Geir Isene on TV2 with Trude Teige

Here it is. In Norwegian only – the Interview I did on the program “TRUDE/”;

Thanks to AnonymousNorway for delivering this.

If you know Norwegian and are up for a challenge, then subtitles are very welcome 🙂

22 thoughts on “Geir Isene on TV2 with Trude Teige

    1. Perhaps it would be possible to obtain and post an English-language transcript of the interview?

  1. Since it is becoming very cumbersome to continue on the “radical new view” thread linked above, I shall be continuing any conversations from that thread on to this “Trude Teige” thread.

    Marildi said at: https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/a-radical-new-view-of-the-upper-scientology-levels-ok-here-goes/#comment-5184

    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.

    From: Essay #5: THE NATURE OF EXISTENCE

    A manifestation imposes a distinct awareness of itself in terms of its scope, extent or dimension. This overall sense of a manifestation may be referred to as SPACE.

    .

  2. Marildi said at https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/a-radical-new-view-of-the-upper-scientology-levels-ok-here-goes/#comment-5187

    “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…

    All creation starts with the manifestation of a consideration. Of course, anything that has ever been created can also be dissolved. A consideration gains persistence to the degree it is altered and made more complex. The common denominator of all “compulsive action” may be said to be the desire to create. So, the genus of the reactive mind lies in the desire to create.

    Now I have no idea what “audited out in session” mean. To me iit is simply looking at the complexity and gradually dissolving it into simplicity.

    .

  3. Elizabeth said at https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/a-radical-new-view-of-the-upper-scientology-levels-ok-here-goes/#comment-5194

    “Remember two universes should not be compared.”

    That is an interesting consideration. If you hold this consideration then all your other considerations shall be limited by this consideration.

    A universe is simply a system. Two universes may be independent of each other like the x-axis and y-axis in Algebra. At their level they cannot be compared with each other. But both would be sub-systems to a higher system, such as, space; and from the viewpoint of space they can be and should be compared to gain a higher knowledge of the dimensions of space.

    Can you see a higher level from where you are Elizabeth?

    .

  4. isene said at https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/a-radical-new-view-of-the-upper-scientology-levels-ok-here-goes/#comment-5197

    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.

    I don’t understand what will not work according to Elizabeth either. Elizabeth seems to be operating on the wavelength of EMOTING. Isene seems to be working on the wavelength of LOOKING. Looking is higher than emoting on the Know-to-Mystery Scale. Looking is crystal clear, whereas, emoting is relatively fuzzy.

    Now I compared two universes here. Is it really that bad?

    .

  5. Elizabeth said at https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/a-radical-new-view-of-the-upper-scientology-levels-ok-here-goes/#comment-5198

    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.

    A momentary mock-up exists in momentary time. A momentary mock bring momentary awareness, and that is momentary space. A momentary mock-up is momentarily manifested and that is momentary energy. That momentary mock-up exists momentarily as a unit, and that is momentary matter.

    A momentary creation = momentary MEST. This is LOOKING.

    A momentarily creation=experience. This is EMOTING.

    .

  6. Marildi said at https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/a-radical-new-view-of-the-upper-scientology-levels-ok-here-goes/#comment-5193

    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!

    Well, Marildi, yours seems to be fuzzy emoting too. If one is aware of an object then that object has space. Period. Now you may indulge in all kind of speculations but they won’t have the clarity of looking.

    Anyway, I have come up this solution to Geir not starting a new thread for you. We shall simply hijack another thread of his. That will teach him a lesson for dilly-dallying.

    .

  7. Geir, can you briefly sum-up the key points of what was discussed? And, how many viewers do you think see this show? Of course, if it goes viral, that’s a different story as far as stats go.

    Thanks for anything you can offer.
    Bryan

    1. We covered my history, my experiences in the church, my viewpoints on the church, celebrities, that I have had many wins, my viewpoint on Scientology, past lives, my viewpoint on existence…

      Viewers; a few hundred thousands.

      1. Very well done, then.

        Helping people to differentiate between the current church under Miscavige, and the original intentions of L. Ron Hubbard, is important.

        If and when the full truth of the Miscavige situation comes to light, many current Scientology celebrities will be awfully ashamed.

        Thanks for being in comm.

  8. Oh my god! Dude you are soo busted! Trude is shamelessly flirting with you!
    (Trude/Isene – Del 2 00:12 )

  9. Marildi said at https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/a-radical-new-view-of-the-upper-scientology-levels-ok-here-goes/#comment-5227

    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.

    Elizabeth is an artist. What an artist does is to provide a general framework that is engaging, and let people fill in their blanks. A good artist, thus, gets the viewer to invest in his/her art. With that the art does get greatly appreciated by those who invest in it.

    A person who is looking does not invest that way. He recognizes the general framework for what it is, and the blanks for what they are. Thus, a looker may be more choosey about what he or she appreciates. And what he/she would appreciate would truly be a great work of art.

    .

    1. “Elizabeth is an artist. What an artist does is to provide a general framework that is engaging, and let people fill in their blanks. A good artist, thus, gets the viewer to invest in his/her art. With that the art does get greatly appreciated by those who invest in it.”

      I enjoy a lot Elizabeth´s posts and admire her very much.
      I also see her as an accomplished artist, she might have achieved one basic goal here, turning her whole life into a work of art……….And even seeing her whole track that way!

  10. Marildi said at https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/a-radical-new-view-of-the-upper-scientology-levels-ok-here-goes/#comment-5225

    … 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. 🙂

    The model that seems to be developnig is that of a central core surrounded by consideration and its derivatives, layers upon layers. The central core may be called the self, which “perceives” the “sensory stimulus” through these layers of considerations. These “layers of considerations” interpret, define and filter what the self perceives.

    “Attention” is a filter that the self uses to perceive selectively. “Intention” is the mechanism that controls the Attention filter.

    “Memories” are the patterns lodged in these “layers of considerations.” Attention may provide these patterns to the self, but not the considerations in which these patterns reside. To get the considerations themselves a person must look. When the person looks, these patterns in the considerations start to dissolve.

    Now the “considerations” that one is looking at, may themselves be patterns on a deeper layer (derivative) of considerations. When one looks at that deeper layer, then this “pattern of consideration” might also dissolve. And so it goes until the self encounters itself at the deepest point.

    And then the self itself may dissolve quietly or in a burst of glory.

    .

  11. Elizabeth said at https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/a-radical-new-view-of-the-upper-scientology-levels-ok-here-goes/#comment-5220

    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.

    Reality is just reality. Even when you challenge another reality, such as, Buddhism, you are actually challenging your own perception. You just have to sort out your own perception. So, any reality is just one’s perception. That’s all I need to know about it.

    Now to look at “how to transition from reality to what is beyond reality”, is an interesting subject.

    .

  12. Marildi said at https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/a-radical-new-view-of-the-upper-scientology-levels-ok-here-goes/#comment-5209

    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.

    “Does not contain survival” simply means that it does not contain an alter-is because it is alter-is that produces survival.

    That is what LOOKING is… to see things for what they are, at any moment, and at any level.

    .

Have your say

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s