I ignore the presence of cinders and assume that nothing is left after the fizzle.
As you speed up the rate of the strobe flashing, the motion of the dancers becomes more smooth until at rates of flash in excess of 30 cycles per second, the motion appears smooth. This is an easy analogy to create about an intriguing concept regarding there being a basic rhythm of creation in the universe.
So all that set up was simply to say that my question at this moment is not so much toward the creation moment as no one is really going anywhere with the quantum mechanics of this thought yet. My question and attention is looking more toward the time left over – possibly of long duration – possibly of “most” of the Planck second when “nothing” is occurring.
The possibly new concept being that destruction might not be the creation of destruction at all, but rather the cessation of creation.
Both Growth and Decay remain in the realm of the “creation of growth and of decay.”
Your “I” is reminding me of something and I can’t quite put my theta finger on it… Maybe it will come to me tonight.
isene | 2011-06-14 at 20:21 One thing that intrigues me is many posters’ use of the term “Theta Universe”. Now what is that, the “Theta Universe”?
It’s the MEST universe just behind the automated MEST universe.
There is time only in present time. There are thetans only in the filters.
.
“one person, acting alone, couldn’t do it?”
Units are arbitrary partitions. One and many are illusions.
Theta universe and MEST universe have the common denominator of “universe”. There are no two separate universes. Theta and MEST are part of the same system. Theta to me are considerations, and various classes of considerations.
.
It is the assumption of beingness (manifestation or creation) that has the side-effect of not-know because of the alter-is from status quo.
.
The discreteness of the universe may be compared to the discreteness of an irrational number.
.
Geir, it is ready. How should i send it? It is about the theta U. How we live “life” you even have sail boat!
Send it here: g@isene.com
well, i did my best, while i was figuring out how to connect, I have erased my microsoft files, all the connection, no grinning please, My hair is standing up, vertically, Please go to my blog i have my copy and I am posting it there for you
.Geir, I have written this in celebration for those who belive in free expression, and for the ones who are willing to explore different avenues knowing there is more than one Path, to each his own.
But if there are only these two: 1. Creation and; and 2. No-creation, then half of the equation we’ve been worrying over is off the table.
What if we learn that Planck length and Tone are relative to one another? What if we exceed extant silicone computers in favor of a material which computes fast enough to bring Tone into measurable focus?
What if we said that in between the creations are left nothing but The Static? An infinity of no-time between the creations, and yet hardly any real-time. This might be consistent with The Factors. Think Fractal. Think Digital. Think Analog. Think Quantum. How can these fit? Will we find an actual measurable package of thought at the quantum level? Will it need to be particles or waves or some yet un-named concept? How does it “burst forth” from the Static? What has “intention” to do with this?
What if the in-between lives area – or other “limbo” – were found to be a condition precisely out-of-phase with the creation cycle – using the Planck second/length? (That “nothing” area between the creations.) And what if that’s what occurs at body death? This would allow for all manner of spirits to be with us and all around us at all times, yet rarely heard from? Do you see how easily this might be “multi-plexed?” (computer “switching” terminology)
And Elizabeth’s processing out “every attachment” to MEST until she leaves herself both aware of and vulnerable to and operating within this in-between-creation area? Does anyone see this as I am?
And if this “string of creations” can be performed by one of us, then it can be performed by all of us?
And if the “wavelength” can be agreed upon by any of us, then it can it also become out-of-sync? And if it can be gotten out of sync at all, then is the door open for a large number of harmonics? I am proposing the mechanics for multi-verses. Real-as-MEST ones. Not only “this” MEST one.
For consistency, we can consider them all under the umbrella of MEST or consider them discreetly. Neither of these directions are troubling to me not do they create inconsistency toward the rest of the idea. My proposals create peace between the physicist and meta-physicist because they:
1. Allow for real physical scientific explanations which plow meta-physics back under the umbrella of physics.
2. Acknowledge metaphysical activity, explain, and prove its reality. Everybody becomes right.
So are we knocking on the door of creation yet?
Good string of questions; All part of the grand search for the origins of (continuous) creation.
Geir Isene asked:
“One thing that intrigues me is many posters’ use of the term “Theta Universe”. Now what is that, the “Theta Universe”?
Theta Universe in my reality is where one can and do play any game be, have and do anything but one do not need to have a meat body or any anchor points or to be solid in any shape or form.
But this question you could find for yourself if just picking up the cans with that get into sessions.
After all Solo auditing is the road where the person “walks the walk of solo auditor” one discover all the answers to ones questions which one ever asked for over the eons, looked in books, set at the foot of the so called sage even one submerged self into science for looking in for answers.
One can find those answers all of them and few [thousands] more one never dreamed to find, to know, the invisible hidden answers they are there and you know them all but that knowledge has been buried under the rubble of the reactive mind. There are reasons why on OT do not continue with solo sessions:
1. Huge MU, about the material and how it works and what can be achieved by solo auditing.
2. Huge MU about the material and how it works and what can be achieved by solo auditing
3. Huge Mu about the material and how it work and what can be achieved by solo auditing.
4. Fear, fear of self. Fear to step out of the grooved in daily comfort of agreements which one made with and for self.
5. Fear is a great motivator to do or not to do.
Anyone who is in the MEST Universe has plenty of it since fear is the glue hold the MEST together.
Q and A. because has no trust in the material and in self.
It may seem like the reason that I asked the question is not because I did not have my own answer but because I was trying to find the diversity in the answers of others, and in that you would be right.
When you say “Theta Universe in my reality is where one can…”, you seem to include Space in that definition of “Theta Universe”., am I right in that assumption?
Also, how would you define the MEST universe?
From Geir: two questions than my ……………..
It may seem like the reason that I asked the question is not because I did not have my own answer but because I was trying to find the diversity in the answers of others, and in that you would be right.
When you say “Theta Universe in my reality is where one can…”, you seem to include Space in that definition of “Theta Universe”., am I right in that assumption?
“Also, how would you define the MEST universe?”
1. Space you ask?
If there is one stick, there is no other stick and nothing else beside that stick is existing than is there space? I don’t think so not by the definition of what I know of the Theta universe and here on this planet space needs to be is defined. If in the Theta Universe there would be mock-up of stick than space around it so there would be two mock-up.
2. “Also, how would you define the MEST universe?”
Look around you. Here on earth there is nothing but implosion, everything is eaten by destroyed by something else.
No creation has permanency even the learned knowledge is whipped, washed away from the person’s universe after the so called action “death “one goes through.
Everything here is created by compulsive action, which stem from the reactive mind from the lowest creation= [cutting grand mamas troth] to the high-est.
Even beauty, creation of beauty, serenity, the pure-est. thoughts are part of the bank and have to be audited out in sessions.
Art, creation of art, the beauty is the strongest energy flow, must one mention the pleasure moments, now they are the true traps. [why would anyone, who studied scientology, can believe differently?]
Just look at a beautiful woman passing by and every head turns and every male drools, salivate over, dream about have fantasies and would love to own that thing, her lovely pouting lips, smooth flesh those curves, oh those magnificent curves! Worth the king’s ransom and many has given it too, to own, to bed that vision of beauty.
What is behind that beautiful mock up? Let’s look at her track in the MEST Universe.
She could have been Hitler in her earlier life, she was a boa, monk few dozen time which included homosexual activity, enjoyed afflicting pain and love the same, she has been a serial killer, poisoned thousands, whipped out planets eaten others, taught science, have been a cave man, live under water and partaken in thousands of different activity in countless lifetimes, lost and win wars and this life time under that beautiful mock-up which is there so no one would know what is her mission, what is her next action will be.[ she fits in beautifully into the present time agreements and she supplies what is wanted coveted the most]
She is beautiful desirable, envied by many and the one who finally gets her she will destroy, make him suffer, jealousy, hate, by all the covert hidden activity, mind boggling cunning she will suck his energy out. Since she has sworn in one of her past life that she will destroy that being even if it will takes her for ever. She has done that to the same being dozens of times. She do not have knowledge, she do not know, that the being, the native state, the theta cannot be destroyed only the MEST creation =connected to that being can be destroyed. So she will continue till the end of time?
You want me to describe the MEST universe? Take off the masks from all the faces around you. Peel off the upper layer, the social venire. You will find what the MEST universe is, or just look at the news on any TV channel. Look around you no matter what you see, that is the MEST universe.
Serenity, he seats in lotus position? He knows all the right word to say on every occasion, very simple. He is stuck in serenity,[ which is only a word which describe that doing-ness, that action, cleaning lady cleans houses, he seat in lotus position, so?] walled in by those very words which are given out daily to the adoring crowd.
Theta creation do not repeat itself, there is nothing repeated never the same. Creation born out of nothing and melts dissolves into nothing. PS; if you only looking for diversity than ask for that
How many definitions are there to describe what is the Theta Universe? The answer depends on the being, what is that beings reality on that subject.
1. For anything to exist, there must be space, one stick or many. And if you have “things” exist in a “Theta Universe”, you have both energy and space. And if you have that “Theta Universe” existing (presens participle), then you have time there, too. And voilá; That is in fact a MEST universe.
Then, you paint a very gloom picture of what you see around you. Where you see implosions and horribilities, I see agreements and games. Where you see bad people, I see beautiful people and some are in need of help.
Also, what is your viewpoint on homosexuality?
In addition to the definition of space in physics or in The Factors, there is the everyday definition of “a blank or empty area” (American Heritage Dict), as in “There’s not much space to move around at a big party in a tiny apartment.” For what it’s worth, I got that the two of you are using two different definitions.
Regardless of definition, any object requires space – including the vast and empty space inside the object itself.
Geir,Vinaire, it wont work!!
What will not work?
Geir, you said, “Regardless of definition, any object requires space – including the vast and empty space inside the object itself.” Yes, of course an object requires space (and it is vast, apparently), and that is the more significant definition, I agree. It just seemed that Elizabeth had in mind another one, where an object does not have “space” but can have space around it.
Anyway, that point wasn’t the thing I would focus on most about her post, as I’ve already stated in my comment under hers.
BTW, weren’t you going to start a new thread? This one is murder to cope with!
My point is that a mockup is energy, requires space and also time in order to be observed. And, that is MEST. Possibly not perceivable by another, but MEST regardless.
Are you auditing every perception?
It is not the perception, but the stickiness of that perception that needs to be audited. Any perception is ok as long as you do not stick in it.
Horribleness and pleasantness are both opinions. Both are created in your mind through consideration. All perception, whether that of a beautiful women, or of a serial killer, is created in your mind through consideration. What sensory input creates all this perception is unknowable as long as the self has not been dissolved. Self is the core of the mind and the stickiest thing there is.
.
“No creation has permanency…Everything here is created by compulsive action, which stem from the reactive mind, from the lowest creation…to the highest. Even beauty, creation of beauty, serenity, the purest. thoughts are part of the bank and have to be audited out in session. Art, creation of art,
beauty is the strongest energy flow…”
The above is for me the part of Elizabeth’s post most worth noting. It says for one thing what has been said here on this thread – that the MEST universe is nothing but agreements. Or, as it is put in the Factors, “a consistency of viewpoint.” Specifically, Elizabeth’s own wording is “Everything here is created by compulsive action, which stem from the reactive mind, from the lowest creation to the highest.”
She adds “Even beauty, creation of beauty, serenity, the purest thoughts are part of the bank and have to be audited out in session. Art, creation of art, beauty is the strongest energy flow…” There again I was reminded of The Factors: “considerations alone are art.”
Seems like a fair question then for her to ask – why would anyone who studied scientology believe differently? She herself, however, isn’t asserting these things as based on study but from her experience, i.e. from the level of know. And that is probably the most noteworthy thing she has said.
About the ‘Stick” I keep forgeting that you Geir look at everything from the MEST perception and “I” am mocking-up things as I write. The Stick is only a mock up in the so called nothingness A momentarily creation=experience therefore no time, no space existhing., sorry for causing on MU for you.
“I keep forgeting that you Geir look at everything from the MEST perception”.
That is a straw man argument that does not lend you credit. You may want to reconsider that approach.
Would a mock-up contain energy?
Elizabeth, is solo auditing the only way?
.
Hi there Vinaire, that question coming from you would be a trick question, since i know you already have on answer how to reply to my answer. By the way I only can speak for self.
What you seem to be saying that for you solo auditing is the only way, but you are willing to let others decide it for themselves. But if they don’t come up with the same decision as you did then you may challenge them. Am I right?
.
What occurred when you were doing the OT levels in the church that you were able to get through them all together with sec checks without running the OT III incident?
I am fast. And focused.
heh heh . . . well ok Geir – but what I really meant to ask plainly is how you skirted both Qual and Ethics on OTIII? How did you skate through the 6 month checks? What did you do or state to satisfy Qual at Flag? Also interested in what you found most interesting and valid about the level? I am predicting an interesting story and patiently waiting to read it.
Nothing much to reveal, really. I kept focus. Did the actions. Didn’t monkey around. To-the-point and efficient.
Thanks Marildi.
You abilities to duplicate is simply fantastic. you go for the marrow. , The Librarian who has all the knowledge of the Great Library, that is you my Dear.
Geir, Vinaire I don’t have the desire to convince any one how to see me, or to see my reality in different way.
I am just fine of how you understand what I write what is your reality where I am at etc… you can only understand from your reality level. which it should be.
I don’t debate when it comes to somethings I don’t have reality, understanding on I simply run the Rudiments and that outcome gives me satisfaction. And, if in the future again the same subjects comes up but in a bit different content again I run the rudiments.
I like it that way, the tech and auditing works for me.
I will not debate. I have no desire to do something to me is waste of time only a guessing game looking for possibilities wondering if something is true or not all that to me is Q and A.
I like to go dig in the dirt, turn over stones look what is hidden in the invisible, find that trad to way back and open that forgotten item and see why was it there what was the reason it was kept so long but still holds power.
I like to bulldoze walls, I love the hunt for unknown, no debate has ever given me such a pleasure as being in session as-ising the unknown the miss understood and finally to make something go right.
I have no desire to explain my reality and to convince you otherwise of what you believe I am or what I have written about, since you already made up your mind you have judged accordance to your reality. Remember two universes should not be compared.
.
When I don’t understand, I ask. If you do not want to clarify, then that is all fine, but then you should also relinquish your desire to be understood.
Still I don’t get what you think will not work.
Librarian in the Great Library. I’m liking it. Always did like being in a library and the library atmosphere. 🙂
PS. I have posted a new cognition on FEAR in my blog. Fear has vanished from my universe way back and only today I have understood the reason for it. Todays cognition it the cherry on the top mocked- up from dust of ruby. in the theta universe.
“OK.”
This is all I can say to what you write, Elizabeth. It is good that you are having realizations.
.
I would love you to have reality on what I write. But that those not means I can make that happen. I wont even try.
My reality has no great importance my words will never be etched into stone to be give permenentcy.
. It is not the first item you have not understsood something and it is not the first time I have not been uderstood. Your universe remains the same as it was before, so is mine. All is well.
Thank you!!!!
Debating on issue in order to come to the conclusion whos reality is the best therefore that reality is the final reality which will erase as -is that mass which is the debate is about.
For me it is a matter of clarifying what you communicate.
Do you clarify your reality to otheres explain what you said was in fact meant to be different, something else. Do anybody have to put out the second version of their comment the translation of it of the first? Marildi has done that very well she has underlined how and what she has understood.
I have read that a few times. I can’t understand it.
Geir, did you mean a comment of mine was the one you couldn’t understand? If so, let me know – sometimes I write something and then look at it myself and wonder if it will communicate. LOL!
Not sure if it relates but, I wrote a comment a couple days ago that is still “awaiting moderation”. There was a “P.S.” to it right after, which did get posted, so I don’t know…
It was Elisabeth’s comment I didn’t understand.
Oh boy, I think I see now what wasn’t understandable. I quoted a part of Elizabeth’s post – “Everything here is created by compulsive actions, which stem from the reactive mind” – and equated that with “the MEST universe is nothing but agreements.” That was just a bit of a leap in logic!
The leap was due to my ALSO having in mind other things she has communicated, to do with all the agreements anyone “here” has made in order to have the reality of the MEST universe and play the game. Those agreements are in the bank, “the mental image picture collection of the pc,” and the pictures are essentially compulsive (stimulus-response) – hence, “Everything here [in the MEST universe] is created by compulsive actions, which stem from the reactive mind.” I hope that makes more sense, as least in terms of my own understanding.
Geir, firstly in reply to: “My point is that a mockup is energy, requires space and also time in order to be observed. And, that is MEST. Possibly not perceivable by another, but MEST regardless.”
When you re-state your point this way I get the idea that you didn’t think I got it 😦 and/or that you didn’t get mine 😦 . But maybe you just wanted to reiterate the idea – which is a key one, I grant you.:-) Anyway, I really did get what you’re saying and see it just that way myself.
Related to the subject and what I really wanted to comment on is a problem I see with the definition of “as-isness,” where LRH says it is “the condition of existence which exists at the moment of creation and the moment of destruction, and is different from other considerations in that it does not contain survival” – in other words, “does not contain survival” (implying there is no time) and yet exists at a “moment” (which does imply time). So I’m wondering if by “survival” is actually meant continuous RE-creation (every Planck second, let’s say), and the “lie” contained in survival is that the creation is in fact being RE-created rather than persisting or surviving per se. But still, if there is a “moment” of creation, we already have/had time existing.
Further, per The Factors the “first [implying time] action of beingness is to assume a viewpoint [implying space, location in],” in which case we already have a MEST universe (or at least time and space) built in – or at least postulated, perhaps “in the beginning” with the decision TO BE.
How does this fit with y’all?
It fits well with my views.
Oh, good then! Have you figured out what to make of “before the beginning” or “in the beginning”? If time is just a consideration and an apparency, and yet the time track had a beginning, at what “point” did it begin? And it there was a “point” where it began – there we have time again!
Maybe there was “always” time (rate of change or rhythm being the only variable) and would that make it an actuality rather than an apparent reality? (Or maybe I just can’t think with “no time.” Ha!)
Penny for your thoughts? (Wonder whether you will have to look up that old phrase – you’re surprisingly good with English phrases but that one’s not much in current use. :-))
I wonder about this… about time. Maybe I will get the answer in my next session… 🙂
Hey, I just attested to L11.
Fantastic! So well done, again! 😀 (Do share when ready…)
And I love that postulate about time. Nothing better than a direct revelation, seems to me. (But I’m fine on indirect with you as the via, not too shabby. 😉 )
Fantastic, can we have your win, your cognition?
L11 addressed and handled one major reason for why I hold myself back and restrain myself from using my full potential. An aberration so insidious and pervading that I haven’t been able to see it like this before. I am a better person because of this action. And Pierre is easily the best auditor I have ever had. More later.
I just came up with something: There has “always” been the POTENTIAL of time, the potential of motion, And with the first creation of motion, it became a reality and the time track began. (That’s my story and I’m stickin’ to it! For now. :-))
Thanks for being there…
Marildi, I like how you are “pulling the string” on the “logic of time” to get down to the quantum mechanic of creation. This is for me a nice angle and has leverage.
To contribute, I’d like to propose that we don’t “already have a MEST universe” just because there is a “first moment of creation.” Rather, we have a MEST universe for a very short duration. Then between those durations there is none. I can imagine speeding up our ability “to see” until we can visualize the flicker of the universe going in and out of existence each Planck second.
As Valkov so aptly pointed out (and Donovan before him) – “First there is a mountain then there is no mountain then there is.”
Furthermore, you know how they say that the “snow” on your TV set when it is tuned between channels is the remnant background radio frequency of the big bang? I like rather to imagine that snow to be the ongoing radio static of the current creation. This could be an important “twist” to this particular view of MEST. The clue that physicists say it provides might not be the clue that they think it is.
I am visualizing “wave collapse” as “indecision” at the quantum level. The “wave collapse might “wrongly” be the illusion of something in two places at once when instead it simply “cannot make up its mind.” Our ability to measure the difference is still too crude to pick up on this. By Tech dictionary definition, only the Static is basic enough to be capable of observing the difference.
Travel through worm-holes might be wholly unnecessary if we can figure out a way to sandwich ourselves in-between the Planck seconds. At least this is fodder for a science fiction movie, isn’t it? hahaha!
Chris, did you see my “revised theory” in the comment just above yours – “There has “always” been the POTENTIAL of time, the potential of motion. And with the first creation of motion, it became a reality and the time track began.”
In other words, I myself am no longer thinking in terms of “always HAVING a MEST universe” but rather that – there was always the POTENTIAL of not just time but MEST=the MEST universe – even before the first dimension points were extended to create space and in turn the apparency of motion/time. The more I think about it the more this just seems obvious – self-evident – axiomatic.
And I’m buying into Geir’s and your idea that we even “now” don’t have a continuous MEST universe, just an ever-so intermittent one. Ditto with your other refinements on scientific theory, in your comment above – you won’t get any static (ha ha) from me on any of them.
I predict that when Static does ultimately perceive – directly, a la latter-day Elizabethan Methodology – what is really going on, that’s when the famous Thompson Theory of Creativity (or should it be Isene-Thompson Theory?) will ultimately join up physics with metaphysics. And we’ll see up on the “Universal” screen, at the end of our science non-fiction “movie” – The End. (I think we should join up Science with Art too, don’t you? They say art reflects life, life reflects Art. And we here say creativity is creativity. ;-))
Funny stuff Marildi.
I am a regular working stiff. I am an industrial and commercial electrician but my avocation has ever been philosophy. Honed by study, experience and the University of Hard Knocks, nevertheless, my heart and mind remain open to magical possibilities. So much has been conjectured about “what is before the beginning” and because of my opinion and visualization of the physical universe as fractal in scope, I have no pre-conceived notion of what lies ahead – but I do know that I want to plunge with vigor into that activity. I have as my personal goal the moving of my tone arm and the winning of new knowledge by cognition. I only know that I am satisfied and happy when I am making progress toward my stated goal.
Have to say, Chris, this is a pretty good summation of who you are and how you view things, at least from what I’ve gleaned from your various comments. I always appreciate your sincere sharing of yourself. 🙂
P.S. And if we find that MEST was postulated “in (or before?) the beginning,” obviously including with that an agreement (synchronization) of the rhythm of time, then it really starts feeling like a whole lotta one-ness goin’ on… 🙂
Marildi, if I understand correctly there are two possibilities being discussed:
1. Separateness with syncronization, or
2. One-ness with no need for syncronization.
For me a fascinating topic, but not a priority while we are able to manifest a reactive case.
Got it, Chris. You have stated it more accurately, I agree. I had been thinking along the lines of the “ultimate synchronization” or “ultimate agreement”. And it may be a moot point in any case, as you, Valkov and myself already came to, on the earlier thread.
Another thing that relates to this subject is what LRH says about an individual – “somebody who is operating in coordination with himself twenty-four hours a day” (Tech Dict, from a lecture). That would align nicely with either the one-ness concept or the separateness concept, as well as the idea in the OP here. (But I mainly wanted to share it just because I like it so much. )
Getting on to the subject of higher priority, reactive case, there’s something else about “individual” and “individuality,” from Handbook for Preclears, where LRH says, “An individual is the composite of all his facsimiles plus his impulse TO BE. Individuality depends upon facscimiles.” Not sure but that might even appeal to both Vinaire and Elizabeth. 🙂
Chris
Travel through worm-holes might be wholly unnecessary if we can figure out a way to sandwich ourselves in-between the Planck seconds. At least this is fodder for a science fiction movie, isn’t it? hahaha!
You all ready hold the formula “Session” works on everything It is the miracle cure all one need; emeter 2 cans connected and willingness to be there.
I am believing this.
isene said on A radical new view of the upper Scientology levels; OK here goes…
2011-06-24 at 22:11 “Nothing much to reveal, really. I kept focus. Did the actions. Didn’t monkey around. To-the-point and efficient.”
In response to Chris Thompson on 2011-06-24 at 05:06:
heh heh . . . well ok Geir – but what I really meant to ask plainly is how you skirted both Qual and Ethics on OTIII? How did you skate through the 6 month checks? What did you do or state to satisfy Qual at Flag? Also interested in what you found most interesting […]
Okay, well I understand that. I do believe you are efficient and focused simply judging by the amount of email you handle each day. So I re-read my email and questions to see if I could ask them more clearly and they sort of boil down to the following:
BACKGROUND DATA: You have done all the OT levels that the Church has to offer. You have both applauded and jeered them claiming that you made spiritual gains from doing them but at the same time reject the aspect of having been evaluated for in the form of being handed specific OTIII case phenomena to address and to handle. More succinctly, you have communicated that you don’t believe in Xenu, the volcanoes and sci-fi aspects of the OTIII lore. Feel free to correct my concept.
QUESTIONS:
1. Did you dis-believe the Xenu story while doing OTIII?
2. Did you believe and attempt to apply the Xenu data while on the level, and what occurred?
3. Did you change your mind about the OTIII materials “after” doing them?
4. How did your viewpoint about the OTIII materials affect your viewpoint about doing the levels of OT IV, V, VI, VII, & VIII?
5. Were you ever handled in Qual at Flag or on the Freewinds?
6. Did you ever have to be handled for false attestation? If so, how did that go?
7. If not, how did you skate past the sec checkers, the MAA, and the Qual Sec? Did you bluff? Did you bluster? Did you fake it? Did you “make the grade” only to key-in later and realize that there was a problem? If you became of a problem with the Tech, what occurred between you and the Church to keep this data secret? Did you have to go through any particular gyrations to hide or obfuscate the fact that the Xenu story was not biting or if it did bite, how would you explain this phenomena?
8. What would you say was the most valid aspect that you successfully confronted doing the OT levels?. . . and what do you feel was of greatest benefit from doing OTIII?
9. OTIV?
10. OTV?
11. OTVI?
12. OTVII?
13. OTVIII? I remember your win about losing your occasional nightmares since doing this level. Are there other noteworthy improvements that you would like to share?
1. I was mostly agnostic. I did the procedure – with great wins.
2. The cosmology I found irrelevant to the procedure.
3. I came to the conclusion after research that it is most likely untrue.
4. Not relevant
5. Yes
6. No.
7. No faking, no falsification. Just doing whatever was to be done.
8-12. Getting back my own viewpoint.
12-13. I am more calm, more rational, hold others in higher esteem, lost my apprehensions (not really fears) (of dentists, hights etc.), more effective in life.
These were excellent questions and answers.
.
I agree with Vinaire. Can I ask one more: you indicated previously that there were attempts made to interfere with your progress – what were they and how did you handle?
The usual interference – Sec Checks in the middle of an OT level (6-month checks/refreshers), overblown Sec Checks on other points on the Bridge, questionable Ethics actions, Reg cycles (IAS, SuperPower, Ideal Org), OT Ambassador Program (wild dream targets imagined by Int Management), local org emergencies demanding me to salvage Scientology in Norway etc.
Got it. Sounds like it was a simple matter of being there and communicating and, with the sec checks for example, going A to B. Awesome confront – you deserve to have had gotten where you got to!
Thanks 🙂
@Marildi
Re this huge thread you might want to try Safari 5 it is a free download in Apple and is a very fast Explorer , even in Windows
Rafael, so nice of you. I’m going to check into it.
Postulates: just had cognition on postulates. Good new Gang, good news!
All the postulated which were ever made do become a reality. The problem is most of them comes through wrong time and the wrong place. And not necessarily recognised by that time they do. Or they are put down as problems and nuisance.
EVERY PERSON WHO EVER POSTULATED TO ACHIVE THE STATE OF OT the NATIVE STATE WILL ACHIVE THAT END PHONENMENON.
Not this life maybe or the next life time, but that will happen.
Also that can happen in “in-between lives”, as I have seeing it happens in the future. [ I can see the future OT ability regained.] Since that postulate to achieve is still in existence, it has not been “not-ised”. It will come through.
If I remember correctly LRH said [Marildi or Valkov should know where and pull up a reference from] that the postulate takes time because it has to move, work itself through obstacles in the universe so it seems it is not there not arriving but in actually happening.
From my own experience I know how the postulates work how it comes about, than in fact the “ Native State “will be achieved by every being that put it out in the Universe when entered into the Church of Scientology and postulated to achieve that End Phenomenon State of OT, Native State.
Ps: Since I see into the future I have seen it happen over and over how the Technology become affect and has affected so far the Universe and I know know how it is done and sessions are not necessarily needed
Happiness is to know that my friend will be with me as we will embark on new adventures of course Indigo and Tanaja will be our guide. You all have a wonderful day and a beautiful life knowing, nothing has been lost.
Everything is yours for whatever you have asked and wished for. No man can destroy a postulate the progress of the Universe even if he calls himself of head of the C.ofS. He holds no such a power.
Elizabeth.
endlesstringofpearls@gmail.com
Elizabeth, your comment on postulates is just a wonderful post. It was like positive processing where you re-experience a win, or like having a big win in PT – and then releasing all the counter charge with “tears of joy.” Thank you for your heartening words. I sense their truth. 🙂
thank you Marildi now you understand “I serve”.
Geir that is a huge win, I got it, I do understand it. Thank you. And I want to thank you for other communications also. Of course for the friends and the learning from all of you, the acknowledgements.
I have posted on Marty’s blog that “Cognition” he let it be there too.
I am going to do a write up how the Technology affects the universe. But this is our first sunny day in one week and the rains will be back by tomorrow I am goinf out to my garden and have a “Group hug”
To GEIR I DEDICATE this WIN, COGNITION. Just had cognition on winning. Geir’s cognition, [on L’s] wins have given me one too, the understanding behind, what is winning. [ this Posted in Geir’s blog and mine too]
I believe this is big since it is big in my universe. The cognition was and is: Just how important to have wins. Sessions need to be end with wins; otherwise there was no case gain. But let’s look at loses first.
The MEST universe is set up in order to cause loss. No matter which way one looks, experiences, want to achieve something, putting up, or out postulates, well I never look at the adds just how after one can win.
But there are few beings on this Planet here who real can say they are winners. [Let’s not talk of making money, have 10 carat diamond ring or six homes]
Let’s talk of spiritual wining, but first let look at loses.
There are more than two reasons for that. Good grief much more. I have run into a few in sessions.
One was a major COG, way back. The spiritual being does everything in its power to destroy the MEST Universe to regain the freedom once has had way waaaaay back.
The second is if one destroys everything around one’s self than one suffers less.
I could name few hundred more reasons which has great importance why one wants to destroy and do destroys the MEST end self-= body at the same time.
So what have we here? Lots and lots of loses all those losses makes the being believe he no longer has power, nothing works one is totally helpless, useless, lost control therefore one being controlled and overwhelmed.
Now the sessions, in sessions the being is winning, he can win has wins every time!!! What a glorious feeling that is!!! Knowing one can and one do, have will power and can see finally one’s own potential. Winning is session re-aligns the being universe and gives back some of the confidence in self. That one can. Truly the sessions have the ability to rehabilitee the beings power. And it has. Just look at me I am dripping from confidence, power oozes out of every pore. I am riding high, no fear lost all of that, no anxiety, no care, no worry has everything can do everything including walking through the wall, well if you don’t believe that than you have your next item to be audited out “not believing, impossible, can’t be etc…”
Sessions, in sessions for the very first time a being can find out what is winning and knowing that accomplishment is truly true. Thanks Geir, you old pussy cat you! Elizabeth
Elizabeth ,I finally found where have been writing . This is a very long and enlightening thread.
A very helpful view of what winning is and the importance of it. I also just read about the solidity of using “I” , I will think of that every time I write or think the word “I”. Gives me something else to solo on.
For those of you that doubt the results of Elizabeth,s solo auditing on words and considerations , I can say that I have been doing solo as she describes for about 8 months and have had huge changes in mu universe . The solidity and worries started to break down in a few weeks, leading the way to a much more relaxed life with glimpses of what waits after total disconnection from mest. I have not been as dedicated as Elizabeth in soloing in fact being quite slack at times until I find the consideration stopping my sessions. I probably spend less time auditing than most people do writing on Blogs.
My wife was a messed up, doubtful, clear when we left the church . Now she is confident independent with a very positive outlook and all I have done is audit her on any subject she picks or is having difficulty with by ask her for her considerations on the subject. She is cause from the beginning of the session because she knows she is going to pick the subject and is going to run it until we agree it is at EP.
She is almost ready to solo except she has had no training.
I was a staff class V auditor and ot5 but Elizabeth’s method of using Ron’s Tech is the simplest most foolproof I have ever experienced and it gets results.
So people some advice, restart the adventure Ron started with Book 1,start to solo.
Peter was one of the first person who has written after reading Silvia blog who posted my wins which summoned up what I was doing being away, disconnected from Scientology That article was the “Walk the walk of a Solo Auditor” .
From his emails from his communication I seen the change as he has continued with solo auditing His wins and his wife’s are the attestation that the TECH works.
Of course I would like to be standing to an the top of the mountain shouting into every ears and shaking every being and tell them. Its works its works its work. Just pick up the cans it works!!
That is the reason from my blog. I already had the wins so for me it has no importance but I am hopping sooner or later one more person will pick up those cans.
And one has, Chris. That is my true win seeing others stepping on the Path of Enlightenment. The words “path of enlightenment” sound so regal, so noble and spiritual.
I got news it is pick and shovel work, mucking out the MEST.
Just how much crusting is there how deep one has to dig self out under? Accumulations in eons and eons is a long time. we all have been very busy creating. But it can be done[ i have done it] and there is hope I am standing holding up the torch and light the way. You might not see that and have reality on that now. But I am the one.
Peter, nice to have you comment here! I hope you’ll do some more – it’s great to have another person giving views from where you “stand” – at a view-point on “the walk of a solo auditor.” 🙂
Hi Geir,
Congratulations on L11!
Here are some scientific research links Russell Targ Ken Ogger and Gerald Odonnell.
http://www.espresearch.com/ Limitless Mind Book
http://freezoneearth.org/index.htm The Prometheus Report
http://www.probablefuture.com/p558.htm
They relate to your op. Look forward to hearing from you.
StarlightONE
Geir if you wonder the reason I called you Pussy cat. Very simple, you have changed you have shade something from your space which made you allof, un-approachable. I just call those things simply walls, barriers. I am celebrating your wins too.
and if the wavelength of Tone 40 were 5×10^-43/second?
Then one would as-is time 🙂
(it’s 5*10^-44 second)
“•If the theory behind the OT levels as laid out by LRH is true, then we would have a large number of beings turning up for auditing that were ready to run a very different process than the ordinary Bridge (as covered in OT VI material). But we do not see that.”
A) how do you prove this either way? Have you done any sort of survey to see if it is true?B) I have met a person who claims to have been audited in prior life. How she came to recall that, I didn’t ask. C) Ron talks about the between lives implant, but whether that is true or not, most people do not recall their past lives, let alone their pre primary school years in any sort of detail. How would you expect such a person to know he was audited in a prior life?
Mimsey
You seem to miss the point – I am not talking about people returning life after life. I am talking about millions of entities audited that didn’t have their own bodies in the first place. They should show up. None have been verified. Well, I have heard one single story that could allude to it, but that’s all.
Yes, I did miss the point. But let me ask you this – the only people who would know about that phenomina would have to have been on 7. Many c/ses and auditors on the misson and class 4 org lines are not of the case level to recognise it. How are you going to ask them about it when they don’t understand it or know about it?
Don’t forget there are only thousands of scientologists on lines gettinf auditinf and there 6 trillion other bodies running around on the planet – millions of endities is only a drop in the bucket of the planet wide population – there is no guarentee they will have a clue they were woken up by scientology and seek it out. That you found one is amazing really!
Mimsey
In the process lots of these entities are cleared or even made OT according to the NOTs materials. And so my point stands.
What was your experience of auditing these entities?
My experience of doing OT 3-7 was fantastic. That does not necessarily mean I audited any entities that were beings in their own right.
Your point may be valid, however what guarentee do you have that they even remain on the planet? Remember go up in the sky and decide? And if they were suddenly woken up and the last recall they had was from on some other planet why wouldn’t they decide to go there? They would appear there instantly upon their decision.
You can ask where is Ron? If you believe the hype at his service, he is on target two. What is to prevent them from going and helping him?
Don’t forget what it says on ot 3 what happens to them ( they square around, look at daisys etc.) They may not pick up a body.
And even though they are now a single being, they still haven’t had any of the lower grades. Why would they respond any different than any other pc, except they would blow stuff a lot quicker?
I don’t get how not finding any invalidates the process. Didn’t you have some you were convinced were real?
You have to realize, many people over run the hell out of the level and are putting stuff there to run. That was one of Ken Oggers ( the Pilot) complaints. So all of that stuff that was over run was either dub in or entities pulled in from who knows where. That can reduce the # of actual freed beings immensely.
Did you consider that many are badly audited by their solo auditors. That could also skew your results.
I still think, statistically speaking, finding one or two is amazing.
Mimsey
There is not a single one verified – despite the fact that LRH said there would be. It’s a special process dedicated to returnees like this in the OT VI materials. And they are in supposedly better shapes than the average Joe. Not one out of several hundred million possibilities. Seriously.
That I thought were real? Sure. When I was three I could swear Santa was real.
Alright. I wasn’t trying to be stupid when I asked the question – if you don’t think they exist, why not say so? I have run some that did not have any qualities that I might have put there. I was quite convinced it was a live being, and not some talking energy particle. I have run plenty that I can’t say if it was real or not. I just got the correct reads and went with them.
I asked the question because I wanted an honest answer, not sarcasm.
Many people think the whole premise behind 3, 5 and 7 is nuts. I haven’t come to a conclusion one way or the other. So I was interested in your thoughts. But I really question how you think there have been several hundred million entities released on the level. They have had only a few thousand people running the level all told. I seriously doubt I got over 10 or twenty thou myself.
There is in my mind, a serious posibility that mostly what is being run is pictures of impacts between beings, which get misidentified as beings, which would account for the mass blowing on the meter. Occaisionally a real one is run. Another possibility is it could all be just a lot of dub in that is being mocked up because you had to say something to the auditor or C/S for christs sakes.
Who knows for sure anyhow? People are all over the map on this issue. Sorry to rant.
Mimsey
Don’t be sorry. Your points are good.
It is not just statistics that make me question the reality of these entities. It is the fact that I can create such in my dreams and while I am dreaming I am also fully convinced they are separate, actual beings. In retrospect, I see I created that cast of characters.
As for the statistics, there would be many thousands per person according to just the OT3 theory – and then there is NOTs on top of that.
I say the theory has a big hole in it.
“It is the fact that I can create such in my dreams and while I am dreaming I am also fully convinced they are separate, actual beings. In retrospect, I see I created that cast of characters”.
I have shared that point of view for years. However, a while back an individual suggested I was merely assuming the characters appearing in my dreams were my creations. How could I possible KNOW for certain that those characters were my creations and not independently existing identities, that appeared in my dreams.
We know so little about multiple dimensions of reality, it is a bit presumptuous to presume ourselves to be the creators of entities or characters that appear in our dreams.
Just a thought.
I know because I have trained to control the transition areas between dreaming and awake – and I can spot situations where I create these personalities.
Since 76 I have audited many-many beings since my solo auditing covered not only my considerations and agreements of here but the Theta=Spiritual Universe, which includes the Fee Souls[ Have no body] too beside everybody else’s I have had connection with. [to me it would be incomprehensible to believe we are here alone] After the sessions most leave Earth, but many stays here those who are interested having more auditing and wish to collect further experience.
There is a great interest out in the Universe about the Technology which can reverse the Implants.
Over the years since I been soloing auditing some of the beings have come back ask me to go with them to help and audit others who has been trapped in different places. In the Universe. Which I have of course.
They are very aware beings, easy to audit and have wonderful cognitions. In my articles in my blog I call them “Free Souls” true spiritual beings.
I could write pages and pages of my experiences with these wonderful beings. I welcome questions if there is any.
PS: I was ordered by class 12 auditor and C/S at Flag to stop working with these being but I refused and that was my reason for me leaving Flag and the Church.
Through their “eyes” of these beings Free Souls and their cognitions I have learned great deal about the spiritual universe.
It was great trill for me to find these beings existing and that made OT3 the highlight of my OT levels. I believe I would find this Planet and the Universe a very empty place without my friends, the Free Souls. Since we are one, we walk the same path. From them I have learned the universal greeting and its meaning. “ I am what You are”.
Thank You.
Elizabeth
endlesstringofpearls@gmail.com
Why not help earth first? How far have you gotten in that respect?
.
Why be critical of another’s spiritual path? How far have you gotten in that respect?
Care to say how far you have gotten in that respect? Can you give a lists and its ripple affects? I dare you.
I have primarily been interested in education and mental health. I have tutored many hundreds of youngsters towards great understanding in maths. I have written maths materials to clarify the basics and put them all up on Internet for free. I have worked as an engineer all my life producing results that have helped get out the product of the companies I have worked for. I have helped train other employees in the company. I have provided hundreds and thousands of hours of personal counseling to others helping them getting rid of their fears and anxieties. I am documenting the basics in this field as KHTK essays. I continue to learn to help others in many different ways.
To me others giving me the opportunity to help them also helps me tremendously.
.
Say more about how it helps you to help others. (Real question – not a dig)
Sounds impressive “even”from the viewpoint of general Scientology standards Thank you.
Vinaire I have few questions for you. I take when you say Earth you think as its populations, right? What makes you believe to help Earth [ people]is more important than helping out any other place in the Universe. What makes you believe that one being deserves more help than any other just because one has a body and the other dont.
I bet you will love it after dropping your body and you will be standing around bewildered, lost in totall confusion, because you realized after all you still exists even knowing hearing the mornfull cry’s of you past relations.
On auditor would who is also a spiritual being without the body also but totally aware and would audit you right on the spot beside your coffin , audit you till you have VGI’s. Mand ohoh man what a joy that would be to you. To be helped to become free of considerations that “death” is real,existing. and to aknowledge your existence Yes you are, you cant die! So who should be helped, who deserves help?
Beautiful sentiment! “I am what you are.” Points to the apex of A-R-C and is for me an accurate assessment.
In my syllogism, Affinity is space-time; Reality is matter; and Communication is syncronization.
Total reduction of MEST erases mass and space-time eliminating the need for syncronization.
“Oneness” for me is not the absence of viewpoints, but the joining of viewpoints in the absence of MEST.
Because of the fractal nature of creation, my mind jumps to conjecture “one-ness outside of one-ness.” I am interested in your thoughts on this.
Well, I am just stating my gut feelings about the stats, I can’t say I have done any research, to find out how many completed it in 2 years, or 5 or 15 and worked out how many per session, how many sessions per day etc. I just have no access to the raw data it takes to come up with any sort of realistic #.
I was thinking after I submitted my post that you were probably just being candid not sarcastic, and you reminded me of a story I heard of a 7 who said the biggest read and f/n on the level occured upon congniting he was mocking it up to run.
Dreams – that is interesting. A pre GAT OT7 gave an interesting win at an event – he said after soloing for a while he stopped having dreams. He woke up one night after having a terrifying dream of being chased and he saw his dog who was sleeping on the bed twitching away. Many times I have had a dream of being at flag but it never looks like flag – it looks like a university. Ocaisionally I have dreams with people I know but it does not look like them.
My assumption is that they are caused by entities, but (per the tech) you as an 8 should not have any entities, so where/what are the dreams coming from? So you present an interesting conundrum with that one. I guess if I was a true believer, I should say you are unflat on the level. But that is too pat an answer.
I’ll have to think about it.
Mimsey
Well, I know I am mocking up my dreams. LRH even goes into that in… I believe in A Handbook fro Preclears. And I know I am mocking up the people in my dreams – so I know I can mock up “entities”. I am sure I could also audit “them” in my dreams. I have also had periods of not dreaming.
As for the stats – it is pretty easy after having been on 7 for 3,5 years and having talked to scores of others having been on the level.
Wasn’t it Stacy Young who wrote about auditing being a form of self hypnosis, where the person starts imagining or mocking up incidents in response to auditors questions when they have exhausted actual answers. Such as past lives? I have done that myself when I drew a blank, told it to the auditor who tr3’d me and on we went, hoping something real would turn up.
Mimsey
Dear Vinaire, but I do help and help great deal, just because it is not apparent to the eye, one can’t see, that do not means that there are no changes existing.
Cognitions are incredible, while a person cognate, with that as-is huge amount of mess. But look around you, every thought is translated into solidity here on this Planet, which includes the beings body which represents a being which is mess=energy too. So just how much mess needs to be as-ised here on Earth, how much energy needs to be confronted?
Free Souls=beings are easier to work with for that there are many reasons. Here is a few: Not being in a body, not looking with the eyes, not being connected through the body to sensations continually and stimulated, not eating drinking sleeping smoking and the main reasons is” not using words”.[ words have great power to stimulate, most powerful stimuli there is on this planet.]
When I audit a being the communication is right to the point and the being cognates fast. Free Souls are just that, free.
Cognitions have ripple effects I believe LRH has written something about it like pebbles in the pond.
Here on Earth each body is like a castle, a fort, Bastille, Fort Knox, Very difficult to break out from very difficult to break into. Those walls are which holds the being in and the same time out are the ideas, thoughts, believes considerations and the heaviest ones are the group agreements and everyone has countless of them: die, dead, no more, born, live, being, having, owning, looking, the “Needs” are huge agreements, endless lists and everyone needs to be confronted individually.
Since each individuals universe=reality is so very different here because the langue’s,[ segregates the beings further] communication, it seems that each beings Bank need to be addressed separately because of that.
With Free Souls, there are just there they are only stuck in that moment of” thought, ides, agreement, sometimes in sounds”.
The Earth has been greatly affected by persons here who has been audited had sessions, and in every session there are countless beings “free souls” who are audited the same time un-known to the person who has the body. The Person’s cognitions become theirs too.” I am what you are”
Also someplace LRH said, I can’t quote “before order there is chaos?” Well, look about there is nothing but chaos.
I know what I have a achieved it is not visible to the eyes, but every cognitions has the ripple effect in the universe, every cognition touches every being regardless having bodies or not. Regardless they are aware of it or not. The cognitions hold no mess therefore their power is immense, they change the universe. The changes are noticeable, very noticeable but not here.
The universe was not made as is overnight so there is no magic wand to wave over there for the energy to disappear. Also to do that to wave the magic wand would be the greatest crime ever committed.
You see if all would be taken away that includes everything, all your thought all believes all experiences than what one would learn from? Experiences are simply a lesson, a lesson to cognate an. You a being you would be free but without knowledge, we been there before, it did not work since we walked into traps once more unknowingly.
I would like to give on example. About the wonderful world the the Theta=Spiritual Universe how we share we are.
Last year I had visitors both were OT7. First thing one said entering, looking around. “There are beings here, beings everywhere your place is full”.[He was horrified he still needs lots of auditing before his fear will be gone’]
Yes, my place is full of friends. I am never alone here they come and go as they wish. Usually after being audited some ask if could stay for a while. Of course and why not, I am in their space therefore they are in mine. The spiritual =theta universe has no walls, no boundaries we all come and go as we please.
I am what you are.
PS: I have written that the power of a being is immeasurable in terms of human words thoughts and the power which one has gained because the confrontation of the MEST as-ising the MEST is un-comprehensible again in human terms of understanding that power. This knowledge which I have gained is in the Theta=Spiritual Universe since Knowledge has no mess to it therefore no boundaries, my knowledge which was gained in sessions has become the knowledge to all who is free.
The Free Souls who I share space with say the same as I and since they have gained from the cognitions same as I have had. Now they are “I am what you are”. The knowledge is free floating in the Universe.
Are you saying that you have not had any positive visible effects on living, breathing people here on earth? No such products at all?
I do have very positive visible effects, but not likely I can mail it to Norway.
But can you tell us about them?
you are welcome to come over, since the difference, the changes need to be experienced at first hand.
But please tell me, or at least give me a few examples of how you’ve helped people.
Vinaire: One can only see, perceive, experience within the boundaries of one own reality level. Therefore one will never know what other reality levels are there, existing until ones expends one own horizons. In this case the expansion would be into the Spiritual Universe where there is no MEST and that can be only be done by eliminating ones viewpoints which are MEST related.
I believe you get the point I am making here about my capability, the change auditing causes and the power one gains. This is not a put down that is not intended, just pointing out the difference in realities how we see the Universe.
I see from the point before [there is no point, no anchor yet] where I entered into, the creation of Theta=Spiritual Universe.
That is the reason one should not judge and compare universe or ask or look for proof, the realities are too different. Theta universe existing within the reality of self therefore proof one do not need.
PS: I would like to add to the
“The knowledge is free floating in the Universe. “ . When there are no heavy boundaries walls in form of thoughts considerations and group agreements than knowledge which holds no energy the intangible form of knowledge which has been attained in sessions, the cognitions, they free float. Belongs to everyone in the Theta=Spiritual Universe.
I feel knowledge is useful only when it can be used to improve the quality of life in a demonstrable way, either one’s own, or the life of those around one. the knowledge, which cannot demonstrate that would be looked at with suspicion, or would be simply ignored.
A person who talks about knowledge only in context of one’s own self, but cannot demonstrate it in one’s action, or in improving the actions of others around him or her could be simply looked upon as immersed in one’s ego, if not delusional.
Look at Nobel laureates, look at others busy putting out inventions that others can use to improve their quality of life. Look at the creation of Wikipedia. Look at Khan Academy. There are many, many examples. These people don’t just “solo audit” and talk about themselves and their cognitions. This latter activity just appears so selfish in comparison.
Sorry, if I come across as offensive, I do not mean it that way. I find that the most spiritual uplift comes from helping others. A person who is just helping himself or herself is, by definition, selfish.
.
Such a person – and I am not here indicating we have such a person here on this blog (as you have lots of assumptions in you comment) could be called a theetie weetie by LRH definition.
If my assumptions can be falsified then let them be falsified.
.
I am truly happy that I am what I am and not what you are.
I have no doubt that you are a happy person.
To me, self itself a delusion… and a big one for some.
.
Yes i can see that very clearly because you only know self and that can be a huge delusion, to self.
I happen to audit out my delusions and I admit they were many,huge, giantic, I am sorry you still cary that heavy load. We will get you in next life or after that dont you worry, you will have your opportunity to solo audit out your delusions too.
That is perhaps the most patronizing comment I have seen on my blogs.
Seriously Elisabeth, behave!
PS: Those who know me will also know that I very seldom use exclamation marks.
That’s scary. It reminds me of Markabians!
.
Why would you think you were being offensive?
Sorry, cant do, more like I wont do it since writting about something can have lots of miss-understanding which i have experienced here in this Blog.
We look at things differently you and I. To you something is only real if it is presented in solid form. To me it is real if I experience it. Since to me on experience is good enough since i know no matter how it become as is, I know it was created through postulate and was created by a being who has ability. To me solidity is not needed in order to believe that somethings existing.
Certain things must be experienced in order to be real, to write about is not good enough.
You: “To you something is only real if it is presented in solid form.”
Not true. I am merely asking if you have helped another living person – a person who has said he or she has been successfully helped in some way. I am sure most readers on this blog can list hundreds if not thousands of times they have done so. Why is this difficult for you?
Love a challenge, thanks, that is the reason I love to solo audit. it is not difficult at all since I know how to list. But I have no desire to do so. My every thought, every consideration is open to others to read and judge accoding to their reality. All hanging out there in the open in my blog but somethings need to be private. And it should not make any difference how I help to any one. Come for a visit you can see it here first hand.
Not one small, tiny example of you having helped another living person? Please?
So, how are you finding this challenge? So far you have not met it according to my reality.
.
I truly believe no matter what I would do I would not meet your approval and I dont need to do anything to have your approval. Your reality and mine is far from each as the distance the first ligh created and the earth quake on the east coast 2days back.
What is the reason you must know?
I am curious as to the ripple effect created on other people. It helps people get motivated to do something if they can see the results from it – especially if something is really beneficial to their fellows.
That is ordinary stuff, I thought you really wanted to see something extraordinary.
Way back after my last divorce I have joined a small group to help battered woman. The help was that time to find them shelter, food, and small amount of money. Since I know influential people I went around and asked for donation. Other in the group stated to collect to. That time the group was only 6 women.
We started to find jobs for woman some learned to clean houses and went into their own businesses. Than the husbands become interested in our work, they too collected money, some of their friends donated old cars, we asked to have a garage to help with repair, we had enough money to buy a house, everybody helped to paint, roof, do some pluming, gardening sowing curtains etc.. we went around to furniture stores and other stores to have the house fitted out to the last spoon. The people become involved thought it was fun, productive and taken great pride. The woman who we helped out become up tone, and becomes volunteers too
One well to do man who’s daughter I have asked for donation become not only a helper with money, but become a volunteer, and interested her father when he had retired he taken over the organization. When I have retired moved up here, The group was over seventy owned 2 houses, which was used as shelter, and office we could pay rent for who needed it till work was found. I have cleaned houses, others learned from me and at the beginning some of the ladies worked with me and donated their earnings. They thought never had so much fun in their life. Myself I have collected little over ½ million $.
And the influence was as I been told the words were used “inspire, inspirational”.
The other part was with gardening where the ripple effects were very visible, In the different way
Moved into an average middle class neighborhood nothing was there but greenery, Northwest is green period, lots of evergreens towering in every garden.
Within few years the grassy land have become become award winning show place in short 4 year of its existence. A magnificent garden 300 roses and hundreds of different other flowers, Because its beauty people wanted to have that same magical quality and All around people started to garden, asked for help to, recommendation. I have designed gardens, flower beds or just few well-placed large flower pots for others, I have given advice for free, since I was expert rose grower and adviser. The gardeners formed clubs and even after I have left they going strong. People made the comments many occasion it have changed their life’s for the better.. I have created 4 gardens for myself in very different location, even in different countries with the same affects.
Once I was walking on a street a woman dashed up to me wrapped her arms around and said Elizabeth what you said has become and I am the happiest woman in this world. Few years back after her husband died I told her the future awaited her and that become. Chain reaction, yes my influence, believes created others to believe and that affected others by that. Ripple affect are all around show no matter what we create. There are few other instances where my space influenced others and their life has been changed.
There are 5 Elizabeth out there named after me because the parents beloved in me, sensing my space to be good and wanted their daughter to be like and grow up like me.
There are 2 people who have written in your blog because the changes were made in their life because I have inspired them. You have read those postings but not acknowledge it as wins. I wonder why?
In short 4 months, since my blog has been started, there is 4535 pings to this day that shows huge interest in of what I write about.
I receive e-mails regularly from scientologists writing how I have restored their faith and insipid them to continue in the future with auditing.
[ There are things of which I do not care to share, since it is private..] Through auditing, eliminating ones negative energy one can’t help but influence others.
The article ” Walk the walk of a solo auditor” went around some of the orgs in “underground” till somebody snuffed it out. But I have had few e-mail out of that and was told that deep down they have known there was much more to be had and they too hopped to reach that level and those same comments were expressed by many independents who has written to me.
I wonder what proof you real need to understand, personally the proof I find is in sessions I don’t need to collect data from others. I know auditing works and my track has held enough experiences when this experiences were confronted I have found the secrets to all, the magical quality of the universe, the communication with the Free Souls and found the value in the universe which here is none existing.
Now I wonder how you will find this posting not real and want more proof, names and addresses. Proof for what? That others can create too are capable, have influence, being heard, admired, fallowed? All those are actions in the MEST universe and are very small very insignificant in comparison to the effects one cause when one no luger have the bank
By the way Geir when I have had the bank as Gautama Buddha or Attila the Hun I was very influential than, just think and compare my influence in the Universe now. The actions of those days and the teachings its affects still ripple. I hold greater power now in form of influence.
Basic cognitions have the effects like on explosions of a atom bomb they ripple across the universe. I have had them all.
Thanks.
Sounds impressive from the viewpoint of general Scientology standards.
.
I would call that both help and ripple.
I’ve been helped by Elizabeth Hamre. Usually on a daily basis since I first saw months ago that there was something in her words and concepts which rang true in my universe. With high ARC and lots and lots of good humor we have struck up quite the friendship which in addition to my enjoyment of it has been quite beneficial to me and directly on my personal admin scale.
LRH said regarding “orders of magnitude” that humanoids “see” only about ceiling height. It is very very easy to ARC break a person with tales of grand schemes and adventure unless you preface it with “it’s only a story.” This is why, in History of Man, he admonishes to “let Homo Sapiens sleep yet a while in the bulk.” He’s saying that you ARC break people to your peril as their reactive impulses and tendency to violence can be decisive and sudden.
I have found this to be true in my experience both on the giving and receiving end of ARC breakingly large realities. Once, many years ago, an old OT7 friend of mine and I had locked up the Org for the night. We had methodically and routinely gone around and turned out the lights and locked the doors. Walking around the building through the parking lot I saw that I had missed a light in an HGC auditing room. Saying “oh man, I better go back and get that” my friend said “Don’t bother” whereupon he made his index finger into a pistol. Pointing at the window, dropping his thumb like a hammer, and making the obligatory explosive shooting sound with his mouth, the light went out and he turned to me and chuckled. I laughed and said “good one – thanks.” I was being very careful. I was being very cool. I walked him just a few feet farther to his apartment where he asked me in. I declined saying I got to get home. I turned back into the parking lot making as if to go get in my car and when I was sure he was in his apartment and had closed the door, I made straight for that back door that I had just walked out of and locked and which hadn’t been out of my sight since his trick. Of course you can guess the rest of the story. I unlocked the door, went inside and rummaged throughout the small building looking for who might have been left inside and of course there was no one. The light switch was predictably in the “off” position. I remained “cool.” I said to myself, “wow!” I tried to pass this off as something which I totally knew was possible. Totally was something I believed in. Totally was something which I had read about and which I had heard people could do. Totally knew the word “telekinesis” and knew its definition. And yet despite this preparation and despite my stated agreement with the phenomena, I was so ARC broken that I spun on the incident and tried to “figure it out” but couldn’t get it off my mind for days. I mentioned this to no one. Not wanting to seem uncool. As a matter of fact I don’t remember ever bringing this up in session. (maybe I will now)
My point being that our realities are different and when comparing them we have to use judgement by not bringing up very different orders of magnitude or risk the inevitable ARC break. I do not abhor the ARC break but some might.
For me, the “ARC break” is the door which opens to increased understanding.
Chris, that may just be your best post to date. Both in style (great story-telling alone) and, more importantly, in content.
And I’m going to chime right in with you and say that I too have been helped by Elizabeth! The understandings and cognitions I’ve gotten from her writings have definitely changed my universe for the better. I’m that much clearer about things. And the fact alone that she’s had thousands of hits on her blog tells me that others too have benefitted from the knowledge she’s gained about the universe, about existence.
Not only clearer about things, I feel I’m simply “clearer,” if you consider the principle that as-ising of MEST (by which she means mental MEST) is – to use Elizabeth’s construct – like ripples, in that we are all connected. That means everyone else in the universe has been helped too, because of her decades of auditing. That’s a pretty big butterfly effect! 🙂
Thank you…. Ripple…… Marildi…… ripple…… good of…. You… ripple….. to say so…..ripple………
Sounds like the waves are big ones. 🙂
Thanks Marildi. Yes,I “feel” her effects thousands of miles away. It is uncanny how wound up in one another we all are.
Butterfly Effect? Huge! . . . I love that movie and love Ashton Kutcher in it. . . . what a roller coaster ride! hahaha!
But really, even here blogging it seems that making small splashes all over the planet when alterations occur in the way we think about things must be reducing the reactivity. When Geir did the L’s I swear I felt better.
Sadly, the order of magnitude may not be sufficient to stem the self destruction of mankind from this planet . . . I have no feeling how this will play out. There are a majority of counter-survival postulates out there.
Are our own pro-survival postulates sufficient in quantity and quality?
No worries mate, all is in good hands. Theta-spiritual being love the game, heavier the better. So what, we all know how to get a new body we all are expert by now, making them and how to grow them.
Chris, you and I are of a mind when it comes to the “fun and profit” of blogging. I love your notion about it creating splashes…all over the planet? Wow, you’re right! Whether a held-down five or a held-down seven, it’s mass and reactivity when there’s confusion in the mind.
Hey, don’t worry about the order of magnitude. I do have a feeling about “how this will play out” – and it’s all good. 😉
Yes, it helps me sort out my thoughts by writing them.
Blogging may have a help overall depending on the quantity of participation, but on that grander scale I am not sure of the reach of the ripple effect. Based on Einstein’s sanity test (repeating the same action and expecting a different result) I vote for auditing to actually reduce GPMs. Various social actions may loosen momentarily the thumb screws, but on mankind’s DNA is written “killer ape” and this seems to me indisputable. The good and decent things in life come from the Theta impulses acting on man to have a lighter existence. Dependance on and introversion into MEST begets more dependance on and more introversion into MEST and a heavier and more solid existence. It is an addictive cycle. To break this cycle I vote to audit.
Oh, you are a true adventurer like me who dont mind groping around in muck looking for hidden treasures. Just think what other place could be better hiding place to put valuebles than the self built outhouse. [I dont want to be accused of having class.]
What an imagination – funny!
hahaha! oh that is funny! (and true!)
To me helping is nothing special since that activity happen regularly, being caused all over the Planet by hundreds of thousands of people. This age is the when helping others have become a vogue,” In “thing to do.
One is only “somebody, good person” if one can show off demonstrate what one can do for others benefit. That is in actuality showing one can be and is causative and the same action shows, points out that others are not.
Helping others look good but what is in reality? I wonder if anyone has analysed the mechanics of help, need of help, and importance of help, what it causes, how it affects both side. The do-er and the receiver.
Of course there are thousands of different sides to it. If one is not helping than that person is “selfish” as it has been pointed out that I am by Vinaire in Geirs blog, because I solo audit I am selfish and that observation that reality puts him further down showing his lacking in reality what auditing is all about.
So if you do not help the human kind than dose who wishes to make self-look good for doing so make others look like something wrong with not helping. But 99% of the people have very selfish reasons to help others “the less fortunate”.
Many who donate moneys or goods it is a tax write off which includes used clothing.
For other it is a good vehicle to get into the news, others to make self-feel good. There are huge money making shows on TV built around “helping”..
There are many realities existing on help as the helper and the helped.
But for all is it’s a silent amends to make up for the sins committed in the past. Any one tells me otherwise, first should look and research the topic IN TOTALITY which should include the past track.
Have a session on help, being helped and have a few more than one real can see the true reasons behind helping. Not very pretty and uplifting what one can find.
Having spent years this life doing very specific amends for my > faux pas last life; I attest to the truth of this.
Chris,you just gave ma an idea for my future Auditing;))
As i know i lived twice at the same time (at least 2 bodies) before this one,I’m going to look 4 “other bodies?” this lifetime)
Interesting twist Tommy! I’ve been researching “Many-Worlds” world view and objectively what you are saying seems possible. Subjectively, I don’t have a reality on it. Let me know what you find?
In the darkness of the night, the secret activities and can we levitate?
For some time I have wandered what is the purpose of what I am doing in the morning when I come out of the so called “sleep” what is the mechanic behind the actual doing-ness.
Today finally had a cognition the answer, the understanding what one is doing when returning from ones nightly gallivanting about one’s universe where body is not needed for activities’ in order to have fun as Free Beings: like have a delicious roll in the hay with one’s personal choice, attend coronation naked, find gold buried in a huge cookie jar under Mt St Helen, direct traffic waaaay out there to make sure the Comet will not collide with one’s favorite Planet which was once vacation playground.
Or walk the streets where the stones are carved into shapes of flowers or build a snowman from red snow [ I have seen that, it’s exists.] Etc…..etc….
As one wakes [awareness returns of “self”] The OLD SENSATIONS, ACHES, PAINS” seeps back into ones reality one become “aware of their existence” item by item they re-establish one into matter, time and space.
Yet some mornings when one wakes up and get up fast and did not have the leisurely time to collect all those thing= the anchor points than one can stand middle the house where one has stood hundreds of times yet still feel totally dis-oriented., “not being here”
In the waken state in the morning you people wonder why you feel so terrible tired, totally exhausted. More likely you have done more in one ” night” than in whole life time existence of the body.
But that is not the real reason for ones “tiredness”. Since a free being without a body no matter what has been experienced do not get “tired”.
So here we are back in bed,[ in the first moments of awareness] It seems we do fast check with the speed of light. One’s mind automatically goes over the body one pick up first the strongest sensations of course and then the lesser ones, in that order. If yesterday someone has stumped on your big toe, to be sure that one will be the first to re-experienced on the list this morning and one becomes aware of.
Than we become aware of our surroundings, which includes everything from the weight of the bedclothes to the colours, smells, temperature of the room, the sounds etc..etc..etc.
Then automatically one pulls in the list of what one need to do that “day “with that one establishes the “future’ that will be the continuum, the “time” than next comes the recalls=remembering the “past” from night before the “items’ again whichever holds the heaviest most complicated energy, un-confronted item will be there first on the list to be remembered.
. Woof-woof, you groan, why me lord why me?
Next your awareness spreads further, into the house; you note that the cat sending you telepathic thoughts: food, food.
You move your body and it takes such on effort to roll out of the bed and you wonder how you going to make it through the day. Tylenol will disperse the heavy weight, yes? You hope.
I had cognition which I would like to share with all of you and I hope will help you to understand your tiredness in the morning.
First of all, you know you eat fairly well, the body gets all the vitamins minerals, you spend 3 days a week in the gym yet in the morning GOD, you can hardly move. And you know, nothing is wrong with you.
HERE IT IS: We all go out of the body regardless if we can recall that experience or not in the waken moments, we all experience “weightlessness” at those occasions since we are Spiritual Being.
And we love that, there is nothing could make us given it up so we do it in secret, in the dark of the night, when we are alone. When we believe no one can see us since it is dark!!!!!!!!!!!! Who is kidding who?
We all move about gallivant among the stars, over the Planet Earth and nothing holds us back we are free we don’t carry the solidity of thoughts, the weight of the body and I repeat “we have no weight.”
So you are back in the body, suddenly the HELL is upon your back the whole weight including the gravity, the atmospheric pressure + all your considerations connected with light, the body, you have been re-captured, enfolded, weighted down back to your own self-made prison.
You can hardly move, your thoughts don’t want to role, you feel you were made of wet clay. [ Thought too need to be re-established since thought are the MEST universe, while exterior you had none].
Weeeell, very understandable. In just few minutes since your” arrival”, you have re-established yourself, you have re-instated all the anchor points, every bloody one of them, you have re-claimed your precious possession your Bank and that is heavy, solid energy.
So you can hardly move the body and that is no wonder because one needs to re-establish how much energy one needs to move that body part again+ it has to be re-postulated [ every move, every time] to move otherwise that thing do nothing outside the already established automated heartbeat, inhale exhale etc….
You shuffle to the bath room, the image in the mirror further establish the looks how the postulated “look” the “affects” one wish to create, huge anchor point into the MEST and you further note that the inner organs, are in working order and all the connection with the bladder etc…..
You look into the mirror and you sometimes very surprised to see the image in there and think “No, that is not me it can’t be me”. Don’t wander why, it is very simple, the spiritual being has no “looks, appearance, or image!!!
And you have forgotten while you were so busy doing things=experiencing that you have postulated that image in the first place., images like[ face] that holds very little energy because they don’t have great amount of power=drama connected with , so it is not a stable postulate plus it changes because other postulates effects it, like having 3 Bloody Mary last night.[ distorts the “look” the alcohol changes ones energy flows]
Now you not only have re-anchored mentally yourself into the MEST, you also re-established the appearance, NEXT you do on extra measure, very solid postulate, heavy duty stuff, not knowingly of course
You go and stand on the scale and re-establish “your weight”, including the thought “I need to lose 30 pounds.”
Any idea what just happened? You have re-established and confirmed you are 175 pound!!!
Weigh is matter=energy, a solid anchor point which you have just established into the MEST””””” and every scientologist wander why they can’t levitate???”””””” [ I too use to ponder about that topic too]
So, who has seen 175 pound of something flying about? Yes, birds but they have no considerations that they have weight and can’t fly.
It is very understandable one can’t levitate that idea, that postulate was Shut to Hell in the same moment it was conceived.
But again one could have levitated and I am sure we have before the “Weight” postulate was established, you see the reason for that is if that would not be so, than the idea of levitation the concept would not exists now.
So there is hope for us that we can levitate in the future again if we just eliminate the postulates about weight.
Further anchor points are driven in, hold the person in place, clothing shoes, even hair spray, cosmetics, shaving lotion, food, smells, sounds, the daily routine, activities, news is a big item give a person surrounding anchor points, re-establish distance reality on what and where one is, topics what we all know about, rubbery, rape, fire, plain fallen, the neighbor’s cat had kitten and then the international news really puts, drives one anchor point in solid.
Hurricanes, who’s killed who, who was elected or overthrown. Internationally News than is the cherry on the top, larger locations too, we find out and learn of million things in few minutes, know who got married or dropped the body by reading the News and by the end of the day one is so solid one can hardly move, very-very tired, the word is “solid” should be used.
I feel so solid I can’t move!
To lighten the load, have few glasses of wine, get loaded on whisky, have a swim and to de-stimulate self, ones watch one favorite murder drama.
There are so many anchor points in one’s daily routine in fact anchor points=experiences one after the other are continuum which is in fact one’s life. No wonder it is called life cycle.
When one eliminates those incredible amount of anchor points: thought, believes one becomes truly free of the MEST Universe, than one can gallivant about not only unknowingly but anytime.
PS: of course the being is not always out there while the body is “shut off” state and a sign is hang on it,” gone, wondering among the stars, be back by daylight” the being goes, only part of the time and how often again it depends on the anchor points how strong there are at the moment and holding the being still in the confinement of the past days activities.=experiences.
The daily activities are very strong because they are in “LIGHT”. Also those day time activities have the greatest amount of agreements which are of course the anchor points.
What can I say my friends?
You can ask anything or comment or do nothing, since all is well, and I am honored by your presence in this blog since I know you are here therefore we share the universe.
I will post this in Geir Isene’s blog too.
Elizabeth, endlesstringofpearls@gmail.com
Geir, Ilooked up the word “patronize” Right 1000%. Please accept my apology=regret for causing wrong, disharmony in your blog.
I can be very wicked [the Hun in me] but as Flip Wilson would say ” The devil made me do it”.
PS:I have enjoyed your “!”
Apologies accepted.
I have been inspired. i belive i will wtite about power, the use of, and how is experessed and interpreted into MEST. Thank!!!!
It is. “Write” [I never learn!] how can one write when one do not know how? That is even challange for the Gods and I am merely mortal. [I just lied, I told you I was wicked] Cant sleep?
If it is “old view-points” is it your’s? (This is something that has to do with the body,isn’t it)
I believe it’s mine – not body-related.
I think the whole bridge up to 8,is “all about the body” (+ the thetans fixation to it).
Dianetics is about the “genetic-entity”,incident 2 about other “body-entities” (and your confusing yourself with them).Life is theta+MEST,then if you call that case “the view-point case” you should still not confuse your self with it.In my opinion the EP of an individuals auditing on OT 2-7 is ,no more confusing himself with “Life” and is able to se what is reacting on the meter.
Well, not being OT I for some reason have constantly understood some simplicity about all this which may or may not be dub-in, but it at least has a simplicity which just seems right to me. I’ll try to explain it as good as I can.
Let’s take the factors and even basic axioms. First there is Cause. It doesn’t matter what Cause is at this point, but it makes sense that it was the first.
Leaving Cause (for whatever reason), the lower harmonic consist of BE, DO, HAVE.
In Dianetics we started to tackle the “DO” in terms of engrams done to us. Then AP&A added what we had done as the principle importance and how it relates to responsibility. But still we are mainly addressing “DO” whether in present time or billions of years ago.
But even back in Dianetics LRH realized the importance of entities or valences or BT’s or whatever they have been called. Some aspects of these were addressed in Dianetics but not adequately.
Then NOTS were made and suddenly the “BE” factor was addressed upside down. Lots of fascinating stuff relating to this, especially OT III, but in essence the “BE” of a person is being addressed. Whether there are separate BT’s floating around you, or they are simply valences or some sort of entities or just false or forgotten viewpoints, it doesn’t really matter, because the processes apparently sorts out the “BE” for a person, to a point where a person hopefully fully knows who he is by OT VIII and he can simply “BE”.
However, “HAVE” has not been addressed much, nor really rehabilitated and hence no matter the power of “DO” and “BE” the “HAVE” prevents the being from acting out a a true spiritual entity, divorced from the physical universe. Some of this was addressed in COHA but not on any released OT levels from my knowledge.
If “HAVE” was truly rehabilitated then one would end up back at Cause, at his own choice of course, but there must be a tremendous resistance from being at Cause because so many factors were developed to not be Cause and these must be so ingrained and inherent in the current viewpoint of what we are that maybe we will never go back to Cause for the same reason we left it. But regardless, when one fully clears off all the “DO” and “BE” one sees himself for the cause he was and how this relates to the Supreme Being, but he can’t duplicate it, only view it, because he hasn’t rehabilitated the “HAVE”.
All you do in auditing or any other process or program is removing your considerations and removing false viewpoints until you can just “BE” and “DO” as you please without any interference from past viewpoints or postulates. I believe this would be the EP of OT VIII.
Being a non-OT and having not delved into confidential materials, just knowing basic books and lectures plus what the media reports, that is the simplicity I see and which seems to always ring true. Maybe just another false viewpoint, but it certainly makes sense to me.
Oh I found the thread. Now that I have reread your OP, what you say makes sense. Somewhere Hubbard states much the same thing – What I recall is – you are effect of considerations made when you were higher toned.
Have you read much about the persons own GPMs? Hubbard suddenly dropped them in favor of implanted GPMs. But they consist of self postulated goals in opposition with other goals. This could very well be where your stuck viewpoints lie.
The whole point of grade 4 was to stop creating the pt actual GPM. It was a self created ongoing abberation. I forget if power was to key the to key out actual gpms or implant gpms. However R6 ew, the CC and OT 2 were all about implant GPMS
Mimsey
I think you can make a convincing arguement that when Hubbard embraced the inplant gpm theory, he went from you are responsible for your own condition to you are a victim. Practically all of the PTS tech is about being a victim, and ot 3 5 and 7 is about entities being responsible for what you do or for somatics or unwanted conditions or restaining one from doing.
Expanded Dianetics is about finding the postulate made in an engram, FPRD is about finding the evil intentions which were gotten from psycs. I am not kidding, see FPRD #1 & 3. Scientology currently is all about being a victim and not being responsible.
I think you might be on to something.
Mimsey
Interesting viewpoint. It is never good to turn toward less responsibility in any form of therapy IMHO.
Chris could you make that question into simple english? Even looking up some of the words i just dont get the meanings. I am slow.
Another way to ask it: “Normal” existence wound up with the ego is singular. Through solo auditing we dissolve the ego merging viewpoints with others – becoming pan determined. The physical universe traps with circles within circles within circles. Does this trap end with this one lifetime’s effort at solo auditing? Or once we have dissolved the ego, there is no more ego – behind this ego?
Sort of like that old concept of universe within one’s fingernail? Move out of that one only to find oneself in a larger one? This could go on for a very long time if we had to deal with this. Such as the following:
Wake up OT’s, Static is Serenity of Beingness, thoughts don’t exist here. You have to go down tone from there. Snap out of it… Scientology, falls away, just like everything… It’s a Bridge, get it! Yeah, I bet you don’t…
And the purpose of this rant is?
A point-of-view can be light and airy as a feather or my steamy breath on a cold morning. But the bank’s growing wad of considerations is thicker and heavier and more dense through time. We look at and focus smaller and smaller and smaller. Creating these views until there is no more computing power left.
Consider a sheet of paper. Fold it in half. Fold it again. How many times can you do this? Does the folded paper-wad become smaller? More dense? Harder to fold? If it previously had legible writing on it can you now read it? The information is there but obfuscated by the folding.
The mind is worked very hard. So hard until it is smoking. It becomes overburdened and unable to operate and the denser and heavier threads seem to have the most substance and to be the most important. Until we can barely pay attention to anything at all and feel that we are encased solidly in a heavy element and feel that unless our viewpoint is equally adamant that we are not existing. This is my cognition.
And it has occurred to me that this is a consideration only. We actively create on a constant basis the reactive mind — another way of describing it is as a “jungle of considerations.” The cure is to loosen our grip on the anchor points (our considerations of spatial relations) and back up. Back the hell up and get a view of the larger picture. Fixated on the minutiae of my thoughts, it is no wonder that overwhelm sets in.
But I think there might not be any existence beyond my own perception and that the cure for an overwhelmed mind is to just “stop computing.” The universe is busily wanting to dissolve, and I say — let it. This is the blow by inspection which might be brought on by many disciplines of the mind. This is my cognition.
I may have worded some of this wrongly or in a way that doesn’t communicate and if I need to make adjustments to be more understandable I will try. My writing gets a little crossed up with a mish-mash of math, physics, philosophy and home-spun ideas and language; however, I think this is natural since each discipline address these problems from their own vantage point and are all reaching for understanding.
G: “I am often very conscious when I dream, and I find myself creating scenery and people in order to create a game when I sleep. I create people that I then let run on their own, and from that point on, they are uncontrollable by me in order to make the game real.”
Chris: I am dense and just now getting around to working on these ideas.
1. Are the people “pinched-off” pieces of Isene?
2. Are they imbued with “your” life?
3. “Uncontrollable by you.” then controllable by whom? and, In what way?
4. What class of life would you call these people?
5. Are their actions apparently random but deterministic? Or,
6. Do they possess free will?
7. If so, what quality or quantity causes this “free will?”
I see now that you were paving a road here that went right over my head at the time. You can wait to answer this if my being flexible on response results in a thorough opinion or perhaps another thread. If I asked questions beyond exactly what you dreamed, just answer with a projection of where that dream was heading.
Hi Geir et. all, I posted a version of this on ESMB:
I don’t know if you have been following Marty’s past lives quest which reminds me a lot of Geir’s quest to find any entities who have picked up a body and became a Scientologist. I don’t think he found any. Marty is on the hunt for people who are born again Scientologists: Here’s a quote from his site:
” 2. If you have witnessed as a C/S or auditor the return of a Scientologist in a new body after death, which of the following applies:
a) We located his or her old folders and carried on with no glitches precisely where he or she left off from the previous lifetime.
b) The person identified unique (could not have been suggested by an old acquaintance of the deceased) evidence of the deceased identity’s life.
c) We determined that the past life identity was suggested to the preclear by others, or there was no evidence (unique information provided by preclear that he or she could not have been briefed on by another).”
You may or may not know, Hubbard discusses on the OT6/7 materials: misidentification – how one entity can think he is another. So this begs the question: How many of those who are reborn Scientologists are actually entities’s thinking they were the being in control?
Mimsey
“Us”, not “him/her” = Responsibility
IMHO, your statements are one the most accurate I’ve ever read on the subject and are very aligned with the LRH’s Factors.
Very thanks, my “other ME”, for your contribution to “OUR” freedom.
Much Love, IdealGoal.
I am curious why lack of evidence that “entities” take new bodies is proof that LRH tech is incorrect. My first question when I came upon Scn was “where do the new spirits come from?” I am OTV and I don’t remember my last life. Why should an entity?
How would you respond?
I already covered this here and later. Read my OT 8 post.
Short answer here; Most Scientologists I’ve met remember some of their past lives (last included) – the sheer statistics would dictate At Least One proven case of returning entity – one that would have – according to the tech – the Clearing BTs procedure run on them. Not ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE exists. So why would one believe there are entities at all – except for LRH saying so?
Geir “So why would one believe there are entities at all – except for LRH saying so?”
Your last sentence is very interesting… Opens up roads to different reality, thoughts, believes.
No one should believe becouse LRH said it.
But by the time one have studied and solo audited OT 3 and the above levels including OT8 and dont have reality that there are other beings out in the universe who dont have body and dont need one in order to create and expreince.. in other word exist than I truly believe have missed a great deal.. mostly what auditing is about.
Those ”Enteties” in the universe are same as you and I… without the body. If you believe that there are no ENTETIES out there than you believe that when the body stops working you will be no more your-self.
What do you think you will be without the body?
You will lose all your connection to the MEST Universe but you will be aware but only as much the minus erased mass…and you wont even have a tag around your neck saying ”BT” but you will be one.
I find it interesting that people enter into scientology to gain knowledge on spirituality, get auditing to erase the MEST considerations which made them believe that they are SOLID, yet when they gain a bit of reality on what is spirituality means they demand proof of it, by demanding proof indicates that they have not gained enough reality on the spiritual universe because their belief is still strongly rooted in the SOLID where everything can be proved.
Spirituality dont need proof… because when one attain that state one knows one is a spiritual entety… and nothing but nothing can shake that reality and most of all one no longer looking for proof… if one would be doing that that is the indicator one has not attained that state..