A few months ago I went to the end of civilization and had a profound change of viewpoint. I will always remember and always cherish that trip to Endesh, the village in northern Tanzania. It gave my viewpoints in life a real shaking.
But that just isn’t enough.
A change like that is great, yes, but it just can’t beat looking at my own fundamental viewpoints, purposes and flaws. A real and systematic look at myself. To become a better person, to regain my self.
That just happened.
In less than a week I have gone through a significant change. I found a very basic flaw in my character that has diminished my potential since a very long time – a flaw that has gotten me into trouble almost daily. Sometimes it would result in just small daily issues, small road bumps. Occasionally it would give me more serious problems. And I just tackled this flaw.
If that wasn’t enough, I also had a look at a very fundamental purpose of mine in a whole new light. I discovered why I have the ambitions I have and why it sometimes makes me go in wrong directions or sometimes in no direction at all. I understand why I do what I do.
Now these, to me, are significant changes. And they have come from some serious soul searching.
I haven’t had Scientology auditing since 2006 (when I attested to OT 8). In the past week, one of the best trained auditors in the world, Piere Ethier has been staying in our house giving me something really powerful called L11 (List 11). Like me, Pierre has left the Church of Scientology and gives counseling outside the reach of the Scientology Thought Police. For a mere fraction of the price charged in the CoS, I have gotten more than I could ask for, more significant change than I hoped for. Truly inspiring stuff.
Geir Isene - uncut 
Ha! Good looking. Well done.
.
Surely u can b a little more specific.
I was waiting for someone to ask that question 🙂 And I just may be a bit more specific in this comment thread. Perhaps later today. I just had to throw this blog post out there at the moment I had the inspiration.
Brilliant Geir, great to hear your successes!
truly wonderful your wins are. reading your communication i felt your space your energy, your universe, of course this is not the first time but now I felt your deep imotion. it is my blessing to share the universes of other. thank you for allowing me to have that. Elizabeth
L11 addresses IMPLANT TO HARM. Per Technical Dictionary
IMPLANT, 1. a painful and forceful means of overwhelming a being with artificial purpose or false concepts in a malicious attempt to control and suppress him. (Aud 71 ASHO) 2 . an electronic means of overwhelming the thetan with a significance. (HCOB 8 May 63) 3 . an unwilling and unknowing receipt of a thought. An intentional installation of fixed ideas, contrasurvival to the thetan. (SH Spec 83, 6612C06)
This seems to putting the cause elsewhere. I believe that, ultimately, it is the person oneself who generated that consideration that underlies the so-called “implant”. I believe that a person can run out such incidents/considerations through looking in the natural way by letting the mind unstack itself. A bit of guidance in following the non-optimum attention is all that may be required.
Of course the person himself is at cause – that is the very basis for my wins on L11.
Vinaire there are times when one should not give any advise,Since advise was not asked for. But I am giving it to you now. Since you have no understanding of auditing than you have no reality therefore there should be no advise in that direction. You can stack your reactive mind any way you wish but sessions, auditing is a totally personal matter so are the wins. It is a privilege to hear somebody’s win and have a glimpse into their private universe.
I would be careful to evaluate Vinaire’s background without having that data available to you.
geir I have all his data plus plus and your too, since that knowledge he has and you have the basic about spirituality you both have learned from me. It is you who have no reality on my background. You should have asked, and too bad you did not duplicate what I have written in your blog you could have learned a few things yourself. Your ARC B, your ridge on me is from past life, handle it. Lessons you cannot give to me you are not qualified to do that. Good day, you may erase this.
Eh, what?
Firstly, I have no ARC break with you. However, I felt you were shooting from your hip when accusing Vinaire of being ignorant. He is not.
Secondly, I have tried to duplicate what you have written and at one occasion I asked you to clarify the meaning of your comment to in fact be able to understand what you wrote. You refused to do so. And now you say “too bad you did not duplicate what I have written in your blog”. Don’t you find that funny? I do.
And thirdly, when you say “Lessons you cannot give to me you are not qualified to do that.” – I believe that is among the most arrogant things I have read. Because I truly believe that anyone can learn from anyone – without being “qualified to give lessons”. I learn from my kids, from my colleagues, from the cat next door, from anyone – and at surprising times.
And lastly, when you say “our ARC B, your ridge on me is from past life, handle it.”, I will let that reflect back on you.
It seems that Scientology auditing done a certain way can boost one’s ego and arrogance, which appears to the person as a sense of “confidence” and “invincibility.”
.
Vinaire, from my sometimes sideline view of the comm cycles that have been going on between Elizabeth and others, it seems to me that there has been – simply put – a good bit of mis-communication. The many components of the comm formula get violated commonly enough, but even more so in writing than in person – and substantially more so when there is a significant language barrier involved.
For what it’s worth, here’s what I have understood, based not only on what Elizabeth has said here but elsewhere. When she says that you have no reality on her background, she is specifically referring to her own reality of having been the Buddha (stated right here on this blog, but more subtly so than in other places). So when she says she has your data, your basic knowledge about spirituality, she is referring to the principles of Buddhism that you know – that were thus “learned from me.”
More importantly, though, is that she feels strongly about having learned from her auditing some truths that she feels are not contained in Buddhism or in Scientology and wants fiercely to communicate not only those truths but – even more importantly – the fact that they were found by using some very simple Scientology auditing tech. She has stated that it is actually her amends to redirect all those lost souls stranded on the Buddhist route that essentially doesn’t arrive – which she feels responsible for – and onto a route that does arrive.
She’s compared for herself what can be attained on the Buddhist route to what she has attained through her “solo auditing”. I don’t know a lot about Buddhism, but what I understand from her about her gains is that she has been able to look way down the track and discover some very basic basics regarding agreements and considerations in the MEST universe – looking directly at what actually occurred.
And I get that she can leave her body in a much more thorough (more exterior – as in the Scale of Exteriorization in Scn 0-8) way than I’ve heard others describe their exterior experiences, operating without the limitations of certain considerations, and she has tried her best to express the joys of doing so. These are the gains that I personally can heartily acknowledge and validate – not because they sound good but because they ring of truth based on other truths.
It seems to me that her latest comments are a result of her frustration about not accomplishing all she had intended. It’s unfortunate if she decides to no longer participate here as it seemed to be of both actual and potential benefit to both her (as she herself expressed) and us – learning from each other.
P.S. Where I say, “She’s compared for herself what can be attained on the Buddhist route… I should have added “and the Scientology route.”
And at the end of that paragraph, “looking directly at what actually occurred,” it might be clearer to say, “looking directly at her own track and seeing how and why those considerations and agreements were made.”
Marildi, I am simply looking at the following points:
> Elizabeth seems to hold that solo auditing is the only way to go, without explaining it.
> She has challenged me several times for what I write without commenting or discussing them.
> I get the impression that she wants to get into a fight of “I am right and you are wrong.” I have avoided that.
> There is no effort on her part to understand what Geir and I have said at times.
> She seems to be intent on promotoing herself and her ways instead of discussing knowledge, ideas or principles in general.
> An understanding and tolerant person does not get upset easily. Elizabeth does.
> Who cares about beng or not being Buddha? Set ego aside, discuss knowledge, and remove confusion.
> She seems to think that what she knows, others don’t. That is an assummption on her part.
> More than addressing general confusions she seems to be more interested in talking about her accomplishments.
> I sense her attention to be more on herself than on helping others by clarifying things.
.
Vinaire, I do understand everything you’ve pointed out. As for your observations that had to do with “attitude,” as I said earlier for me it centered around mis-communication greatly amplified by the barrier of language – and probably based on lack of trust or just perceived lack of trust (possibly on both sides). For that matter, even someone’s personal shortcomings are ultimately based on imperfect communication ability. But you are basically right, “more communication, not less” would have resolved these things.
On some of your other observations:
>“Who cares about being or not being Buddha? Set ego aside, discuss knowledge, and remove confusion.”
She has expressed that she only makes a point of having been Buddha because she feels this is the kind of thing that others will pay attention to. And she does want others to pay attention so that she can let them know what she’s discovered – which she wants to shout to the rooftops!
>“She seems to think that what she knows, others don’t.”
Fair enough. And that’s because she hasn’t known or heard of anyone who has described experiencing anything as high on the Gradient Scale of Exteriorization (in Scn 0-8) as she has and is experiencing.
>“More than addressing general confusions she seems to be more interested in talking about her accomplishments.” “She seems to be intent on promoting herself and her ways instead of discussing knowledge, ideas or principles in general.”
Elizabeth considers that no valid Path lies in debating knowledge and sees such debates (involving “whose implants are the best”) to be mere reiteration of the automatic considerations that keep one bound to MEST and thus limit one’s true OT ability. She earnestly and fervently wants to promote that taking the direct route to understanding and enlightenment – by going backtrack and seeing for yourself, as she has done – is truly “the only way to go,” as you put it.
Additionally, her brand of “knowledge” doesn’t include all the terms and constructs of such things as physics or even Scientology, which others here use in their communication, and she has been open and honest enough to state that she doesn’t understand these things and doesn’t want to debate things she doesn’t understand – in other words, she stated clearly the reason she hasn’t tried to answer questions or discuss “principles in general.”
>“Elizabeth seems to hold that solo auditing is the only way to go, without explaining it.” “I sense her attention to be more on herself than on helping others by clarifying things.”
Actually, she has explained it. She simply uses the rudiments (the ones done at the beginning of auditing sessions), primarily the ARC break rud, in fact. I find this very intriguing! I’ve read parts of the book “Super Scio” by Ken Ogger (The Pilot), who apparently had a thorough grounding in Scn and then went on to research it further. He has a similar viewpoint to Geir’s and others’ who believe that continued research is needed in Scn – like anything else. And he wanted to simplify the tech (as Geir did in his “Radical New Look…” post) and to eliminate what was distracting and what wasn’t needed and even what was harmful. Elizabeth is in the same camp – she worked out for herself a simplified tech.
In Ogger’s book, he states that the Grades (which are essentially expanded rudiments, the way I see it ) do more for pcs than the OT levels – and that this is the route to true OT and is ALL that is needed. I’m also reminded of what Marty Rathbun expressed one time about Grade 4 being one of the biggest areas of gain in Scn. And Geir’s win on L11 could fit into the category of Grade 4, on an OT scale of depth.
Elizabeth’s own experience has been that the simple use of rudiments has given her far more OT ability than all the OT levels (through old VII) that she got in the Church. I happen to think she has been (and is) worthy of listening to and taken seriously, in spite of any mistakes or shortcomings.
Thanks Vinaire, for responding to my post and giving me the chance to state my considerations. 🙂
P.S. She herself has said that she still has things to learn in the MEST universe, and of course is still auditing too.
I hope she is learning from this exchange.
.
Vinaire: “I hope she is learning from this exchange.”
Not just trying to be “tit for tat” but I hope you have too.
Elizabeth, you should look instead of just assuming. I hope you don’t do this in your auditing.
.
Biggest congratulations and compliments to you! Do you have any immediate plans for your new “self”?
I am not even finished with L11 Expanded, so I will see at the end of this week 😉
Ref: L11 basics
“Man is basically good” is a biased statement because good and bad are just viewpoints. A more scientific statement would be, “There is a state of balance, or equilibrium, in man.”
.
Irrelevant to my wins.
I am just reviewing the L11 basics. To me the basic datum would be,
“Man has an inherent sense of equilibrium” instead of, “Man is basically good.”
That equilibrium is disturbed, whenever man considers something that is not consistent with his earlier considerations. Win would be returning back to one’s natural equilibrium.
.
I would say that a win would be any movement toward one’s natural state of equilibrium.
.
Indeed.
I would say that assumption of self will bring about a disturbance in the basic equilibrium, especially when that self persists.
Vinaire yes the man is basically good only his bank not allow him to be. Look up invalidation and evaluation for you self, how it should be applied in your communication with otheres. By the way I know what I am doing now, better put your filters up or shields, what ever works for you.
Good is not something absolute. Good is a matter of opinion. “Man is basically good,” sounds nice; but when you really look at it, it doesn’t go deep enough. It is not a scientific statement.
.
Vinaire
Yes, it is true, ““Man is basically good,” “is not a scientific statement”. it is a “philosophical” statement (though it can be demonstrated, simply not in MEST terms)
You also said that “Good is a matter of opinion” (also a philosophical statement, or, in fact, an opinion in itself)
Both of these statements are perhaps more “true” in the field of the spirit than in the field of matter,energy,space and time (MEST), because MEST doesn’t have any “opinions”, does not “value” anything, and has no knowledge of its existence, or even a concept of “truth”, as far as I know.
So, now I have a question for you, if you are willing to “play”. You say that “it doesn’t go deep enough”. OK, Do you have some ideas on how you would alter the statement so that it does, or do you consider the statement totally irrelevant?
Eric S
Eric,
Please see my explanation here:
http://www.scnforum.org/index.php?t=msg&S=1dfa8d26363cd07769ba554e1752c308&th=819&goto=18724#msg_18726
MEST is an opinion that is very, very fixed in place
Vinaire.
Vinaire how can you comment on something of which you have zero reality. Could you explaine that to me? Very plain english please because I am missing my filters.
Why does one need any “reality” when one can look and assess directly what is there?
.
Vinnie, when one ‘looks’ what one ‘sees’ IS ‘his reality’, by definition.
Have you ever heard of scientology? That particular definition of ‘reality’ is in the very basic scientology materials on a triangle called “A-R-C”. Check it out!
It will help your attempts to communicate with others on this blog, if you learn to use a common vocabulary, learn to speak the same language, get hep to the lingo we use here, capisch? Since Elizabeth was a scientologist, she uses scientology lingo to express herself sometimes, verstehen?
Or maybe you are not actually trying to communicate with others here? Maybe you have some other purpose?
I would hate to think you sometimes deliberately confuse what others are posting here. That could be construed as ‘unfriendly’ at best, and as ‘hostile’ at worst….
I was responding to how Elizabeth used the word reality. She implied:
(1) Vinaire has no reality on Hubbard’s statement “Man is basically good.”
(2) Therefore, Vinaire has no credibility when commenting on this subject.
Vinaire’s response implied:
(1) If one can simply look and see what is there in the present moment, one doesn’t need any reality.
Here the word “reality” was used in the sense of “prior exposure” or “understanding.”
.
Vinaire, I do believe she got the impression (from your posts) that you have never been a Scientologist or had any auditing, etc. Just telling you for your info. No need to point out that she made an incorrect assumption, or whatever. We’ve gone back and forth enough and each of us knows by now the other’s viewpoint. Just letting you know, as this has come up several times. Peace. 🙂
That makes me wonder does she really know what she is talking about? There is a big outpoint in her thinking.
Vinaire, most of your posts that relate to Scn are pretty anti-Scn. So anyone who hasn’t read the rare few here and there where you say something that indicates you have been a Scn might conclude you haven’t. Can’t you stop picking on her?
Really good stuff Geir. It makes me very happy for you and for each reverberation this has initiated.
There’s nothing to compete with this type of win, is there?
Correct.
It’s encouraging to hear this.
Please share more as you continue to have cognitions.
Thanks Geir,
Bryan
Excellent! It’s like when I came to Ron’s Org for my first service. The change for better was just unbelievable.
Good to hear that, Geir. Cheers:)
I had also Pierre come to my house to do a review of L11 and of L12, did also L10 and OT8 also for a fraction of the cost of the Cof$.
I recommend to many who need to continue on the bridge in spite of having left the Cof$ ad or being “declared”.
Ciao
(In reference to L11 basics) From HCOB 21 Jan, 1960, JUSTIFICATIQN:
“People withhold overt acts because they conceive that telling them would be another overt act.”
Is that true? I don’t think so. I think that a person withholds because he wants to save his skin. Or, because he is simply confused.
.
I have often withheld something because I thought it would create more damage to reveal the overt (including in this is of course also saving one’s skin).
Vinaire you should see my trophy room jus how many skis are there on display from the past all were wery well preserved stuffed, mind you bit dusty by now. A huge collection all because of the onverts and withholds of course not mentioning the confusions. All because of the filters and I did not unstack my mind. But stacked up.
Its been a good week. I’m glad I could be in Oslo getting auditing with you by the amazing Pierre Ethier. Lots of laughs. Lots of theta. Lots of amazing discussions. The adventure continues always. Create-Create-Create-Create.
And you are one amazing being
Geir, perhaps you have discussed this before somewhere, but your opinion as I understand it is that we all belong somehow and that the universe is created in agreement by ourselves as we see it? The things we don’t see is simply not there and not created? Feel free to compare to a POV computer game (Counterstrike, Doom, Half-life etc).
This is a theory that of course is entirely mind-boggling (and promoted by other persons as well), even though I’m open to anything as long as there’s proof of it.
Do you have any support for these ideas? I know about the double slit experiment indicating that the wave is collapsed to a particle when observed and some of Hubbards theories about IS-NESS etc. Hubbard has also written about this in the R&D-volumes where he claims a theta body existed in the beginning and from there on thetans were released.
And of course, going back to the idea of an infinite knowingness being bored and inventing games it could from there be derived that MANY souls (or viewpoints) limited to that only one viewpoint were created by that knowingness to get the game more exciting and so on. So perhaps we’re all just derivations with a consciousness (like a supercomputer playing with itself in terms of many players with their own limited consciousness.) 🙂
Perhaps we’re backed-up by a massive almost infinite body of knowledge (creating the universe as we see it in agreement etc) and that our viewpoints are very limited versions of it. Compare with a supercomputer creating a POV-computer game (requiring lots of power) but with great postulated limits for the viewpoints. Most or all people on earth are not even remotely close to being infinitely smart and some are pretty dull (to say the least!) so we could be very limited versions of what is theoretically possible, but with an (almost) infinitely smart “behind-the-scenes computer/knowledge” creating our universe?
Just a theory of course.
Another idea is that there’s such a thing as God and that he was infinitely knowledgeable and that we are derived from there, actually being separate viewpoints with no hope of joining together ever in the future.
By the way, I don’t like these ideas of “creating a game”. It makes life meaningless. 😉 I just want to be an abberated body, working and having fun.
And a good theory it is 🙂
Your opening interpretation of my view is correct.
For backup of my view, read the book Quantum Enigma – Physics encounters consciousness.
One of these other theories about the workings of the physical universe might make more sense than the idea of it being continuously and newly created by individuals completely independent of each other – which I’m thinking could only work in a totally deterministic universe (and I don’t buy that). Because otherwise, with the inclusion of free will, choice, new creation, creativity, etc – how would we all continue to be in agreement and create in unison a universe that everyone perceives the same way? (Hope that’s not just gobbledygook to anyone but me!) Anyway, I’m leaning toward a oneness – in some sense. Has to be.
But that “no hope of joining together ever in the future” isn’t as mournful as just being “an aberrated body, working and having fun.” But I’m pretty sure you were just kidding. And I actually know what you mean – we don’t want it to just be “a game,” we want it REAL. 🙂
Geir, sorry for going off topic on this thread to celebrate your fabulous win. But I had to find something I felt like replying to so I could remember this time to request to be notified of new comments – and not miss out when you start telling us more! Plus, your wins might even include some insight on this subject of the universe…
Sure. No problem.
Hi Marildi,
I think Hubbard’s construct of the “3 universes” speaks to this.
What we agree upon that we continuously create has limits or parameters. It is limited to the things we have or hold “in common”.This is what Hubbard often means when he refers to “the MEST universe”.
It is the “common playing field”. Or, the common canvas we have agreed to create in a certain way. It is part of ARC triangle. But on this common canvas, each of us paints differently, paints his/her own work. That is where free will, choice, individual creativity come in.
We need the ability to have some of both to be “balanced”.
The common canvas is continuously created by all individuals who have agreed to do so for the sake of having a canvas they can all paint on in order to have ARC. Why? In order to have Games and Interest and Admiration. To have exchange. To have a place where one can place mockups and have them be admired by others. It is about sharing. That’s what Ron called it – the shared universe. We only mock up the shared universe in sync by agreement. It is a necessary component of ARC. Reality means agreed upon. If that is taken away, eliminated, then so are Communication and Affinity. So we don’t take it away, we put it there. And we have apparently put it on automatic. So then it starts to feel like an other-determinism. There’s the “downward spiral” right there.
Hi Valkov,
Yes, I do understand the LRH construct of the MEST universe and the automatic aspect of it you described above. What I’m saying, though, is that on that common canvas where each of us paints differently, others (all others) are able to perceive the brush strokes that we as individuals originate by our own free will. That is, the picture on the canvas changes and is perceivable by one and all.
Actually, the canvas analogy may not be the best to describe what I mean. It’s more like a piece of sculpture – or the material for – that was created in the beginning. It has certain precise properties agreed upon by all and that are unchanging. But the sculpture itself gets shaped and molded in different ways by means of the free will of individuals.
LRH talks about evolution as an example of theta impinging upon MEST to conquer it (in Science of Survival) and for me evolution would be a manifestation of the free will of theta – within the original limits or parameters of the MEST universe. The new (or changed) life forms created are then part of the re-sculpted, universally perceived physical universe. And this is the point where the question of synchronization comes in – how is it that we all do perceive that same piece of sculpture? Right there is where it seems there has to be some sort of one-ness of mind. What do you think?
P.S. Maybe a better example would be the alteration of some physical property that scientists have performed and which is now a part of the physical universe.
P.P.S. I used evolution as a “grand” example of what must be happening on a huge scale in countless ways – every time free will is exerted. Otherwise, to repeat myself, perceiving the same “picture” would only be possible with an utterly pre-determined playing out of the original agreement, a sequence of causes and effects all stemming from the original. And that just doesn’t compute, so it seems that we do create – within an orginally agreed-upon paramenter of certain basics – and that others universally perceive those new “creations.” (My reasoning may be off somewhere but I hope not too embarrassingly so – LOL).
Marildi, I believe I get what you’re saying.
My point is simply that ARC is Theta. Agreements(R) are made in and by Theta. Communication takes place in and among Theta. The MEST universe complies.
It is clay in Theta’s hands. The Communication may occur below a person’s level of awareness, as may his Agreement. But they still occur, with or without his apparent participation or knowledge, if that happens to be the condition he’ in.
So in that sense, we could be considered to be “all one”,or in a much higher degree of Comm than we ordinarily think of ourselves as being. We agree and thus we see.
So much for “looking”.
Those who do not agree are likely playing another game, perhaps elsewhere. Or just sulking somewhere! 🙂
Valkov, I agree, communication must take place in and among theta – somehow, sometime – if it’s true that the physical universe is a creation of theta and that each individual’s perception of it is the same as every other individual’s. It’s the “somehow, sometime” part that would relate to whether or not we are acting as one or as many in PT – the point I was originally wondering about.
If each of us is re-creating the physical universe newly, every split/Planck second, the agreement on what exactly is to be created would seem to be going on newly each of those moments as well. And the question remains then of whether or not it amounts to some predetermined choreography – to account for every single change of particles in space. Or maybe it could be likened to a film of the time track that is already in the “can” – i.e. already canned in the minds of each and every thetan in the physical universe game – a 3-dimensional motion picture being run in unison by one and all. I think that some philosophers have argued this type of predeterminism but there are many others who “Know” otherwise (and I like to include myself in that knowingness ;-)).
Anyway, it seems that at the beginning of time there must have been agreement – a postulate, actually – to perceive one another’s created particles (or dimension points, as in The Factors), but the question remains as to the uniform perception of the non-agreed upon, non-predetermined, newly-postulated MOVEMENTS of those particles. And it now occurs to me that there may also have been a postulate to perceive each other’s decisions/postulates that have to do with the motion of particles (as I guess all decisions do in this universe) – and to that degree at least, we are all forever-connected, if not One. Come to think of it – a postulate to be aware of each other’s postulates might be a pretty good criterion right there for Oneness – and yet individuality and Individuals at the same time. (How’s that for some thinking/writing out loud? :-))
P.S. Valkov, I didn’t get what you meant by, “So much for ‘looking’.”
Also, where you said, “Those who do not agree are likely playing another game, perhaps elsewhere. Or just sulking somewhere!” I thought of another possibility: the autistic, who seem basically out of “touch.”
Looking, to me, implies the existence of distance.
Communication, and ARC, speaks to me of “oneness of mind” by being able to occupy the same space as. We are of one mind when we agree to be of one mind, otherwise not necessarily.
It is not a given that we are all perceiving exactly the same piece of sculpture all the time. We start to perceive it when we agree to it or become aware of it.
If you and I are looking at a forest, you may notice something about it that I do not notice. At that point, it exists for you but does not exist for me. If you call my attention to it, it may then begin to exist for me also.
I don’t usually use the word “telepathy”, but my idea of ARC is similar to that concept. Telepathy is instantaneous communication regardless of MEST distance. It is not of MEST, it is of Thought.
Form follows function. There is no inherent form or structure, it is all flux. MEST is form. MEST is the Gordian Knot. ARC cuts through the Gordian Know, dissolves it, forms it, shapes it, reshapes it.
I don’t try to figure out the mechanics of the “syncing” or whatever because mechanics are just mechanics. They are of MEST, they can change in an instant. Syncing is done by Thought which is ARC. There may be some mechanics involved in ARC, I don’t know. They would be simpler and more basic than MEST mechanics I would think.
Sorry I can’t be more helpful than this.
Thanks, Valkov, I’m sort of at a “flat point” for now in my ponderings on this point. It was good that I could confidently consider you were “there” to bounce my thoughts off. That did the trick. 🙂
Valkov, the inconsistency in your statement is that you seem to think that communication, or ARC, does not require distance. Take a good look at the communication formula in Axiom 28.
AXIOM 28: Communication is the consideration and action of impelling an impulse or particle from source-point across a distance to receipt–point, with the intention of bringing into being at the receipt–point a duplication and understanding of that which emanated from the source–point.
.
There are no ‘three universes’. There is just one universe as programmed in our minds. The idea of “three universes” could just be part of that same programming.
.
Come on, Vinaire. It’s just a way of naming that which we all generally perceive, as distinct from what each individual perceives in their own mind’s eye – which generally isn’t perceived by others. It’s just naming a couple of easily observable phenomena.
If you want to go from there to say they’re all (all 3 universes) programmed, great. But to quibble over reasonable terms just confuses the issue. We have to agree to speak the same “language” and communicate with a few agreed-upon constructs, for starters – so that we can get on to what may not be readily observable – and is worth discussing.
All these ideas of “I”, “you”, and “another” are derivatives of considerations. They appear as apparent sources.
This is how I see it. You may, of course, see it differently.
.
Vinnie is compulsively making his thinking different from that of others as usual. Especially, his thinking must be different from Hubbard’s. But must be different from yours and mine, too. Thus Vinnie, the anti-individualist, asserts his individuality, no matter the cost.
I am just looking at all possibilities that come from consistency. Why be stuck with one theory and not look at other possiblities?
Are you against research?
.
Vinaire, there have been times when I’ve been able to follow what you’re saying and it’s given me a new viewpoint. I’m interested in your ideas but when you use too many “foreign” terms and (especially) constructs and then don’t at least “bridge” them over somewhat to the more conventional ones I (and most of us) know – you lose me. Consider the following, from Dianetics 55:
“We have seen an entire race of philosophers go out of existence since 1790. We have seen philosophy become a very unimportant subject, where once it was a very common coin amongst the people. The philosophers, themselves, put themselves out of communication with the people by insisting on using words of special definition which could not be assimilated with readiness by persons in general.”
I have no idea what you are referring to. Please be specific and I shall be happy to explain it.
.
Yes, it seems to be “oneness” of the genetic programming in the mind.
😀
Okay, not implausible to me, at all.
But whence has that programming come? (Sorry, I’ve been stricken biblical, talking all this Genesis stuff. :-)) And don’t tell me something like, it was a bunch of monkeys pounding on a bunch of typewriters. Or however that goes… Keep to the plausible, just for me. 😉
Oh, and should I take a win on that 😀 I got out of you?
The ultimate source of that programming is, of course, unknowable; but the core of that programming seems to be the SELF (thetan, soul, or whatever).
.
Vinaire: “The ultimate source of that programming is, of course, unknowable; but the core of that programming seems to be the SELF (thetan, soul, or whatever).”
How did you arrive at that conclusion?
By “looking.” But even this observation may change as the looking continues. 🙂
I am questioning everything until I get it. And, of course, it is fun to hijack Geir’s thread.
.
Vinaire, I basically asked how you came to see something (came to your conclusion) and you answered “by looking.” This is a no-answer. Obviously, I was asking for what it was specifically that you had looked at or the sequence of things you looked at – to come to the conclusion you did.
What has that to do with anything? If you have a question on the datum I have put forth then let’s discuss it.
.
Vinaire, you said, “What has that to do with anything? If you have a question on the datum I have put forth then let’s discuss it.D”
That WAS my question. I had no question on what you said. I wanted to know what you based your consideration on – what was your sequence of thought, starting with your basic premise(s) and your line of thought/reasoning from there. Or was it something you came to directly, intuitively…
There is nothing more than what I have already documented on my blog. I have been documenting my reasoning as I continue to look. If there are inconsistencies, I go back and look more deeply and revise the documentation.
.
Usually long dissertations can still be summed up in a nutshell. But okay.
“Genetic programming”? Are we now revealed as a biological determinist?
Are we all victims of our genetics?
It is an interesting possibility to look at.
.
Vinaire: `The ultimate source of that programming is, of course, unknowable; but the core of that programming seems to be the SELF (thetan, soul, or whatever).
“Of course” ?? Maybe this is so in your universe but others may have very different ideas.
For one to assert ‘of course’ does not lead to any discussion – it is really saying ‘ what I say is correct and anyone who disagrees is wrong. It really reminds me of some of the emphatic statements Alonzo has made in the past. While I love a good discussion, stating absolutes, when they are really just OPINION, is a non starter.
Then later on you say” But even this observation may change as the looking continues’.
When it’s your opinion, say so. I think most here would rather have an interesting discussion rather than being made wrong by such statements.
You know what you know Vinaire as does everyone else here (that is, until the next time you change the consideration wherein you now have a new ‘knowingness’.
We are all `looking` to a greater or lesser degree. `Looking at what` may be a better way to unravel this game we are in. It would seem to me that whatever I am looking at is NOT exactly as it is, or else I would be in a very different place, or not. 🙂
My opinion based on `any persistence must contain a lie`
Of course, it is my opinion. What else could it be?
.
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/06/26/significant-change/#comment-5463
Vin says: Of course, it is my opinion. What else could it be?
Well Vinnie, it could be a report of something you observed when you were supposedly ‘looking’. (At something)
You know, an observation, a fact, as opposed to an opinion.
You could report or describe a fact you saw while ‘looking’.
In fact, it appears you are just reporting the considerations(figure-figure) that your mind churns out as you ‘look’. You appear to be just sitting there and watching your mind, like the wheels on the bus, going round round round.
Naughty naughty. You know what buddha said about doing that. It maybe an interesting show, but there is no truth anywhere in it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oh99A86HraY
What do you think you are doing?
.
What makes you think I think? (About what I am doing)
Good theory H. – Funny too.
You’ll get this. I’ve been thinking that the wave collapse may be due to an inconsistency in the “code” that operates that automaticity. Matter is not really in two places at once.
And that when we observe matter to be in two places at once, it really isn’t – it is simply in alternately one place and then the other at Planck speed and so undetectable with extant technology.
The “observer” is providing the “nudge” that collapses the wave back to particle. I just haven’t quite had any inspiration as to why it goes back to particle. Must be a quality on the part of the observer.
But then would another observer nudge the result in another direction?
“You’ll get this. I’ve been thinking that the wave collapse may be due to an inconsistency in the “code” that operates that automaticity. Matter is not really in two places at once.”
That is a novel and intriguing idea.
Also, one could have many universes existing in the same space but blinking slightly off from each other.
All human bodies are very similar. In fact you can look at a body and easily tell if it is human.
Well, then why can’t all the human minds be similar. In other words, why can’t the programming of all human minds be similar.
The perception is an interpretation of the sensory input by the human mind. Thus, all perception can be said to be existing within the mind. In other words, the MEST universe reality exists within our minds as a program which is used to interpret sensory input.
Since there is similarity among human minds, they could be operating on the same program at the genetic level. And that is why we may be perceiving the same MEST universe.
So, the “reality of the MEST universe” may be made up of some genetic programming shared by all humans rather than some vague “agreement.”
The MEST universe is inside our heads.
.
Being a body much?
Of course! 🙂
Are you pretending to be something else?
Are body and spirit two different systems? Take a good look.
.
Do you always answer a question with a question? Or only most of the time? Does it serve some purpose, for you to do that??
What do you think of the Socratic method?
.
I’m wondering what is that thing that looked at your body/mind/genetic programming to come to this conclusion?
Good! Do let me know when you find that out.
.
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/06/26/significant-change/#comment-5288
Isene said, “I have often withheld something because I thought it would create more damage to reveal the overt (including in this is of course also saving one’s skin).”
It is difficult for me to think of an example where the damage would be exclusively to other than oneself. I think that the core consideration about damage is to oneself first and then to somebody else. It is a very selfish concern.
.
It doesn’t say that the damage would be “exclusively to other than oneself”.
The LRH datum under discussion is, “People withhold overt acts because they conceive that telling them would be another overt act.”
This is not a basic datum from my point of view. LRH treats it as a basic datum and comes up with conclusions, such as, “One leaves Scientology because one has overts.” This is not true always. Where overts and withholds are concerned, there are flaws in Hubbard’s theory.
To me overts are committed because of fixation on self. Take away that fixation and no more overts will be committed. To me this datum is of much more fundamental value.
.
The key ideas of HCOB 21 Jan, 1960, JUSTIFICATIQN are
(1) A person keeps the withhold because he thinks to give it up would be another overt.
(2) The person then commits another overt of “reducing the goodness or importance of the target of the previous overt.”
Well, the above does not add up. So, I doubt if Hubbard has the correct reason for withhold. He simply gives an explanation that is appealing; but it doesn’t fully explain.
In my opinion a person does not want to give up witholds simply to protect “self”. It is the attachment to “self” that keeps the person out of equilibrium.
To get an idea of self please see
KHTK 14: THE SELF AS THE LOOKER
Self is very important. It is extremely painful to let it go. One must protect self at any cost.
.
I cannot say I am in agreement with you all the way here. I know personally it to be true the points 1 & 2 above.
MEST universe data is never absolute. Instead of considering the veracity of a single fact, it is better to look at consistency and inconsistency (or in terms of outpoints as laid out in Data Series) among data.
Again, agreement is not important. What is important is consistency with one’s own considerations.
The inconsistency that I see between the two points mentioned in my last post is that in (1) the person does not want to commit another overt, yet in (2) the person goes ahead and commits another overt. Why is he not willing in the first case but willing in the second case?
This is inconsistent. It does not make sense with the explanations given by Hubbard.
.
This is really no different from the guy who doesn’t want to take drugs but later ends up as a drug addict. There are millions of similar examples. This is happening all the time. LRH points this out… and?
I chose not to ignore the inconsistency no matter how common it is.
.
Sure – but the inconsistency is in people’s behavior, not in Hubbard’s description of how people behave.
Well let’s see how far we can regress this one:
How or Why is consistency with one’s own considerations important?
The consideration that consistency with one’s own considerations is important, is itself merely a consideration.
Isn’t it’s importance simply an assigned arbitrary?
Consistency with one’s own consideration is important because he is in direct touch with them. What he thinks to be other people’s considerations are actually his own considerations on a via.
All considerations are arbitrary but they persist because of inconsistency.
.
This is not consistent with my experience.
The expanation given in HCOB 21 Jan, 1960, JUSTIFICATIQN in terms of the the following mechanism doesn’t go deep enough
– Here we have the source of the dwindling spiral.
— One commits overt acts unwittingly.
— He seeks to justify them by finding fault or displacing blame.
— This leads him into further overts against the same terminals
— which leads to a degradation of himself and sometimes those terminals.
– people who are guilty of overts demand punishment.
– They use it to help restrain themselves from (they hope) further violation of the dynamics.
– He is faced with total destruction unless we toughen up our postulates.
– Random, carping 1.1 criticism when not borne out in fact is only an effort to reduce the size of the target of the overt.
Hubbard was so attached to self that he made “individuality” as the core of his philosophy. It was just the opposite of Buddhism. It is the attachement to self that underlies the reason for withholds. And if the auditor does not address this basic reason the preclear would not really get out of the trap.
Getting the pc to interminably write his withholds is simply degrading him further as it is happening more and more in the COS today. The COS is able to exert its aberrated control over those who have bought the incomplete explanation given in this HCOB.
.
I agree completely on this:
“It is the attachement to self that underlies the reason for withholds”.
Yet that to me doesn´t include only our own selves but also the selves of people who are close to us, and even after vanishing attachment to our own self, we have the other´s attachment to consider.
Today is my Oscar Wilde´s Day, and this might come handy here:
“A little sincerity is a dangerous thing, and a great deal of it is absolutely fatal”
We also should remember this:
“A gentleman is one who never hurts anyone’s feelings unintentionally”.
And one which recognizes the truth underlying what you say:
“A true friend stabs you in the front”.
🙂
Good going, Rafael!
Yes, it is the false friend who stabs you in the back. LOL!
.
Listing questions are considered to be very sensitive and potentially dangerous in Scientology; but they are harmless when simply looked at using KHTK principles.
Here is a good question to be looked at with KHTK approach:
“Who or what would be harmed if a withhold is given up?”
One should be able to look at this question non-judgmentally, without searching and without resistance, if their case is in good shape, and they are familiar with KHTK principles.
.
.
.
Vinaire,
Let’s say a man cheats on his wife and then withholds it from her.
A year or so later, the wife is stricken with a terminal illness.
Shortly before she takes her last breath, would you have the husband admit his infidelity to her? Does she need to know about this at the very end of her life? Does she need to depart this world heart-broken in her final minutes? I believe this is a case of the most damage being done to the wife…..by a long shot, if the withhold is given up. I would think it quite cruel for the husband to reveal this to his loving wife at the end of her life. As for the husband…..he’s an asshole!
A year or so later is too late. Why has has he been withholding until then? The question is,
“What is the reason for withold?”
His wife was not sick when he committed the overt, or was she?
.
He already feels bad enough about cheating on her.
He probably has just enough integrity and concern to not want to crush her.
He also doesn’t want to get his ass caught, that’s for damn sure.
I believe in a person’s ability to make bad choices, feel terrible about them later, but not want to hurt the person they committed the overt against.
To say it’s only about protecting oneself is to take away the deep love and care we are all capable of feeling for another.
IMHO.
The way I see it is as follows. The core consideration is protecting self. Other considerations are simply justifications.
You don’t have to agree with my observation.
.
LRH talked about attributing everything to first dynamic considerations (I don’t recall the reference) and compared it to Freud’s attributing everything to the second dynamic. It can be done – but is short sighted. There are just too many examples that indicate otherwise (if one looks in a truly unbiased way). There are such things as soldiers giving up their own lives to save their company. Or parents readily giving their lives to save their children. Authentic martyrs of all kinds… It isn’t at all uncommon.
LRH also makes the point that when an individual (in his aberration) attempts to live only for himself, the consequence is to have all the other dynamics lined up against him. (Again, no reference, just my recall, and paraphrased.)
And Vinaire, I don’t get at all that you yourself are devoid of any purely altruistic impulses. 🙂
Dynamics are just viewpoints, and those viewpoints are held by self. LRH never moved beyond his self if you take a good look at him.
Any of us is no different. A soldier dying for his company sees honor in it for his self.
.
The way a person sees this issue may depend to a large extent on a person’s cultural background.
Anthropologists and other social scientists broadly describe cultures as being on a continuum from “shame cultures” to “guilt cultures”.
How you view what you need to withhold and why, may depend on whether you are from a shame culture or a guilt culture:
http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=559048
Thus a person coming basically from a shame culture orientation may find Hubbard’s view erroneous or incomprehensible. as Hubbard was himself from a guilt culture.
http://www.doceo.co.uk/background/shame_guilt.htm
The very definition and concept of what is an overt act differs in the two types of cultures.
Here is an excellent,detailed article with many examples of how Arab shame culture works, and how different that worldview is from Western “guilt” cultures:
http://nabataea.net/h%26s.html
Primary fear has to do with pain and loss. Theoretically, when there is no attachment there is no fear.
Shame and guilt follow wrongdoing. There has been a failure to compute rationally. Guilt follows when one is aware of it. Shame follows when others are also aware of it, and there is fear of losing one’s honor.
.
“The only aberration is denial of Self”.
The gimmick is in how you define “Self”.
If you define self as “the 1st dynamic”, it means one thing. If you define self as being comprised of “all 8 (or more) dynamics”, it means something else entirely.
Maybe you guys are just using two different definitions of the word “self”.
You could both(Vinaire and Marildi) be 100% right, based on the definition you are using.
Vinaire,
I feel that the reason a person feels bad about committing an overt is because he knows he is potentially hurting another being:
“- people who are guilty of overts demand punishment.
– They use it to help restrain themselves from (they hope) further violation of the dynamics.”
The dynamics are all about other people, animals, the earth, etc.
You make the comment: “Hubbard was so attached to self that he made “individuality” as the core of his philosophy.”
Well, Hubbard wrote quite a bit about the subject of Help and just how crucial it is to help others. He spent long hours, for decades, trying to figure out the fastest, most workable way to make people feel better.
Back when he ran things, courses and auditing were cheap, cheap, cheap. He will be remembered in 300 years from now for his body of work. Not for any typical human shortcomings he may have had.
I think that the reasom that LRH gives for withhold is itself a justification. LOL!
Pure and simple, a withhold is there to protect one self. Can you give me one exception?
And I mean a withhold right after committing the overt and not a year later.
.
Sure.
Your buddy tells you he just robbed a liquor store. He asks you to keep it a secret. You run into his wife an hour later. You withhold the fact of the robbery to protect her feelings more than his “safety”, truth be told.
I guess my question for you would be to prove that the guy who robbed the liquor store is totally and only interested in protecting himself.
My feeling is that a certain percentage of his need to withhold is because he really doesn’t want to make his wife feel worse about her own life, knowing she has a lame husband.
???
I don’t feel the need to prove anything.
I am not into playing games where knowledge is concerned.
I am simply looking at the inconsistency and calling it out.
If you don’t see it that way then that is fine.
You live with your observation and I live with mine.
.
How is that an exception? The overt was committed by your buddy and not by you. He is withholding it to save his ass.
.
Isn´t there a similarity between the consideration of havng commited an overt and the collapse of the wave function?
The game suddenly becomes fixed, solid, serious.
Even wining loses its shining and importance. The purpose has been defeated!
Interesting – let me think about this.
Brian said: “Back when he ran things, courses and auditing were cheap, cheap, cheap. He will be remembered in 300 years from now for his body of work. Not for any typical human shortcomings he may have had.”
Let me expose a myth here. I was a Program Chief at Flag when LRH came up with the idea of the monthly increases in prices. We were aghast when prices kept on going up and up and up. LRH wanted it that way.
Please see point #3 of the following essay:
Attitudes inspired by Buddhism
.
.
Vinaire, I saw an interview with LRH made by Granada. In that he looks like someone on drugs. And he was accused with it many times. I wonder, did he really use drugs? And why? For research or for pleasure? Thanks.
Vinaire: “Let me expose a myth here. I was a Program Chief at Flag when LRH came up with the idea of the monthly increases in prices. We were aghast when prices kept on going up and up and up. LRH wanted it that way.”
Not totally accurate:
The original intensive was 25 hours which in the late ’60s was changed to 12 1/2 hours. At that time there was policy on how to calculate the price of auditing: The general gist was that the cost of one intensive should be about the same amount of an average workers monthly salary.
When I got in, auditing was $15.00/hr. This went up to $25.00 in late 1971/early 1972. This price was maintained for a number of years until it went to $50/hr. In the mid ’70s, Integrity Processing & XDN came out – IP was $75/hr and XDN was $90/hr.When the prices increases of 10%/month came into effect, it was to bring pricing in line but only to that point and then increases would stop.
As we know, the increases continued and put auditing out of reach of the common man. This was NOT what Ron envisioned.
Was LRH not OT enough to stop it?
.
It has nothing to do with OT and I’m surprised at your comment about LRH & the state of OT.
I thought you would at least have risen above the need to invalidate anyone or any subject which attempts to raise one out of their current state.
A bit of a low blow, don’t you think?
As for the pricing, as you know, LRH was off the lines for many years before his death and who knows what info he had, who if anyone was updating him, and whether the data was accurate at all.
Now, it’s been many years since his death. Surely, if the little man at the helm really wanted to clear this planet and make this tech available to the common man, he could have done so numerous times over the last 25 years.
Quite the opposite. We now have OTs re-doing lower levels, OTs being de-cleared, and all manner of other out-tech extending the runway on & on & on.
So, not only is your statement out of line, it is full of outpoints – I’m actually amazed how many there are in so few words. 🙂
It is well documented that he was NOT “off the lines”. It is also documented in testimony of witnesses that it was LRH himself that forbid the increases from being STOPPED. So you have false assumptions Dennis.
LRH was not OT. He died in an extrermely bad-tempered and paranoid state. He didn’t just “drop” his “perfectly healthy body” as claimed, on the contrary he was a sick man, suffered heart attacks and a stroke.
Why are you defensive?
.
Brian said: “Well, Hubbard wrote quite a bit about the subject of Help and just how crucial it is to help others. He spent long hours, for decades, trying to figure out the fastest, most workable way to make people feel better.”
Sure LRH helped others, and he harmed others too. You see, his prime motive was to help himself. He used the world as his laboratory. Both help and harm to others was something secondary to him.
I am not trying to minimize any of the helpful stuff LRH came up with. But it has to be looked at from a proper perspective. I learned a lot from LRH. I admire him for his brilliance, but I am not blinded by it.
.
Vin, I fail to see how “Hubbard helped himself”, which is your thesis – that everything he did had this ulterior motive.
I think that is incorrect, an incomplete statement.
Help himself to…..what? That’s what’s missing from the scene you paint. In order to help oneself, one must help oneself to SOMETHING. There must be an end in mind.
I do think that Hubbard felt he had a purpose to fulfill or complete, and that he would not allow anything to stand in his way of accomplishing it.
However, that is not the same thing as “helping himself”, unless you expand the statement to “Helping himself to accomplish his purpose”.
Otherwise, how did he “help himself”? No way at all. He is dead and gone elsewhere just as any of us will some day be and do.
The real issue I see is, What can a person take with him? That’s all that’s worth having.
Very interesting thought. I am always curious about this highly speculative:) subject “LRH’s intentions”.
Despite that, seemingly others, like Geir for example did get into better shape than LRH did. But I agree he did great harm besides the “good side” of Scientology.
THere is the auditing side which looks basically good. There is the training side with data which I would not be so enthusiastic about including the sci-fi besides the theory is not so accurate as it seems and not so original either. Even the walk around a building assist was basically taken from Buddhism…:D LRH was squirreling buddhism:D Just a side-note: I’m curious what he did not understand in that subject:D And there is the administrative side which is outright suppressive. Mind-boggling…
Did you do any serious Scientology training?
Why do you ask? I started the Academy but I fell out. When there was something vague, no sense at all or non-sequiture, etc… and I asked the supervisor it was said: LRH said that. Recently I’ve begun to study Philadelphia Doctorate Corse Lectures and I am amased how clever he is not saying any significant for pages.
But seeing skilled auditors I can imagine there is something good in training. Although it is too demanding on the mind control side. You must think like Hubbard. And that is just pervert IMO 😀
I asked because you seemed to invalidate training. Thanks for sharing your background.
The basic problem seems to be fixation on self, and that includes fixation on people, such as, Hubbard.
Whether one looks at a person in a good light or in a bad light, any fixation on a person is just that… a fixation. On the other hand, knowledge itself is neither good nor bad. It is something to be used to find one’s way out of a situation.
I am interested in knowledge that came through Hubbard, and I am looking at it critically. But this knowledge could have come from any other source and I would look at it just as critically.
To get fixated on some apparent source of knowledge, in my view, is simply a distraction. To judge knowledge based where it came from is nothing but prejudice.
.
I’d be curious to know what you consider that helpful ‘stuff’ LRH came up with?
LRH was excellent at marketing. He was excellent at organizing data. He was excellent at motivating others.
He got people like me to look at things in a new light.
.
Hmm … Marketing, organizing data & motivation …. nothing in the technology, I guess.
Too bad.
Technology fits under the category of organizing data.
.
What are these pieces of technology that you find helpful?
Which ones?
How did they help you?
The first piece was OT TR0 / TR0, and the second piece was Study Tech / Word Clearing.
Both of these pieces really clarified for me how to look.
.
You may also google VINAIRE’S STORY and read it.
🙂
So I completed L11 Expanded today (a Scientology counseling action)
L11 + Expanded is the most precise action I have ever done. And with the most direct results. Freakin’ awesome.
I have for a while been searching for “my basic purpose” in life. Now guess what – that is irrelevant. It doesn’t fucking matter. My purpose is whatever I decide it to be. Here & Now.
And I used to be affected or wounded or hurt by others to make others guilty of hurting me. A dirty trick that affected my (and others’) daily life. That’s now gone.
Past matters not.
What exists is here & now.
And my intentions paint the future.
Pierre Ethier is easily the best auditor (counselor) I have ever had (out of some 40-50 up through the years).
If you are still in the Church of Scientology wondering if there is any hope outside, well I can tell you this; This right here is the real deal. You may instead wonder if there is any hope inside the church. I know my own answer to that question, and that is why I left.
Wow, thanks so much for sharing this very exciting insight. My instantantaneous feeling about it was that I (and we) too will benefit from it, directly and I’m sure indirectly.
Talk about being in “the here and now” – even basic purposes are no longer pre-ordained. What a concept…
So glad to have this blog “connection” with you!
And I am really glad to have you posting here.
“I have for a while been searching for “my basic purpose” in life. Now guess what – that is irrelevant. It doesn’t fucking matter. My purpose is whatever I decide it to be. Here & Now”.
Awesome!
The best basic purpose one could ever have, a completely free one!
Congrats!!!
This is great Geir! I am very happy for you!
I had always planned to do my L’s after Vlll – it’s great to hear that they pack a punch!
Sooooooo … what’s next? 🙂
L12
I am very happy to see you winning, Geir, my friend!
.
Awesome win. I get it.
Isene,
Thank you for sharing your win – I could feel it. I have for the last several months continually worked toward what you wrote.
Two days ago I wrote the following which is so much the same concept it put me in full ARC with what you have written.
“There is only the present and what we do in it. The past is but pictures and the future is but postulates, maybe’s and future thoughts. But the present – now that is the ultimate win. To be fully in the present is to have conquered the chains binding you based upon pictures and agreements from before the present. To live in the future is but a dream.”
I have never done any L’s but I am sure that would further polish things up for me.
Thanks. I enjoy the way you think about things.
I agree about the past, but my view is that the present is created by the future, in the sense that Ron said, “Cause is motivated by the future”.
It is the future that motivates us to act in the present to create that future. Our postulates for the future give meaning to the present and create action in the present.
So I wouldn’t minimize the value of postulates!
As the poet Russell Salamon put it,
11.
To tell you to sing
is silly,
you have never stopped
singing.
To tell you something you
don’t already know is hard
for in your giant laughter
strides open
and the road you carry
you lay before you.
Valkov,
You and I agree – I didn’t clearly word it. I make postulates in the Present to be cause over my future. To simply postulate and think about the future without making it happen is just dreaming. I find when really here in PT and live the now and make the future to fit my intent. I may not be the best at wording this concept but it is very real to me. To unburden and remove any tether to the past allows us to be in the present and we make our tomorrow.
This, to me, is different than dreaming or wishing for tomorrow to be different but still being out of PT you don’t cause it to be the dream you think of. To the degree you think with data as yet not fully viewed, whether due to pain and unconsciousness, lack of confront, mis-understoods or whatever is to operate unknowingly at the effect of something past and therefore you endure but don’t cause the future.
I find many attempt to live in the future before it’s time – just as drinking a fine wine before it’s time. Thank you for the poetic input – it was nice.
Here is a riddle from The Rig Veda:
“Those that are in the furure they say are in the past; those that are in the past they say are in the future. The things that you and Indra did, Soma, still pull the axle pole of space as though yoked to it.”
Obviously, the person who wrote it was under the intoxicating, or divine, influence of soma.
.
Beautiful poem!
About the postulates maybe the difference lies in the position of the being in the tone scale.
At start of game, a basic purpose is stated and it is still “above time”, therefore it belongs in the future or in the begining, maybe really everywhere, because that is the postulate that defines that universe or that game for the being.
Once the game has started, the being is at about 20 or less in the tone scale and the future is motivating him as you describe.
As he goes down the scale the goal becomes more and more distant, but as he moves up in the tone scale he could reach a point in which he has recovered his freedom to remain or not in the game and create, change or stop any postulates or games he want. He is at the start point. Again.( Maybe start is not correct as it implies time, so Cause or full potential may be more adequate). I´m not shure, but I think Ron would call that state Theta Clear, one which is able to change his own postulates, also, no further necesity for beingness.
Of course to me every game we are playing has its own playground or universe, which in many cases is a sub-set of the MEST Universe.
It’s great to read your wins Geir!:)
I would like to ask about this line: “to make others guilty of hurting me” what about really suppressive persons? And it is fine that you have this realisation but before a person have this realization he is effected. Everything is in connection with everything. Or isn’t it true? You reached a point when you left the Church. But you needed earlier experiences.
I didn’t get that…
OD
If I may throw something in here…
Quote: “And it is fine that you have this realisation but before a person have this realization he is effected”
Yup, that is why auditing is recommended.
This concept “to make others guilty of hurting me”, is a “ruse”. It is from the grief band on the tone scale, and is likely part of some “service fac”. One is perhaps better for not feeling the need to use it to handle others. To be downtone and “using one’s case” , is generally not the best point from which to handle “really suppressive persons” or anyone, or anything, in my opinion. Anywhere above that on the Tone Scale would be preferable.
Hi Geir!
Congratulations on completing L11. I am delighted to read your wins! Here and now! Isn’t it amazing how the truth sets one free!
I am simply amazed at how many comments you get on a single blog post these days! So much need for sincere expression and I am glad to see that you are still your good humored and tolerant self in letting all this diversity shine through.
I am having a wonderful life these days… Lots of create, create, create and all the joy that it brings. I have been following along a path of here and now for some time now, enjoying the living daylights out of encountering each new moment as it unfolds from my now very willing creation.
What fun to paint one’s own canvas!
Maria
Hey! I have missed you. Now that you stopped by, please hang around and shine 🙂
Good to see you, Maria.
~Vinaire
Geez Geir,
You sound downright……feisty! I like it.
I especially like the part about purpose being whatever the hell you want it to be. That is very freeing.
I also have one particular person in my life who makes others wrong by “being hurt” all the time. Nice to know that it isn’t part of the actual personality.
Gotta thank LRH for these wins! Please keep sharing if you continue to add more.
VWD!
Bryan
Geir , Greg Wilhere marketing L11 said ,
“we grab the thetans throat..or we get a boot and we kick him so hard”
Did you find L11 forceful or overwhelming?
or is this bullying culture.
L11 was the smoothest of actions – not at all overwhelming and no force, none.
Geir, great win! Are you doing L10, thought that came before L12?
And how does one go about getting auditing from Pierre?
I will do L12 next, then L10, then the old OT levels – but not until X-Mas or so.
Pierre is contactable on class-xii@rogers.com
Oh ok, thanks Geir
hahaha Hi Shaun,
It is so funny to me for you to tell that story because my own reality on auditing is to “get the ‘reactive mind’ by the throat!” See? Reverse – I’ve never experienced the need to use force on a thetan – he already wants to cooperate with the session!
I have experienced my own reactive mind to “cower” from my solo. This is a very good feeling.
Elizabeth, Where was I born? What is my mother’s name?
~Vinaire
Marildi said at https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/06/26/significant-change/#comment-5349
“P.P.S. I used evolution as a “grand” example of what must be happening on a huge scale in countless ways – every time free will is exerted. Otherwise, to repeat myself, perceiving the same “picture” would only be possible with an utterly pre-determined playing out of the original agreement, a sequence of causes and effects all stemming from the original. And that just doesn’t compute, so it seems that we do create – within an orginally agreed-upon paramenter of certain basics – and that others universally perceive those new “creations.” (My reasoning may be off somewhere but I hope not too embarrassingly so – LOL).”
You may be closer to the truth than you think. Just change “creation” to “interpretation of the sensory input.” Now there may be some leeway in how one’s mind may interpret the sensory input, and that may be the extent of “free will” displayed..
.
Okay, fair enough. At least we have in that “leeway” a Cause point.
We have a meeting of minds here… 😀
Valkov said at https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/06/26/significant-change/#comment-5359
“Marildi, I believe I get what you’re saying.
My point is simply that ARC is Theta. Agreements(R) are made in and by Theta. Communication takes place in and among Theta. The MEST universe complies.
It is clay in Theta’s hands. The Communication may occur below a person’s level of awareness, as may his Agreement. But they still occur, with or without his apparent participation or knowledge, if that happens to be the condition he’ in.
So in that sense, we could be considered to be “all one”,or in a much higher degree of Comm than we ordinarily think of ourselves as being. We agree and thus we see.
So much for “looking”.
Those who do not agree are likely playing another game, perhaps elsewhere. Or just sulking somewhere!
That’s not looking. That is just regurgitating Hubbard.
.
Vinaire, how is it any more a matter of regurgitation than what you yourself do when you “look” at Buddhist principles (for example), decide that they are truth, and then express them your own?
I am no longer sure about the principle of ARC. It may be just an apparency like MEST. We may be seeing MEST not because of agreement, but because of similarity in basic programming.
.
Marildi,
Remember the Two Rules For Happy Living With Vin:
1. Vin is right, others are wrong (or at least, less right than Vin).
2. If Vin seems to be wrong, or anyone else seems to be right, see Rule #1
🙂
Valkov, Vin should watch out – you are on another roll! 😀
Marildi, Nice try, but your warning will go unheeded. Like the punch drunk boxer, Vin continues to lead with his chin. Valkov is doing . . . I don’t know what. His observations are keen as a razor but he mistakenly thinks he is having a comm cycle with Vinay. Unless “tit-for-tat” has been added as a component part of Axiom 28, no comm cycle is occurring.
hehe
Good post, Chris. I’m still trying to get Vinaire to see that very thing – that he sometimes isn’t actually in comm. That’s why I posted those quotes from the link he had posted about Buddhism. It points out the kinds of mistakes people make (which Buddha didn’t) when trying to communicate their ideas to others.
But I think Valkov points them out well too – razor sharp as you say (and hilarious) – and I think he has more of that motivation than a “tit for tat” one. 😉
Vinnie and I go way back.Here’s a short clip of us from the 1960s……
Vin, do you really think there is any virtue to being “compulsively original”?
Hubbard was too overwhelmingly large for you to confront, you felt small by comparison, and you have been trying to cut him down to your own size ever since, and trying to outcreate him too.
Interesting assumptions.
.
Also, ‘regurgitating’ assumes I have not digested it, understood it, duplicated it.
That could be a false assumption, ya know?
Or, it could be a penetrating “look”.
.
Sure Vin. Take another good ‘look’ then. Where was I born? What is my mother’s name?
Pretender!
Frustrated?
.
Not at all. Are you?
Yes, I have been thinking (a little obsessively) of these cycles since you first mentioned your idea about cycling in the Planck second. Yes, this has become apparent to me – the possibility for – might as well say – infinite universes to be split onto cycles being “just degrees off-cycle” from one another.
Additionally, there may be a reason in this for the inability “bend the spoon.” It might be impossible to alter the “creation” once blossomed into existence. There may be a rule in play that makes us wait until the “creation phase” of the cycle to add or alter. And then maybe creation cannot truly be altered at its most basic instant. Then again, for those who have seen the spoon bent, there may be room in these ideas for that as well.
There are so many open doors when considering this. Such as “most” of the Planck cycle could be available for free-will / free-form creation. Leaving “infinite” space during the cycle in which to inject all manner of variable creations. In this example I can visualize both the automaticity resulting in the deterministic universe as well as the location and plenty of space for free-will.
And the Mandelbrot Set demonstrates to us yet more poly-dimensions of space when considering “orders of magnitude.” Besides the cycling of the universe in the Planck second, fractals provide infinite places to put additional universes.
Smorgasbord does not quite cover it.
We should meet one time for a coffee.
Yes, I like coffee.
Geir and Chris, I thought the two of you might be interested in this passage from p.36 of Ken Ogger’s book Super Scio. http://www.freezoneamerica.org/pub/Super%20Scio.pdf
“The future is in flux, predetermined in the ordered motions of physics but indeterminate in the subtler interactions of particles and random variables. The flux responds to thought and especially strong visualizations, whether intentional or reactive, because these mimic the observation which breaks down the probability waves into actuality. All participate in this working out of the future into the present, whether consciously or unconsciously.
“The subtle influence of chance events can never be proven because by its vary nature it is always in accordance with physical laws and can be shown to be a random occurrence. Even long runs of luck are provided for and even required in the mathematical analysis of statistical probability. And yet there are born losers and people upon whom luck always shines.
…
“This is all in accordance with (although not stated or proved by) the modern theories of Quantum Mechanics which sees all existence as consisting of probability waves which are broken down into reality by the action of observation.”
I should have included this from p.38:
“The above discussion of subtle OT abilities is my own codification of vague ideas and concepts that are in the early materials. Ron never did give a clear and concise description of the mechanisms of pulling in motivators for your overts or of how to make postulates stick, but I think the above is in keeping with what he did say on the subject.”
Geir and Chris, I thought you would have commented about that passage I quoted above. Isn’t it speaking to the very same thing that you two have been looking at? And isn’t it interesting that LRH was on to this way back in the 50’s? Maybe my grasp of the area isn’t enough to see a difference in what you guys are talking about. Or maybe you have a negative opinion about Ken Ogger or his book? Anyway, I’m very interested in your feedback!
The fascinating thing for me is it presents a believable mechanism for how we “pull in” motivators, and for “luck,” and for OT perception and ability. Not to mention the idea that we – all together – (keeping with the basic laws of physics) create the future !
I agree – it is interesting. Now off to map the exact mechanism underlying all this 😉
Spoken like a true scientist (sigh). Nevertheless, I heartily say – go forth! 🙂
Observation:
(1) A person doesn’t want his overts to be known. He witholds them.
(2) The person tries to justify his overts by making excuses, and by lessening the target of his overt.
HCOB 21 Jan, 1960, JUSTIFICATIQN says that the reason for withhold is that man is basically good. To me this is kooky.
The two observation above point to the simple fact that man is basically selfish, His behavior is guided by his attachment to himself. He is trying to save his skin by committing overts and then not admitting to them, instead justifying them.
Giving a person credit for withholding overts, as HCOB 21 Jan, 1960, JUSTIFICATIQN does, is simply another justification. The auditing procedure following from this HCOB does not address the root cause of O/Ws. I haven’t seen anyone cured of O/Ws through Scientology auditing. Hubbard, himself, wasn’t cured of it.
I see Hubbard’s conclusion that a person withholds because he is basically good, to be a flawed one.
.
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/06/26/significant-change/#comment-5357
Valkov, my basic thesis is that there is no immortal beingness like a thetan, or self. Self comes into being from unknowable. Self can also dissolve back into unknowable. Self seems immortal to itself because it is always there when it looks at itself.
Most people are searching for the answer, “Who am I?” That is really strange because who could be more intimate to you but you yourself. Maybe people are just trying to resolve some very basic confusion. Hubbard was no different in this quest.
Most activities of self are thus intended to make the self survive so the basic confusion may be resolved. Buddha realized the consideration “self is permanent” to be at the root of the basic confusion. As soon as he found this out for himself, he attained Nirvana.
So, selfish, the way I am using it, is neither good nor bad. I am describing it just the way it is. It is the basic situation. The real issue for me is the person himself, and not what he can have, or take with him.
.
Well that does clarify your view to some extent. However “unknowable” is still the wrong word, because you seem to be stating that it (unknowable) is that from which self comes into being. Therefore you are claiming to know something about unknowable, and thereupon it can no longer be called unknowable. Because if you know that self comes into being from ‘unknowable’ then you know something about ‘unknowable’ and you are misnaming it by calling it ‘unknowable’.
It’s an inconsistency.
As I recall, Buddha actually refuted both the existence of a permanent self, and of an impermanent self as well. He stated the belief in any self was based on illusion. But my memory is sometimes faulty, so I may be making that up.
Obviously there is much that can be discussed about ‘selfishness’, meaning of. Like most words, it is used by most people in the context of life and living.
I have been pointing to this a few, erh… many times before.
All I am claiming to know about unknowable is that it is unknowable.
.
If that is an inconsistency then hopefully, it may get resolved some day.
.
It is ok with me if you want to use the word “unknown” in place of “unknowable.” It is perfectly alright.
However, I want to keep this word “unknowable” around for a bit because of my respect for Hinduism (“Brahma”), and for Mathemetics (“zero”). Hope you don’t mind.
.
Here is an authoritative reference on what Buddha taught about self.
THE DOCTRINE OF NO-SOUL: ANATTA
.
Nice reference, Vinaire. I didn’t really do much more than skim over it as I’m not currently reaching to study Buddhism, but I did get a general idea and found it pretty interesting. And it gave me a better understanding of where you are coming from.
I copied a couple of lines that I think are relevant to some of the comments back and forth. They express what I was trying to say in an earlier comment to you where I said that using terms and constructs that I don’t have has the effect of “losing me.” And that might include others too. Another way of putting it would be to say that you are going out-reality in the discussion.
Here are the lines:
“In order to avoid a confusion it should be mentioned here that there are two kinds of truths: conventional truth (sammuti-sacca, Skt. Samvrti-satya) and ultimate truth (paramattha-sacca, Skt. Paramārtha-satya).[7] When we use such expressions in our daily life as ‘I’, ‘you’, ‘being’, ‘individual’, etc., we do not lie because there is no self or being as such, but WE SPEAK A TRUTH CONFORMING TO THE CONVENTION OF THE WORLD [my caps]…
…
“The Buddha…always spoke to people bearing in mind their standard of development, their tendencies, their make-up, their character, their capacity to understand a particular question.”
To tell you the truth, though, I’m not sure the readers here are that interested in being taught Buddhist concepts in the first place… Anyway, the above is food for thought to help us do a better job of hijacking Geir’s blog. 😉
self·ish
adjective /ˈselfiSH/
(of a person, action, or motive) Lacking consideration for others; concerned chiefly with one’s own personal profit or pleasure
– I joined them for selfish reasons
LRH was selfish in this sense too.
.
What other sense(s) is/are there?
There are as many senses as there are ways in which a person is consumed by self, and there are different degrees of that too.
.
Do you believe in the existence of a “person”, then? If there is no “person”, then there is no-one there to be “consumed” by anything, is there?
Then, there would only be ongoing “selfishness” without the participation of any self. This is what some Buddhists believe. It is a “mechanical” view, that all and everything including apparent “individuals”, is just processes driven by antecedent causes, like dominoes falling, reactive minds reacting to stimuli, pupils narrowing and eyelids shutting in response to sudden increases in brightness.
All stimulus response.
This is the Buddhist promo or party line about the “state of Man”. It is in fact very similar to leading off with Dianetics, which is all about the stimulus-response aspect of human beings. Sell a person on his mechanicalness (his mechanicalness is his “ruin”, of course), then push the idea that “something can be done about it” – he can get meditation or auditng and training which will enable him to achieve a subjectively happier state.
This is exactly what Buddhism does. Except Buddhists are a lot cagier about what exactly a person can achieve, in the positive sense. Mostly the Buddhist promo is all about negative gains, “freedom from” suffering, unhappiness,etc.
But even the Buddha did state that nirvana is a positive state of “Bliss”. If you read original Buddhist texts, actually Buddha gave quite a few positive characteristics of Buddhas. But they are glossed over because no-one would believe them as literally attainable states, or would simply not understand what the words meant.
The stimulus-response aspect of a human life is really just the entry level. Schools of self-evolution present this as the first datum for two reasons – 1. It is relatively true, and 2. It immediately sorts out those who feel a need of change, and those who don’t, or don’t believe change is possible.
Mechanics can be interesting, but I am also interested in that which is not mechanical.
Or as Marty puts it, “Moving on up a little higher”. This would seem to be something those who post and read these sites and blogs have in common, each in his/her own way.
A person exists the same way that a chair exists, or a consideration exists. None of these is however permament.
You seem to have a misunderstood on Buddhist view.
.
Valkov: “Do you believe in the existence of a “person”, then?”
It appears that Vinaire does not as he mentions below.
Vinaire: ” …my basic thesis is that there is no immortal beingness like a thetan, or self. Self comes into being from unknowable.”
If one follows the line of think that “Self comes into being from unknowable”, then what reason would anyone look if the end result was ‘unknowable’.
So, one just audits along knocking out beingness, postulate/counter postulates, GPMs, considerations and the like, and then runs up against a wall of unknowable?
What of his awareness of ‘himself’ , as in ‘aware of being aware’, at that point?
Is that ALL there is – the guy goes thru all manner of gyrations to rid himself of all beingnesses etc that are NOT him, and ends up as an unknowable ‘thing’ ?
For me, this is truly short-sighted and a limitation set out by one’s own creation & consideration
Absolutes are unattainable. That applies to immortality too.
.
ROFLMAO!
Vin tells me, “You seem to have a misunderstood on Buddhist view.”
OK Vinnie, I’ll bite – what Buddhist word did I misunderstand? Are you going to help me find my misunderstood word, or are you going to just leave me in mystery with your generality, leaving yourself revealed as the pretender?
I gotta new motto – Be helpful, or be gone.
That’s a very good motto 🙂
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/06/26/significant-change/#comment-5368
OD said: “Vinaire, I saw an interview with LRH made by Granada. In that he looks like someone on drugs. And he was accused with it many times. I wonder, did he really use drugs? And why? For research or for pleasure? Thanks.”
I was not close enough to Hubbard to know what you are asking about. I have never taken any drugs myself, nor have I been in company of people who took drugs.
My viewpoint is that drugs can temporarily put a person in an enlightened state to have insights, but these insights are then lost when the effect of drugs wears off. Only an intellectual impression remains. Subsequently, it may take greater and greater amount of drugs to achieve that enlightened state of insight. The side effect may then take its toll.
Believe it or not but the original insights of the Vedas came from priests who took the drug SOMA to “make their speech fluid.” my personal viewpoint is that these people, by taking drugs, sacrificed themselves in providing insights for others. Others could then meditate over those insights without drugs, and make progress toward a permanent state of enlightenment.
.
“….sacrificed themselves in providing insights for others.”
That seems pretty un-selfish, doesn’t it?
Yes, it does… from a different of “un-selfish.”
.
Yes, it does… from a different meaning of “un-selfish.”
.
Okay. Which different meaning?
Thanks for your reply. I think by what I know from documentaries and personal experiences in this regards Lama Ole Nydahl’s experiences are quite interesting, that drugs can be eye opener, and/or not and/or bad experience. I personally never tried drugs either and not interested to do so.
Yes, in my opinion, a stable enlightenment may only be achieved when drugs are put aside.
.
I have seen this video, and if you ask me he appeared 1.1.
Beautiful! I just tuned into this clean & calm theta space. Please share more wins. Thanks for sharing your thoughts without reservation. I admire your integrity and honesty. You set a good example. Can’t wait to hear ’bout your L12.
Valkov said at https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/06/26/significant-change/#comment-5413
“Marildi,
Remember the Two Rules For Happy Living With Vin:
1. Vin is right, others are wrong (or at least, less right than Vin).
2. If Vin seems to be wrong, or anyone else seems to be right, see Rule #1.
:)”
For starters, right and wrong are just considerations. 🙂
Now you may feel pissed off at me, Valkov. but please look at the datum being presented, and comment on that.
That would be more helpful.
.
Does considering that ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ are just considerations somehow take some of the sting out of being wrong? Does it curb somewhat the pride of being right?
It seems to be an operation much like “lessening the overt” by diminishing the object against which the overt was committed…..
Does it serve one’s self somehow, to keep reminding one’s self that ‘right and wrong are nothing but considerations’?
You certainly seem to cling to the notion….
OK.
.
Wins are probably the biggest stop to one’s spiritual progress if one gets stuck in a win, or gets addicted to wins.
.
A NEW MODEL OF THE MIND
The nature of the mind is to assess and determine what is there. This may be called thinking or considering. It is the mind considering the sensory input that appears as perception. This is covered in detail in KHTK 3.
Similarly, one may say that the considering of perception produces experience, and the considering of experience produces information. The results of this successive thinking may be listed as follows.
1. Sensory input
2. Perception
3. Experience
4. Information
5. Hypothesis
6. Theory
7. Principles
8. Axioms
9. Self
There may be more layers in between. However, each layer here is derived from the previous layer through thinking or considering. At the bottom we seem to have the layer of ‘self.’
The thinking toward the top seems to be more automatic. For example, the perception of the physical universe is pretty consistent from person to person. So, for all practical purposes, the thinking, which produces the perception of the physical universe, seems to be built into the genes. It is more like programming.
However, toward the bottom, thinking appears to be less and less automatic. At the level of self, thinking may be ‘self-controlled’ as ‘free will,’ except that it is constrained by the layers above it.
From ‘sensory input’ to ‘self’ we seem to have a spectrum of thinking that varies from rigid programming to free will.
Memory may be defined as impressions left on these layers, as the sensory input propagates through them. However, most impressions seem to evaporate and get absorbed downwards into the layers. They become part of the thinking apparatus. We may categorize them as transitory, short-term or long-term memories, but such memories get recreated only to the degree necessary for thinking.
There are also impressions that do not get absorbed into the thinking apparatus. When attention gets directed at them then they appear as literal perceptions. They just float and persist “long-term.” They impinge on thinking in unpredictable ways.
Memories are impressions that usually get assimilated and become part of thinking, but some impressions that remain literal, influence thinking in unpredictable ways.
The more persisting are the memories, which are assimilated, the more they seem to constitute programming. In fact, all programming seems to be made up of memory impressions locked in place by each other.
More and more of the cognitive functions seem to be concentrated toward the level of self, where more free will seems to exist. Awareness of the various layers seems to exist at self, except for those that are closer to self. This is so because it is difficult for any sense organ to perceive itself. The memories that are most difficult to access would be those that are somehow associated with ‘self.’
Unassimilated impressions create difficulties due to their unpredictability. But assimilated impressions also create problems by becoming fixed as programming unknown to self.
.
Very interesting model, Vinaire. I especially liked that fact that you didn’t seem to undermine free will or self (unless I’m not reading between the lines as well as I should be?). Anyway, looks like you really put some systematic and thorough thought into it. Well done!
Thank you. It is still work in progress. It gave me the insight how “free will” is constrained by sensory input. What fascinates me is the nature of this sensory input. It is right there but I am unable to see it as yet.
.
I just read your post and felt a freeing up in my own universe. I am going for some auditing next week – have not had any for 20 + years and have been a little apprehensive. “Soul searching” is something I have done a lot of recently and not so much when I was in the church. I didn’t realize it at the time, but I believe that there was always a need to defend myself in some way so I never really could (serious soul search). I am so happy for you… (and for me and everybody else) that there’s something to help us with our search.
Thanks. And good luck with your auditing 🙂
“All the Truth you ever find lies within you!” (LRH paraphrase)
I sure do feel your pain and your anticipation as well. I wish a very good journey on you as you research and “soul search.”
Being out of the Church also means being out of the need for that apprehension that you are feeling. You should never have had the experience of feeling apprehensive about auditing and I hope you never do again!
I have a good feeling about what you are doing and hope you’ll post back and let us know how it went!
Thank you. I think you are right. In the back of my mind, I keep expecting someone to get forceful with me and try to get me to do something that I don’t want to do, but it just doesn’t happen. I am being treated with love and care, like a real human being. How can this be – there aren’t even any police! Who woulda thunk?
Tell us more about your “radical change!” You’ve stumbled into a pretty good place – lots of soul searchers here! hahaha
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/06/26/significant-change/#comment-5467
Marilidi: “Nice reference, Vinaire. I didn’t really do much more than skim over it as I’m not currently reaching to study Buddhism, but I did get a general idea and found it pretty interesting. And it gave me a better understanding of where you are coming from…”
I am glad it clarified a little bit more for you. Thetan, to me, is not something permanent. It is probably made up of a consideration like substance and circuitary… a feat that artificial intelligence may, some day, achieve . But I am not too sure of that.
Anyway, let me know if you have more questions.
.
If the essence of a thetan is freee will then AI will not et there.
In my opinion the consideration of a thetan is finite, which makes thetan finite. A thetan is bound by that consideration.
What is beyond consideration may not be so bound.
.
Is the consideration of Static finite, and does that consideration make Static finite?
Yes. Any consideration is finite. And one cannot know static without having a consideration about it.
.
Same applies to “unknowable”
True. That is why I call it unknowable.
.
I’m probably not following you, but tell me this – what does the consideration of zero do to zero?
It makes it a place holder. 🙂
.
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/06/26/significant-change/#comment-5549
Huh?
Are you saying that Static is conditioned by your consideration of it? That’s logically fallacious, kinda like saying “I consider that Valkov is a two foot tall midget, therefore he actually is just two feet tall, because I consider that he is.” No. Static is by defintion, like nirvana, ‘the unconditioned’.
What you consider me to be is not necessarily what I actually am. This is a logical fallacy. It is circular reasoning, as when a person uses his conclusion as part of his premise.
Static is what it is, apart from any considerations you might have about it.
+1.
Don’t let these guys mess with your head Marildi.
You’ve already got it.
Static is their “unknowable.” This is the standard non-squirreled Tech Dict def. No mass no wavelength no location in space – in Chris’ words: it is the “thing” which is “no-thing.” (yes, Vinnie, it’s not a “thing” – I already know that shit.)
Thetan is after that. We say it “comes from” the static. Who knows? Everything we address here is something except for static which is the “nothing.” Not the nothing of emptiness, but the nothing of something which isn’t MEST. If it’s not MEST it’s over there in the cubby of static. What’s that? don’t try. You’ll end up making something of it. hahahaha!
You just back up out of your head, and keep backing up. Pretty soon you arrive at yourself and then Static is just behind that – sort of. hahahaha!
Another “thing” about “nothing”:
Static: is not infinite and neither is it finite. Both infinite and finite go inside the MEST. It is a mental trap to worry over the “infiniteness” of infinite. Infinite is finite and finite is infinite.
You might want to meditate on the Mandelbrot Set for a few years to get that last one:
Chris, in reply to your last couple comments yesterday, just above in this thread (dated 7-18), here is a paragraph from a post of mine (below), about substrates:
“And Geir has already put out the idea of Static substrates. Per The Factors this would be Cause and then viewpoints, viewpoints being later referred to as theta (as I see it) and after that called thetans, to my understanding.- Thetan being much more clearly defined than theta was when the original Theta-MEST Theory was developed.,,” That is to say, Thetan seems uniformly to be described as static, specifically so or in so many words. (See Tech Dict.)
This idea of different substrates or “orders of Static” appeals to me in relation to The Factors and for another reason too. I remember years ago something I read in the Scientology Picture Book – that “a thetan is in a little bit of mass.” (I”m almost certain that’s a direct quote.) I never saw it anywhere else (and wish I could!) and I don’t know if it’s in any later edition (or even if there is any). But it would make sense if, with the decision TO BE and the assuming of a view-Point, part of that point in space from which to view included “a little bit of mass.” Any thoughts?
P.S. to Chris: I’m thinking the “little bit of mass” a thetan (or viewpoint) is in, could be a special kind of anchor point which itself is (as per The Factors) a special kind of dimension point. Over to you…
What Geir is saying seems obvious – that artificial intelligence would still be missing the component of free will. And you have agreed in several of your earlier posts that free will does exist.
Here’s another applicable quote from Handbook for Preclears: “An individual is…the composite of all his facsimilies plus his impulse TO BE.”
You seem to have duplicated the truth of the enormous amount of circuitry that is there and emphasize that aspect. But that impulse TO BE is the all-determining factor, IMO.
The thetan is simply a conduit, and not the source. It may appear that thetan is the source of the impulse TO BE, but thetan could very well be the result of that impulse.
Beyond the thetan is unknowable or unknown (whichever you prefer).
.
I believe you are redefining “thetan”. I wonder why.
It has already been redefined like ‘God’ in its use. I am simply pointing out what it is.
.
I sense an agenda in redefining “thetan”. If it is indeed “pure static”, then there is no need to redefine it to anything else for any purpose. Agree?
I prefer UNKNOWABLE as in “beyond consideration.”
.
Vinaire, whether we look at the impulse to be as part of the thetan or separate and creator of the thetan doesn’t make any difference in actuality but may present a semantics problem in communicating. “Location” of Impulse probably isn’t even relevant if you consider that it has no location.
It is additive to use the word thetan. Originally, LRH used the word THETA to refer to the unknown life force in the equation of life (see DMSMH). Later he attached his considerations by coining the word thetan.
I do not think that LRH solved the equation of life completely. So, I would revert back to the original significance for which THETA was used in the first place.
.
It is an additive to use any words or even any language, is it not?
Perhaps you, like Meher Baba, would communicate better after taking a vow of silence…. ? 🙂
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/06/26/significant-change/#comment-5490
This makes sense if you make a distinction between thetan as a manifested being, and Static in Native State. Thetan is an evolution of Native State, but basically they are still both thetan. The only difference is in the degree of manifestation. Looking at it like that, then a ‘thetan’ could be a specific ‘conduit’ or expression of the unlimited potential of the Native State.
Only why bother to call theM ‘unknown’ or ‘unknowable’,or anything else? Why invent yet more specialized nomenclature and specialized definitions for common words? It just adds to the confusion. Why not use the perfectly workable words we already have, instead of adding to the Tower of Babel situation by alter-ising vocabulary even further?
It looks like “Misunderstood words breed strange ideas” to me.
Why should one look ‘thetan’ as ‘Static’ and ‘Static’ as ‘thetan’? That would be enough to introduce a lot of confusion.
.
Yes and underlies the confusion which underlies the false purposes underlying the O-W Motivator sequence! hahaha!
You want to call “Native State” Static? It’s okay with me. As you say – just let me know what you are doing when you are doing it so I don’t get confused!
I – like Marildi – worked very hard going through all that – but I didn’t work as hard as Marildi! I’ve got these things pegged down in such a way that I can work with them. Not needing anyone to agree with me about the nomenclature – just tell me what you mean when youre discussing so I don’t get left behind.
Unknowable is good. I don’t care if that means you “can’t” know it… I still get it.
Static is more familiar and weaves into my already learned jargon.
Thetan – that one was harder but now I got it. It was just the problem of tagging the correct concept with a recognizable label.
This is quoted from the reference on ANATTA (no soul) from Buddhist theory:
“Two ideas are psychologically deep-rooted in man; self-protection and self-preservation. For self-protection man has created God, on whom he depends for his own protection, safety and security, just as a child depends on its parent. For self-preservation man has conceived the idea of an immortal Soul or Ātman, which will live eternally. In his ignorance, weakness, fear, and desire, man needs these two things to console himself. Hence he clings to them deeply and fanatically.”
I find this explanation fascinating. What wonderful mind could have arrived at such a simple but powerful explanation.
.
Yes, if one decides to believe it.
Or, one may continue to have not just belief but also faith in the status quo.
.
Yeah – that’s elegant.
LIVING IN A MEST UNIVERSE: I was out early this morning working in the desert. It was only 90F (32C) and I was enjoying a little relief from the heat. And I was thinking about the world-at-large, thinking about several conversations I’ve had recently and several sessions I’ve had recently and I like to label the type of conversation that I was having with myself after the Rodney King exclamation, “Can’t we all just get along?” haha
And I’m thinking of all the frustration that men-of-goodwill have experienced in trying their very best to bring this question thrown up to the universe down to earth and made reality.
And I’m thinking about MEST universe and thinking about its nature – how it “eats-and-is-eaten.” Not as a morality but only as a fact.
It came to me that the nature of Theta – having theta goals – is actually at opposition to the goals of MEST. Theta, trying to rearrange MEST games into theta-goaled games is an alter-is-ness and it may be that it is not just hard to do. It may be impossible to do.
What is then possible? We can audit. We can as-is MEST for ourselves. We can free more theta. We can become more ourselves. We can have theta-goals but MEST never will have theta-goals.
I’m thinking that if I can organize my thinking, keeping this in mind, then I can more efficiently target and address things with energy and focus that I can change. Likewise, I can now with good conscience take my attention off those things which I cannot change.
This wasn’t easy for me to articulate. Reading back over it, I am still not satisfied. It reflects something that for me was more meaningful than my words convey.
“theta universe” = own mockups
“MEST universe” = agreed mockups
yes, good.
“theta universe” = own mockups
“MEST universe” = agreed mockups
The above, although probably true, seems insufficient to me. I feel there’s a qualitative difference.
Theta universe and MEST universe are as different as, well, Theta and MEST are different. As different as ARC and mechanics are different.
Other analogies might be, the distinction between mind and brain, software and hardware, living organisms and minerals.
Valkov, I used to pretty much equate “theta universe” with Static, but I think that was an MU and I’ve come around to understanding it as just the finer, higher-wave CREATIONS OF Static that are not solid enough to be perceived by others (as in the MEST universe). I see this clearly now from the definition itself – “thought matter (ideas), thought energy, thought space, and thought time, combined in an independent universe analogous to the material universe.”
The definitions of “theta,” on the other hand, pretty much come down to meaning “Static.” So by “theta universe” is meant the universe created by theta not some universe in which only theta exists.
If theta is static, then there is no such thing as a “theta universe”. There is mockups created by self and perceived only by self (like dreams and is in fact MEST except perceivable only by self) and mockups agreed to by more than self (various degrees of MEST). I can see no other “thing” in this area except some hope for airy-faerie wonderland advocated by some New Age factions.
If theta is static, then there is no such thing as a “theta universe”. There is mockups created by self and perceived only by self (like dreams and is in fact MEST except perceivable only by self) and mockups agreed to by more than self (various degrees of MEST). I can see no other “thing” in this area except some hope for airy-faerie wonderland advocated by some New Age factions.
Theta or static are terms to name what is creating those mockups – which are termed the theta universe – perceived only by self. It is a confusing term and is why I and others too, I feel, have misunderstood it.
I’m saying exactly the same as you on the point that the so-called theta universe is actually just MEST but of a lighter kind and not perceivable by others, as is the MEST universe which is perceivable by all.
Oops, forgot to put what you said in quotes (there at the beginning of my last comment).
Geir, are you differentiating between “self” and “theta or static”?
Or is their some other point of disagreement, especially something about which you consider my viewpoint to be airy fairy? You are an OL for me so I want to be sure I have duplicated what you’re saying (not that I will necessarily agree 😉 ).
I wasn’t referring to you 🙂
Static is static. Period. Add any consideration and it becomes less than static – it perceives by to some degree being what it perceives, and creates that which is perceived by the sheer fact of perceiving it. It mocks up self. And that is a creation (consideration) – and from that point is no longer static to that degree. It then engages in further creations, and in turn becomes even less static. Creation on automatic furthers this. Especially if it is locked into agreements to auto-create with others (MEST). “Theta universe” is a misnomer. My own universe describes that which I create without agreements with others (own MEST). But creating in unison is agreed creation (collective MEST)
I agree that “theta universe” is a misnomer. It was apparently coined back in ’51 with Science of Survival, where LRH spoke in terms of a dichotomy of theta vs. MEST. I wouldn’t doubt, though, that even back then he himself ACTUALLY had in mind all that you described in your comment above – and that the Theta-MEST theory was just a duplicatable construct to communicate at the right gradient. But if you look at the definition of “theta universe” itself (in the Tech Dict, which I quoted above) it is, in any case, an accurate description of an actual reality – one’s own mock-ups as distinct from the mock-ups created in unison with others. It’s a misnomer only because it’s misleading.
LRH’s later works essentially say all that you are saying – wouldn’t you agree? He talks about Static being capable of mirroring the physical universe and then retaining those impressions – i.e. what you described as becoming “less Static” (which is kind of misleading too as it’s either static or it isn’t, as you know – but that’s just semantics quibble IMO and I do know what you mean). LRH’s wording is probably more accurate – that Static “retains” the impressions. But otherwise, your whole description was superb!
Also, you said Static “mocks up self” and similarly LRH said that a thetan is Static and is “simply you before you mocked yourself up.” “Thetan” is another word that is widely misunderstood, I do believe, because people use it to mean not just the Static (or the Impulse TO BE) “component” of individuals but all their facsimiles, all their mock-ups.
Hey, would you believe that I’ve sorted out the above for myself right here on your blog threads? 🙂 (But don’t let that put a damper on telling me any disagreements you have about what I’ve come to – I’m interested!)
And yes, we are in full agreement here.
And because of the issues you point to regarding “static”, I prefer to call it “potential free will”, then “free will” (as exercised) and the product of that “considerations”. For the time being.
OK, you guys have me trying to analyze and define what I mean by “Theta” (universe) vs. “MEST” (universe).
I have come to no conclusion about it, but: For me it distinguishes what might be called two different modes of being and experiencing. It is a question of vias.
In an earlier post Vin said that according to the Axioms, Communication implies distance (Cause-Distance-Effect), because I had earlier posted that Communication can be instantaneous and obviate or by pass distance, that ARC is or can be outside of mechanics. Paramechanical, if I may coin a word. A word I don’t generally use, but that does point in that direction, is “telepathy”. telepathy does not require time and appears to work without regard to distance. It could be an example of Communication in which distance is not a consideration.
Regardless of whether there is actually a “theta universe” in the sense of a “whole system of created things”, to me the term signifies modes of being and acting that are different from the mechanics of the MEST universe. They have to do with the “ARC universe”,if you like.
Example:
I wish to communicate with someone, say Geir. Instead of going to Norway writng a letter, emailing, posting by snailmail, or phoning, even by Skype, I put my attention on Geir, he knows it, and duplicates (has) my thought, my message.
I think of this operation as taking place “outside the MEST universe” in the “Theta universe”. Perhaps it is just a figure of speech, but to me it is a meaningful figure of speech. It points to a different mode of action than sending gross particles across a distance Cause-Distance-Effect-wise.
You may say well, email phone or Skype is not gross particles, but I view them as such because they are very much involved with vias. The particles transmitted may not be very gross, but the dependency upon MEST is very strong. Just wait until the electrical grid in your area goes down, there goes your entire Comm system. It all depends on MEST equipment and MEST particle flows driven by MEST energy which itself must be transmitted through MEST conduit and transformed very solid mechanical means and processes.
So, what I mean by “theta universe” refers to direct perception, communication and action apart from all the MEST vias. It refers to ARC with fewer or no vias. Whether or not it actually occurs in some theoretical “theta space” is kinda moot; it’s a convenient rubric to distinguish what I perceive to be 2 different classes or orders of action and experience.
Well, I’m glad I defined that for myself. Always good to have more clarity on what one
means when one is tossing words around…..:-)
I will throw one out for you. How do you reconcile your views with LRH’s factor #11:
“But there are other viewpoints and these viewpoints outthrust points to view. And there comes about an interchange amongst viewpoints; but the interchange is never otherwise than in terms of exchanging dimension points.”
That’s the R part of ARC.
What is there to C about? R. You can ‘tell’ me about your Reality, I can ‘tell’ you about mine.
There is nothing else to Communicate about, except Reality, yours, mine, or the other guy’s.
My issue is simply that people can Communicate without so many vias. I don’t have to sit down and handwrite a letter to you, put it in an envelope, put a stamp on it, put it in the mailbox, where a postman picks it up and takes it to the post office, where it gets sorted and put on a truck which takes it to the airport, where it’s loaded on a plane which flies somewhere and eventually my letter gets to Norway and with more mechanics gets delivered to you.
Then you open it and read,”Hi Geir”.
That’s communication in the MEST universe.
Or, you can simply look up from your desk and realize “Valkov just said HI.” That’s communication of another order, perhaps through a different medium. So to distinguish the two, some people refer to that as ‘theta communication’ or ‘in comm in the theta universe’. I don’t pretend to know exactly how it happens or any ‘mechanics’ involved. It seems to have a lot to do with “Intention”.
When you’ve done the original OT levels you’ll know a lot more about it than I do, I’m sure.
But if I can create space, then potentially I can create any space including the space where you are, and I can create myself in that space and say “Hi Geir” by creating the thought in your mind, that could be one way to communicate my message. The R would be that it is Valkov is saying “hi” to Geir. Each has his own R about things of course. There’s nothing to reconcile as I see it.
That’s all “theta universe” stuff. There are people who seem to be terrified at the idea that this could actually be so. But to me it’s no different than what happens in an auditing session with a good auditor.
I think Ron called it top of the scale, “Total ARC”, up towards tone 40. Affinity is the consideration of distance. Total ARC or near-total ARC would involve source point being right there at receipt point, so it ties in with Pan-determinism.
Cool!
I just wanted to make one other point while I’m at it, for what it’s worth to anybody. You said, “‘Theta universe’ is a misnomer. My own universe describes that which I create without agreements with others (own MEST).” What I get is that “my own universe” is a theta universe in the sense that it is a universe created by and belonging to theta=me. The word “theta” is modifying “universe” in that sense – not in the sense of a universe made up of theta somehow, as people have misconstrued it to mean. It’s the difference between saying “a clay container” when you’re talking about the thing you store clay in, and “a clay container” meaning it’s a container made of clay.
By “theta universe” LRH was simply naming a universe belonging to or created by theta (as distinct from the MEST universe). So I don’t see it as much a misnomer on his part as an MU on the part of others. It’s definitely an ambiguous term, though, and potentially misleading – and factually misleading since it’s a common MU (I’m guessing it’s common).
Nevertheless, as usual when the MU’s are cleared LRH is ultimately right – most of the time (minimumly). I’ve learned this well from my experience with word clearing – all flows. 🙂
Good clarification of points.
Also, “MEST” is created by “Theta” just as much as any “theta universe”.
Valkov, when you say that communication can be instantaneous and bypass distance, I think of what LRH described as the ultimate in “affinity – coincidence of location and beingness” (Tech Dict). It’s knowing by being. And, as you put it – with “no vias.” Seems to me that would be the explanation for telepathy, too. I guess that technically it couldn’t be called communication, since there is no via even of distance. But it’s nicely descriptive to call it “direct communication.”
I’m not sure this type of “communication” is totally “outside mechanics,” though, because contained in that coincident space are the particles (fine wave lengths) that compose even a concept.
This all sounds very theta-weta.
Sorry! Couldn’t resist it!
.
Geir says, “Also, “MEST” is created by ‘Theta’ just as much as any ‘theta universe'”.
Right. And I’m thinking now with the lines of thought in this sub-thread, that it would be correct to say there is just one MEST universe (though there are likely others we don’t take part in or perceive), which consists of (1) a whole group of facsimiles/creations that can be perceived by all (forming the so-called MEST or physical universe), and (2) all the other groups of facsimiles (together forming the so-called theta universe) – each of which is created by individual thetans (and form “one’s own universe”) and is perceivable only by the respective thetan. From there I’m thinking that the reason the physical universe is perceived by all might have something to do with total ARC (i.e. coincidence of space with other viewpoints) having occurred often enough, early on the track near the beginning of time, that those became the facsimiles everyone has/shares/perceives. Possibly it is more “solid” because of all the re-duplication?
I”m thinking the above would be consistent with the Factors, too, wouldn’t it?
Yes.
Also, possibly it is more solid due to the commitment with others. A promise made before 100 friends carries more weight than a promise to oneself.
“This all sounds very theta-weta”
How so?.
“Also, possibly it is more solid due to the commitment with others. A promise made before 100 friends carries more weight than a promise to oneself.”
Sounds right, but what would be the mechanics there? Wouldn’t the mechanics still be the greater amount of “re-duplication”?
Would it?
I only create and perceive what I create and perceive, regardless of how many others that also create it. I tend to believe it is due to the amount of agreement involved (i.e. Reality). Then, any agreement creates reality and any reality is agreement.
Theta-weta was a comment on communication without distance.
.
Yep, Marildi, I was about to post some similar clarification.
“Universe” has several definitions. Some are more concrete, others more abstract:
Definition of UNIVERSE
1. the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated : cosmos: as
a : a systematic whole held to arise by and persist through the direct intervention of divine power
b : the world of human experience
c (1) : the entire celestial cosmos
(2) : milky way galaxy (3) : an aggregate of stars comparable to the Milky Way galaxy
2. a distinct field or province of thought or reality that forms a closed system or self-inclusive and independent organization
3 population
4 a set that contains all elements relevant to a particular discussion or problem
5 a great number or quantity
Examples of UNIVERSE
How many stars are there in the universe?
It means more to me than anything else in the entire universe.
She is convinced that parallel universes exist.
He creates his own universe in his novels.
New York City is the center of the publishing universe.
When I refer to a “theta universe’, I usually mean it in the sense of #4, so I call ‘theta universe’ a “rubric”. Rubric has many definitions, but it is basically away of categorizing or referring to things one sees as having some common characteristics or belonging to a broad category of some kind because of some common element(s).
ru·bric (rbrk)
n.
1.
a. A class or category: “This mission is sometimes discussed under the rubric of ‘horizontal escalation’ . . . from conventional to nuclear war” (Jack Beatty).
b. A title; a name.
So I don’t see ‘theta universe’ as a ‘place’, but as a term which I use to refer to phenomena, experiences, actions, modes of being and doing that have some common qualities.
Just as there are many intellectual and conceptual ‘universes’ – universe of Art, universe of Politics, universe of Engineering, etc, so I think l of a universe of Theta as the world of things that have, to me, “theta” qualities. It is not a concrete place, but it is quite “real” to me.
However, I do not believe it consists only of “my own mockups” that only I can see. I think it is entirely possible that you could see my mockups and facsimiles, and that I could see yours. It al has to do with being able to create space.
It is a social convention that we abstain from doing this, or at least deny that we can do this, even when it happens. It is considered bad form, kinda like a peeping-tom going around peeking in other’s windows, looking without permission at things which are theirs.
This speaks to the whole “conventional” idea of withholds, etc. It’s all pretty bogus! All depends on restraining our own abilities to be humble and lovable like Underdog the cartoon superhero.
Aside from the excellent wins that Geir is experiencing, this last bit of the thread is one of the best I’ve seen on this and other blogs.
The Static/theta/thetan question seems like the chicken/egg phenomena.
My own view has always been that Static was 1st in that it is ‘potential’. It has the ability to consider, create, etc, etc, but, at the point of Static, it is nothing more than potential.
Once that first decision/consideration is made, such as the decision to ‘Be’, one falls away from the definition of Static – one moves towards MEST. A game has been created.
I also like Marildi bringing up “I think of what LRH described as the ultimate in “affinity – coincidence of location and beingness”
I remember this well and likely we all have experienced that ‘one-ness’ where telepathy just IS. It is an exact duplication of beingness & consideration at that moment.
Great stuff! I look forward to more revelations from all of you!
We agree.
Okay, there’s something here I’m not getting: If you “only” perceive what you yourself create, that would mean you don’t perceive what others create – and presumably they only perceive what they themselves create and not what you create. So how does it happen that anybody ALSO creates what others create?
And again, I think it would be easier to duplicate ideas on this subject if we put them in mechanical terms, which should be possible since we’re talking about MEST=mechanical universes – yours, mine, and everybody’s. Maybe I’ll get what you’re saying better…
Here’s how I see it:
There is no MEST in actuality. I create what I see, I see what I create. The same with any other viewpoint – they create what they see, they see what they create. (LRH actually goes into this on a tape (Human evaluation Series and comments on how amazing it is that we can all be in total telepathy like this). We have all agreed on a basic set of rules that help make creation automatic (like computer “macros”). These very basic agreements sets the standard for what we create – like an electron’s charge, the Planck length, the speed of light in vacuum, the strength of the basic unifying force etc. And in these basic agreements lies the solution to the synchronization enigma – that makes us all create the consequences of any wave function collapse by any other viewpoint -. and by that we all create and see the same (mostly – as you can always create something that only you see as in your dreams, and you and I can decide to co-create something that nobody else will see).
Valkov, you say, “So I don’t see ‘theta universe’ as a ‘place’, but as a term which I use to refer to phenomena, experiences, actions, modes of being and doing that have some common qualities.”
Socrates would be proud of you for defining your terms :-). But your definition seems to be somewhat different from how LRH defined theta universe – “thought matter (ideas), thought energy, thought space, and thought time, combined in an independent universe analogous to the material universe.” It’s pretty simple, actually, when I thought about it and put aside my “invented definition” or one gleaned from “verbal data.”
However, you obviously are right that there are instances when we do see each other’s mockups and facsimiles. I hadn’t forgotten about that and was only speaking in a general way as that ability isn’t a common one. The general IN-ability to see others’ universes is real to most people and pointing out that general reality helps make the idea of individual universes understandable. But anyway, you’re right, and I should rephrase it as – theta universes are “not generally” perceivable by others. In any case, this aspect isn’t actually part of the definition itself, one way or the other, so it’s basically beside the point.
Dennis, you contributions have been appreciated too. Hope you continue!
Geir: “Here’s how I see it: There is no MEST in actuality…”
Thanks! Pretty mind boggling. With that, it seems there must have been a one-ness in creation – or should we just say “a oneness,” period – at the beginning of the MEST universe or the beginning of time. (I’ll have to think about how this aligns with The Factors.) And we must now all have an inconceivably huge amount of created particles “in mind.” Incredible powers of programming/concentration!
I guess the reason we don’t see each others’ own “new” creations (postulates or considerations) is that those are newly created (postulated) particles and we are no longer creating in unison – other than what was already agreed upon, what we already agreed to create. (Well, there’s that individuation idea – no more Garden of Eden, folks.) But the fact that we are able to make postulates and considerations (newly created particles) does at least show there is free will – whew! 🙂
Bingo.
Love it when I get a “bingo”! 😀
It’s that loud ringing sound from the clock tower 😉
Aw, ya lost me again. (Don’t shoot yourself.) Are you alluding to the clock tower game?
No, just paining a picture of the sound 😉
Oh good! I was afraid you were comparing the MEST universe survival game we’re playing to some survival horror game. LOL!
But the sound painting was my first thought and it “resonated.” 🙂
Geir: ” Here’s how I see it: There is no MEST in actuality. I create what I see, I see what I create”
Wow … this is how I envision it … deep thought hehe 🙂
Yes, it seems that this could/may/I think it is so.
If this, let’s call it ‘oneness’ (although I remember LRH saying that we do not all go back to a oneness) somehow considered to create a game.
* Create a set of acceptable beingnesses
* Create a set of acceptable abilities
* Bar certain abilities from being used at all
* Agree that the instant the Game starts, a forgetter mechanism goes into effect
* Agree that the instant the Game starts all current ability one would have would be nullified
* We all start from an ‘unconscious’ state other than we ‘know’ we exist or have a certain beingness and feel that we have some ‘location’ in a space & time
* Agree that from that point to have this innate urge to seek knowledge/awareness – or as LRH put it – ‘Survive’
This would make for a heck of a game … a labyrinth of sorts.
To me it does have a way out embedded within it. I don;t know about you, but I have always had this urge to seek … what? I am defining that as I go along … or should I say, ‘discovering’ what this game is about and how to ‘bend’ the rules to further my awareness.
It seems to me that every ‘win’ in session & life are the keys, the small jewels of knowledge needed to follow the path out of the labyrinth.
Marildi: Thanks for the kind acknowledgment … I find it difficult to put my ideas/creations into words sometime although I hope they do communicate somewhat.
Man, I’d just love to sit around with the group of you over coffee to yak about this ‘stuff’.
Now *that* would be a thrill for me – who knows what wins and cogs we’d have playing off each other. 🙂
One time down the road, we should get together over a coffee and just string it out.
I’m in.
Oops … I forgot the most important part of the game:
A set of rules to survive within.
As with any set of rules, there are awards and penalties.
Good deeds = increase in awareness
Really bad deeds = you get a ‘time out’ – lose a body and start over 🙂
Win a lottery – oddly, a somewhat poor play within the game unless you use the winning to help solve the game. Used otherwise, it feels great in your Lamborghini, but you have moved a couple steps more into MEST.
So it’s actually a lose disguised as a ‘win’.
Personally, I’d buy a Bugatti and use some of the money for game solutions … hell, I want it all 🙂
Dennis, It’s wild how even these virtual “coffee get-togethers” are productive of wins and cogs. As a matter of fact, I’ve been thinking for awhile now about how helpful it is to 2-way comm (and 2 way+) on these threads, on the subjects of Scientology and whatever. I can just imagine how it might have been if this had been allowed in the C of S!
In fact, I’ve long thought that the policy forbidding verbal tech did not (or at least, should not) apply to verbal DATA. Are we free beings or what? (And we do have False Data Stripping, where needed.) There’s just something about the dynamics of discussion (playing off each other, as you said) that I don’t think can be achieved with solo study alone. I haven’t really analysed it to see what exactly that something is, but I’d say a big part of it is you learn a lot about communication (what a practical!) and what could be more important than communication in the Big Game we’re in? And you learn about people, including yourself. Pretty interesting… 🙂
MEST is the layer of perception within one’s mind.
.
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/06/26/significant-change/#comment-5597
Hi Marildi,
My definition of ‘theta universe’ is not really different from Hubbard’s. I was trying to get across the idea that I did not think of ‘theta universe’ as an actual ‘place’, but perhaps similar to a mathematical ‘set’. Hubbard, then, was defining the nature and contents of this ‘set’. It is the set of everything that has to do with ‘thought’ as he defined it. It is not that much of a ‘shared universe’ the way the MEST thing is. It does have more to do with each one of us individually, as you say. But I think there is some kind of a common substrate, which I imagine is ARCU, possibly among other elements.
Actually, if you look at Geir’s defintion of MEST, that is similar in that MESTcould be viewed not as an actual ‘place’ we can ‘go’ to, but a continuously created creation based on a ‘set’ of rules, that we thetans are creating sitting right here in our thetan easy chairs from right here in Native State.
And to some extent it IS a set in which only theta exists; or at least in which theta is senior.
Valkov, I was tracking with you all the way up to the last sentence, where you described the theta universe as “a set in which only theta exists; or at least in which theta is senior.” I might have to pick at that a bit – based strictly on the definitions of “theta” and “theta universe” Specifically, the theta universe is nothing other than mock-ups, by definition – which would not include the creator of those mock-ups – theta, a static. So theta wouldn’t exist IN that set of mock-ups called the theta universe. But where you add “or at least in which theta is senior”, that’s more like it (the definition, that is).
But now that I think of it, what you said in the first paragraph, referring to the theta universe, “there is some kind of a common substrate, which I imagine is ARCU” – neither would that be part of the theta universe which is really just M-E-S-T, the components of mock-ups. A-R-C are the components of theta itself – not the creations of.
Okay, over to you, fellow linguistics lover.
Wow, I have to scroll a lot to find a ‘Reply’ button!
Marildi: Yes, these ‘coffee-shop’ sessions are great .. I do get a lot out of them!
Years ago, we used to come in to the Mission early so we could just chat … this was encouraged although the E.D. did step in from time to time when he felt what we were talking about may be a bit out-reality for some.
Graduation on Friday nights was a time to bring in new people. We would all have notepads for the newcomers/visitors to write down anything they didn’t understand so we could clear it up later. The E.D. at the time worked closely with Ron and took many of the photographs which we know from over the years. He always had great tales to tell about his experiences with LRH.
The one thing that struck me about those days was that the speeches the students & PCs gave were from the heart – non-scripted. Yes, there were some wild success speeches, but granting of beingness was high and never were we told what to say. Very unlike today when you are only allowed to parrot the party line.
Yes, the verbal tech policy was taken too far … it was being used to stop communication – even one’s own viewpoint on something.
Amazing that the subject of communication has been twisted to such a degree.
Makes you wonder what that crazy little thing called the Comm Course was for.
Anyway, what we have here reminds me of those good ol’ days. While there may be differences in viewpoints, I look at these differences as a learning experience.
Gosh – come to think of it, if these differences were looked at as simply differences rather than ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, think how much comm there would be then!
Dennis, thanks for your post on the good ol’ days. Made me smile. 🙂
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/06/26/significant-change/#comment-5696
Damn, this is a long string! I hope I found the correct entry point….
Marildi, you are asking me to think and clarify myself. I am lazy and prefer you simply read my mind to get my meaning…. 🙂 But OK, I’ll try…
Questions:
Do thoughts have mass? Does a postulate have any mass? Do considerations have mass? Do intellectual constructs have mass? Do theories have mass? Does a mathematical set have mass? Does a significance have mass? Does admiration have mass? Do attention units have mass? Does a decision have any mass?
Those are the kind of things I associate with “theta”.
OK. So, I evidently distinguish between the kind of mass a shared MEST universe rock has, and the kind of ‘mass’ a significance has, if it has any at all. Otherwise, why would we bother to distinguish between mass and significance?
Now, a mock-up definitely may have some mass to it. After all, don’t we speculate that the shared MEST universe actually consists of mock-ups?
Also, LRH used ‘theta’ as a rubric that covered a lot of territory. Static is ‘theta’. Perhaps it is unmanifested theta? But he also used ‘theta’ in more concrete ways, to describe various manifestations as having ‘theta’ qualities. The analytical mind, for example, he associated more with theta than with MEST….
ARC, status of: OK. Is Static composed of, or comprise, ARC? I mean Static as unmanifested potential?
Perhaps that is why the word “substrate” occurred to me. Substrate would be a level just a little more basic or fundamental. I think there are perhaps one or two ‘intervals’ between the unmanifested “Cause” of the Axioms and that actual manifestation of a universe. There was a ‘Cause’, then there was a decision To BE, then there was ‘Universe’. Intervals are implied. I don’t know whether they really exist(ed), or if it’s just the structure of our language that makes it seem like they existed…. but the way he wrote it, it sure sounds like he meant tosay there were intervals, ‘Planck seconds’ or whatever…
I am thinking that perhaps, ARCU and decisions, thoughts, postulates, considerations, significances, all those things we might consider to be ‘theta’ (or ‘mind’) rather than MEST, arise in the first intervals before the full-blown manifestation of a MEST universe arises.
As I write this, it occurs to me that ‘Space’ has a senior position in all this figuring I am doing. So, does ‘space’ have mass?
You see, I think we(or at least I,) have a long ways to go to define what I/we even mean by ‘theta’….
There. I”m so glad I could answer your questions! 🙂
You seem to hold te view that a MEST object actually exists and is shared among many. Am I right?
Valkov, my answer to all your questions about what has mass is – yes, from what I’ve worked out for myself, between this and the previous thread or two. Consider the definition of concept: a high-wave thought (Tech Dict). The difference between mass and significance, then, would be – so-called mental energy is simply “a finer, higher wave length” than physical energy (as per Understanding the E-meter). And that would seem to be how and why we distinguish between significance and mass – “mental energy” as compared to physical energy. Now, as for admiration – it’s a particle, according to The Factors, “the best particle of all.” Also, consider what a meter reads on – thought, or an electrical impulse.
BUT, now that you got ME thinking. It seems you’re right about the differing uses of “theta,” considering its components – A-R-C (duh!) – and the fact that in SOS it’s defined even as “cheerful emotion”. Not only that but, looking now in AP&A I see that “by theta is meant the static itself” and yet (same book) “by facsimile is meant theta which contains impressions by perception.” THAT seems to be a contradiction in terms. Hmmm…
I’m starting to like your idea of static being “unmanifested theta” and all that substratum stuff, Okay, back to the old drawing board…
OK here is the beginning of this string, for future reference….
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/06/26/significant-change/#comment-5516
And here is Geir’s post that I am replying to….
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/06/26/significant-change/#comment-5774
Yes of course you are right! Haven’t I made it clear over and over that is my view? That is the R part of ARC, as I posted earlier. Keep in mind though, “First there is a mountain, then no mountain, then there is.”
Words that I feel we might need to be clear on: ‘exist’, ‘actually’. Maybe also ‘actuality’.
Usually I would write a dissertation in response, but not this time. I will instead ask you, and let you write the dissertation:
Do your boat and your house actually exist? And do you share them with your family? Does this blog actually exist, and are we communicating via it? And, are those questions sufficient?
I will write my own post on this soon. But I am curious as to:
How can you be fully responsible for those things that you see exist?
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/06/26/significant-change/#comment-5816
Geir asks, how can you or I be fully responsible for those things that you see exist?
This may be an analogy: We all bring a food item to the potluck, many many of us and many different food items. You bring carrots, I bring potatoes, Marildi brings tomatoes, etc etc etc hundreds of foods, including prepared dishes, raw foodstuffs etc.
But instead of serving these a la carte, we throw all them in a giant blender and thoroughly reduce them to very small particles and thoroughly ‘blend’ them so the particles of different origin are all intermixed with each other into a homogeneous soup or mash.
Now we extract some of the liquid or start drying the mash to make it more solid, until we can fashion it into sheets of food material which we can cut into strips or otherwise fashion into food bars.
Now we have tons of food bars, but who is ‘fully responsible’ for any one of them? They are ‘co-created’ and each bar is composed of particles of many origins and many ownerships.
You come along and try to as-is one of these bars and find it doesn’t as-is very easily at all. It seems to exist ‘on it’s own’, in it’s own right, or seems to actually exist, or as the Buddhists say,seems to have it’s “own-being”.
This is because the particles which compose it are created and ‘owned’ by many different sources or beings.
Thus it won’t entirely as-is until you spot the correct ownership of each particle, of which it is composed and track it back to it’s origin, who made it etc.
This is how the MEST universe seems to me. It is a huge mish-mash of particles of different origins and ownerships, so to take ‘full responsibility’ for any piece or even all of it, you would have to be able to assign the correct origins and ownerships which pertain to it. Gotta have a BIG attention span…..
To be continued…….
(Maybe you want to start a new thread with a new blog post?)
If that was how the universe was created, then you could not possibly be fully responsible for anything that hit you. Never. You could not possibly reach native state. And you could not possibly go full OT without every other single being at the same time go full OT. Incidentally, this also violates the basics in Scientology, but you may have already noticed that. You should listen to the Human Evaluation tapes.
As I mentioned earlier, the MEST universe that we see is the layer of perception within our mind. We can definitely take responsibility for it because we are creating that layer of perception in its entirety.
.
Well Geir you may be right. But in fact Hubbard himself said that none of us will be truly free until all of us are free. That’s why he pushed training so hard, and why it’s ‘billion year contract’ and all that.
This view is common to many wisdom traditions – the idea of a ladder, and that when you take a step up, then you must bring another person up to the rung you just vacated or else you will be stuck and unable to take the next step yourself. Essentially, it’s the idea that if you don’t do this,you get a stuck flow.
This ties in with the pivotal importance of ‘help’. Also with the ARC triangle. If we are all participants in a big ARC triangle, then to raise the whole triangle every participant in it must be raised.
However, you can take 100% responsibility for your own role in it all, and for your own connections,say, to the MEST universe. Just because you own a holographic video game, doesn’t mean you have to be interior to it all the time. You can chose to leave the holodeck, to step outside of it. That does not unmock the holodeck, it still exists, but you are not enmeshed in it’s scripts.
Similarly, it may take all of us to unmock the MEST universe we are ‘in’, but there are other personal alternatives which I believe are ‘the route to take’. One can as-is (take responsibility for) one’s own personal connections to the game which releases one from it.
One can put the MEST universe game on the shelf in one’s library, and goes about doing something else. The game still exists because others are still mocking it up, but one is not so bound to it and is much more free to do other things, maybe mockup other games or universes, whatever. One may be ‘exterior to the MEST universe’ wiothout unmocking it. Because it is co-created, it won’t unmock completely until all cease creating it, but that doesn’t mean you have to be trapped in it.
I think this was LRH’s POV on it as well as that of previous ‘teachers’, but the idea that eventually all will have to be freed is usually in the teaching somewhere. Witness Mahayana Buddhism with their emphasis on ‘bodhisatvas’ postponing their entry into their final personal nirvana in order to remain on earth and work to help other beings become free.
I guess the point that is emerging here is that one does not have to ‘take responsibility” for everyone else’s MEST universe, but needs to ‘take care of #1’ in terms of becoming more OT, and the rest will take care of itself because as one becomes more able one naturally helps others more and more. One can progressively take responsibility for one’s own relationship to the MEST universe. As for others, well, you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink, right?
You seem to believe in a RWOT (Real World Out There). I don’t. I will blog on this later.
Addendum to my last post: I should have reiterated one thing, that I did include in my first post about taking responsibilty for the MEST universe, the ‘food bars’ analogy.
One theoretically can, as I posted, actually as-is, ‘take responsibility’ for MEST one was not solely responsible for creating. Part of it is to recognize that others created some parts of it. One can then as-is or unmock actual MEST objects by tracking back all it’s particles to their actual sources and origins, which is who actually owns them by virtue of having created them. I don’t know what the consequences of doing this might be, or even if there would be any consequences.
Would anyone care if you unmocked some particles they had created long ago which are now mashed up in a clay brick or a ‘food bar’?
I have read of ‘psychics’ who reportedly can perceive ‘pictures’ that are in MEST objects and to some extent ‘read’ the history of the object by viewing the pictures it is composed of. I forget the name of this ability, but it has a name. I believe maybe Edgar Cayce was reputed to be able to do this sometimes. So tracking back to the origins of MEST particles composing any MEST to assign it’s correct ownership(s)object is theoretically possible. It is a necessary part of making a perfect duplicate of the object, this correct assignment of ownership.
Well I’m tired having worked all night, so goodnight for now. I just wanted to bring that up as your conclusions did not seem to follow from what I had posted.
The goal should never be to unmock the MEST universe. The goal should be to unmock the attachment to (or identification with) the physical universe.
The former is impossible to achieve, and there is no good reason why that should be a goal. There is nothing wrong with the MEST universe itself. What is wrong is the identification with it, or with any part of it.
.
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/06/26/significant-change/#comment-5942
Re: “A Real World Out There”.
This will be a great blog post topic engendering much discussion!
As for whether or not it actually exists, calls for some very exact definitions of words, methinks, to get everyone on the same page discussing it.
To me, it’s the “R” of A-R-C. Does the sunshine? Is there a mountain? Does your boat ‘actually exist’? How about the water it floats on? Does your family ‘actually exist’? And do you share your boat with them?
Ultimately I would guess the answers to these kind of questions depend on a person’s ‘level of consciousness’ or ‘level of awareness’. At least that’s what others have said.
I agree entirely with this. The goal is to as-is one’s own connections and attachments to the MEST universe in order to recover one’s freedom with regards to the MEST universe.
Whether the MEST universe is, is not, remains, or subsequently vanishes matters not.
+1
Maybe! or maybe surely. Yet, just take one of your dichotomies and say more.
Geir asked what was a “theta-universe.” I answered it was the MEST universe just behind the automated-MEST universe.
I’ve been thinking about that and am still liking it.
Maybe re-defining the MEST universe a bit would make me like it better. MEST could be defined as that universe where matter, energy, space and time must rigidly conform to rules set against a background of agreement and running on automatic. The MEST universe is a universe requiring anyone living there to be both a congenital and pathological liar.
Like states or countries drawn on a map, there is no clearly defined line between the MEST universe and theta-universe. I think we exist in both and become diseased and begin to worsen as we decline on the Tone Scale and to the degree that we “become MEST.”
Yes – but any mockup to exist requires one to continue to lie to oneself.
MEST is only agreement. Fighting MEST = fighting agreement = lowering ARC. Trying to free oneself from MEST = trying to free oneself from the agreements with others. Which I happen to believe can be a healthy route – but not necessarily to the very end (Tone 22 is the optimum state).
yes – tone 22 – In but not too in.
at Tone 22 = less pathological – but it all does seem a little bit like “managing one’s addiction.”
I think I’ve got my next item.
Chris says, “The MEST universe is a universe requiring anyone living there to be both a congenital and pathological liar.”
That sounds sort of dismal unless you look at the MEST universe game somewhat the way we do with any game we’re “into.” Take chess – you know you’re “lying” but if you play it with gusto you might have a good time. 🙂
P.S. And all the while – you are organized, efficient, focused and evaluating importances as you play “the theta universe game” at the same time. You said this very well in your other comment today where you said:
“I’m thinking that if I can organize my thinking, keeping this in mind, then I can more efficiently target and address things with energy and focus that I can change. Likewise, I can now with good conscience take my attention off those things which I cannot change.”
Thanks for reminding me of some things I need to keep better in mind. 🙂
We seem to (or I) have begun discussing gradations of things.
Theta universe as gradation of MEST, etc.,.
To be less dismal, higher toned lying is sometimes called “pretending” – a fun thing.
Got it – another one of those “a rose by any other name…” kind of things. Okay, I feel better – I like to postulate reality in a positive way, since we actually create the future according to what we “put there.” And you QM guys are going to prove it in terms of actual physical particles, I’m betting. 🙂
I think the Socratic Method is as good and effective as the person who is attempting to apply it. Like psychotherapy of any kind, auditing, or whatever, the result of the application of any method is only as good as the intelligence, beingness in terms of ARC, and intentions of the person applying it.
That’s senior.
Give a donkey the Socratic Method to use, and you will hear a lot of braying.
Fortunately we on this blog are not donkeys. 🙂
It appears to have been a favorite of the bunch that arrived on Earth around 2,500 BC, as Socrates, Plato, and Gotama all used it.
It reflects the truth that a major barrier to learning anything is to think and believe that you already know.
Here is the inevitable Wikipedia link, and a couple of others, too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method
According to W. K. C. Guthrie’s The Greek Philosophers, while sometimes erroneously believed to be a method by which one seeks the answer
to a problem, or knowledge, the Socratic method was actually intended to demonstrate one’s(another’s, actually – V.) ignorance.
Socrates, unlike the Sophists, did
believe that knowledge was possible, but believed that the first step to knowledge was recognition of one’s ignorance. Guthrie writes,
“[Socrates] was accustomed to say that he did not himself know anything, and that the only way in which he was wiser than other men was
that he was conscious of his own ignorance, while they were not. The essence of the Socratic method is to convince the interlocutor that
whereas he thought he knew something, in fact he does not.”
Now, I, Valkov, disagree with Guthrie that this was the sole essence of the Socratic Method. It can also produce more positive results than he seems to think.
http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5631
http://www.philosopher.org/en/Socratic_Method.html
I think there are times when you have used it effectively, and other times when you use it defensively because you are yourself at a loss for words for whatever reason.
OOOPs I meant the philosophers who arrive here about 2,500 years ago, not 2,500 BC.
Oh, one point I meant to include in my post about the Socratic method – it is appropriate to indulge it on such a discussion site as this, only to some extent. I think most of us are here to have discussions/conversations, not to have every question answered by a question.
Thus there could be folks reading here who don’t post because they don’t want to be subjected to what seems like an inquisition. They just want to exchange ideas, have a good time and informative time.
If they wanted to get the Socratic 3rd degree, they could go to Law School, where many of their professors would apply the method to them.
I didn’t sign up for that, when I started posting here. I did not elect Vinnie as my Socrates.
Thus, the occasional question is welcome, but I tend to assume it is a sincere request for information, not an attempt to make me question my stable data or whatever.
This is why Chris and Marildi are pointing out that Vinnie may not be engaged in comm cycles here – at least some of the time, he is not. He is apparently pretending to be Socrates.
I suspect the real Socrates would be good at staying in comm with his students as he asked his penetrating questions; in any case, he would be dealing with people who were knowingly subjecting themselves to his methods , as students.
Applying the Socratic method covertly, without telling folks that’s what you are doing to them, seems, well, covert.
I doubt it works any better than trying to do covert psychotherapy or auditing.
“This is why Chris and Marildi are pointing out that Vinnie may not be engaged in comm cycles here – at least some of the time, he is not. He is apparently pretending to be Socrates.”
Except that – wasn’t it Socrates who said, “Define your terms”? In that respect I want Vinaire (and everyone) to be MORE like Socrates. 🙂
I really think you should learn to look rather than just figure-figure and spew out evaluations.
.
Hey, Vinnie, I don’t care what they say about you, you’re OK in my book.
And what is your statement here, if not a patronizing evaluation? What makes you think I do not look and see – you?
When it gets right down to it, what else is there to talk about, other than our “evaluations”, analytical, fanciful, or otherwise?
We can only communicate our considerations, right? Those are all we have, after all, according to you, right?
Isn’t it your thesis that when we look, we are just seeing our own considerations?
So, you are welcome to whatever you think I “should” do, but you are not my Bapu. So in my own mind, I am equally welcome to whatever it is I think I should do, or think, or say.
and so to exist in the physical universe one must be both a congenital and pathological liar.
To exist in agreement with others, one must be a congenital and pathological liar.
.
“”And thirdly, when you say “Lessons you cannot give to me you are not qualified to do that.” – I believe that is among the most arrogant things I have read. Because I truly believe that anyone can learn from anyone – without being “qualified to give lessons”. I learn from my kids, from my colleagues, from the cat next door, from anyone – and at surprising times””
Oddly it may sound arrogant to you nerveless that remain the fact. All the lessons I have learned they were from my past activities, the history of my existence and the co-existence with others in the MEST universe. Those inter- actions on every passible level have become the lessons from which the confrontations in sessions were based on. And I have been everything imaginable and unimaginable by human’s knowledge and understanding.
The lessons from the experiences were the greatest gift the greatest adventure a being can have. Being with others and by that learning has given me the knowledge which I have and that knowingness is that I no longer have the MEST considerations, the MEST agreements, and that knowingness is so certain that I no longer can learn from The MEST and from those who still has the believes the considerations, the agreements because I know that I have finished with my lessons.
I believe 120 thousands of hours of solo auditing did that. The MEST universe is as-ised. The cycle is ended.
Now you are looking for remarkable being like Gandhi etc… Yet, when you see one you do not recognize the remarkability, the ability the great achievement simply because there is no group agreement existing among your peers, the group.
I am Gautama, yes the Enlighten One. You want proof, DNA, root canal? You don’t believe it for a second when you read this; you see that is reality, if not agreed upon than that does not exist. YES? Yet I am sure there is a bit of doubt of my claims reality which you will quiet very fast.
Again, if you would read my postings with care, open mind than you could see the so called wins are extraordinary, singular and not have been achieved by others, or similar claims made.
I have been on this planet very short period. Now, regardless of you believe or not the fact remains the same and I have lived that miserable life and it was miserable no matter what the history say.
My recall has nothing to do with what is out there and that do not make any difference one way or another. I had many solo sessions on that life time. Now that incident has become just the same as any other experience I have had. No importance what so ever.
In fact I cherish my adventures with Indigo my first best friend much more because that adventure was theta, based on affinity and not based on implant based misery. I no longer have ARC B. with the MEST Universe.
Elizabeth Hamre
I can give you no lessons, but your experience with others (including me) is what you learn from. I find this contradictory. Please explain.
Also, why do you insist on invalidating those who query you. That behavior alone is grounds for doubting your claims of extraordinary powers.
“”I can give you no lessons, but your experience with others (including me) is what you learn from. I find this contradictory. Please explain.
Also, why do you insist on invalidating those who query you. That behavior alone is grounds for doubting your claims of extraordinary powers.””’
I have said very plain
“The lessons I have learned they were from my past activities, the history of my existence and the co-existence with others in the MEST universe.
Those inter- actions on every passible level have become the lessons from which the confrontations in sessions were based on. And I have been everything imaginable and unimaginable by human’s knowledge and understanding.
The lessons from the experiences were the greatest gift the greatest adventure a being can have.
Being with others and by that learning has given me the knowledge which I have and that knowingness is that I no longer have the MEST considerations, the MEST agreements, and that knowingness is so certain that I no longer can learn from The MEST and from those who still has the believes the considerations, the agreements because I know that I have finished with my lessons.”
I believe 120 thousands of hours of solo auditing did that.
“The MEST universe is as-ised. The cycle is ended.”
One can only be out of the MEST universe if one is as –ising all the considerations, agreements, with others by others.
Now you are looking for remarkable being like Gandhi etc… Yet, when you see one you do not recognize the remarkability, the ability the great achievement simply because there is no group agreement existing among your peers, the group.
Strange it may seem but there is no invalidation in my universe toward others. How could there be any if one has on understanding the origination of their communication, the behaviour? It is truly fine with me whatever.
I can’t do anything about if some believes or feels invalidated. There is no intention on my part to do such. There is no game condition in such to do so.
But the communication with words, because the great difference in one’s reality=understanding can distort any intention. The content of any communication, lots of wars started because of the miss-understanding.
Greir i have won my battle, made my amends big time. In people’s eyes ones behaviour is judged accordance how that state should be. By their reality and you know that very well. [ Like how a Lady should behave: prim and proper] I have no idea how I have invalidated you since my postings are in generality, mostly.
PS: considerations of Buddha’s life is like his statues built larger than life. It has become a fairy tale, a myth, unreal, built into huge proportions in order to have importance. So the followers can too become important too. And that is well achieved by group agreements as you can see the group agreement holds power in the MEST universe.
My life was not like that, and I was only 5’5”.
Elizabeth, this was a great post. I really got it, I really did. You are for real in my book. 🙂 🙂 🙂
Buddha’s greatness comes not from his enlightenment but from the enlightement he brought to others.
Buddha never bragged about his own enlightement. He simply put forth his understanding without any authority and encouraged his disciples to question everything including Buddha himself.
.
yes – better.
PS, thanks Marildi you are good at explaining things.
I only wish to conway that the Simple form of running Rudiments work in sessions regardless running on what item ever. I have simple knowledge which I have attained in sessions which encompass the how’s the why’s of the universe. That the Technolodgy works, by its simple form of use reversing the affects of the implants. through that one do attain knowledge which some calls enlightenment.
I am certain if otheres would be willing to solo audit so many hours in order to achieve as-is the MEST U. they too would have extraordinery acheivements, knowledge=power.
PS: life as Buddha is very small, insignificent in comperison to other lifes where the bounderies holds no limitation as here because of the implants.
The thing I really like about your simplified tech of running mainly the ARC break rudiment, is that everything in the MEST universe can be understood in terms of ARC, (even mathematics per LRH) – and this computes for me. But not only is ARC basic in the MEST universe, it is also what composes theta – affinity, reality and communication. So it’s basic to everything, it would seem.
By the way, I thought you were the one who did very well at “explaining things” today, in your various comments. I felt your intention and your meaning came across better than ever. Take a win! 🙂
It is a beautiful day i am watering the flowers in the garden and been thinking of the claim THE EXTRAORDINERY POWERS as Geir has put it. [Mine]
Let’s look at that differently, let’s reverse that. It is the human consideration and agreement by billions” NOT KNOW. “ That is the outcome of the long standing cycles not understood.
So there is the technology which can reverse the effects of the implants which contain the NOT KNOW.
What one has when all the walls, berries, counter postulates, one erases by the tens of thousands? While doing just that one has tens of thousands of cognitions about the inter action of the beings in the MEST U. what happens then? The power in form of knowledge becomes ones, as was Unknown before.
It is a beautiful day i am watering the flowers in the garden and been thinking of the claim THE EXTRAORDINERY POWERS as Geir has put it. [Mine]
Let’s look at that differently, let’s reverse that. It is the human consideration and agreement by billions” NOT KNOW. “ That is the outcome of the long standing cycles not understood.
So there is the technology which can reverse the effects of the implants which contain the NOT KNOW.
What one has when all the walls, berries, counter postulates, one erases by the tens of thousands? While doing just that one has tens of thousands of cognitions about the inter action of the beings in the MEST U. what happens then? The power in form of knowledge becomes ones, as was Unknown before.
I am further pondering on “extraordinary claims” of which spiritual beings agree to even after the experience past life recalls.
Just a few here, we die, we can get old, one life to live, we don’t have power, others did it to us, it is my body, but the greatest of all claims the most extraordinary claim is that “WE DON’T KNOW”
Of course this is not in any way invalidation or evaluation. Since I can’t forget for a minute I too had those considerations. But knowing about those matters one retains, that knowledge is not erased.
That is the very reason I am standing on the roof top shouting at the top of my voice “YEEEEEEEES the Technology works. It is yours to take and use to achieve the goals the very reasons you have entered into Scientology at the first place.
I am looking for fame? Let’s be real about that. The only reality you have about ME is what you read on the computers face. The words you read and from that you judge, evaluate accordance of your reality.
I am nothing but faceless bodiless being. Who do not even have a sound, a voice to recognise from? Where I am at in every sense there is no fame, importance those concepts too belong in the MEST U. I should know since I have had solo sessions on those items too. Thank You.
Elizabeth, it is clear to me that your acquired wisdom was not book-learned or learned in any other way within the MEST universe. Rather, it was within your own universe – where you went directly to the sources of the dwindling spiral. That in a profound way is the most reliable wisdom I can imagine. Amazing!
MEST is the result of perception.
Perception seems to be the result of genetic programming.
Benetic programming seems to be the result of prime considerations.
The source of prime considerations is unknown (or, unknowable to me).
.
I think “genetic programming” is a wrong term. “Genetic” refers to “genes” and they come pretty far down the line. Maybe substitute for a more basic term to avoid confusion?
Also, the concept itself (“genetic/basic programming”) explains nothing.
The concept that MEST universe is the result of agreement explains even less in my view. Who are these “others” that you are agreeing with? Aren’t they part of your perception as well?
.
Any viewpoint sees what it creates and creates what it sees.. To have a game among viewpoints, agreement is required. simple. Just like a marriage, a company or a nation.
OK. We can call it “thetanic programming,” “birth programming,” “beingness programming,” etc. Have your pick. 🙂
It may explain the nature of beginning itself that needs to be dissolved. In other words, anything must begin with rigid postulates, which then have to be taken apart bit by bit until they are completely dissolved.
.
I wont be writing comments here in the future. If any one has question please ask in my blog. thank you.
You don’t have to explain or defend yourself if you are so sure of yourself. Let others find it out for themselves.
.
Vinaire, are you and I doing any different?
No.
One should simply state one’s philosophy without trying to defend it. One should also continually update one’s philosophy based on the feedback.
One should not go away in a huff claiming to be ARC Broken.
.
Vinaire, I just meant that Elizabeth tries to “explain herself” (i.e. where she’s coming from) – just like you and I do. And, sorry to say it but haven’t you yourself been accused of not updating your philosophy “based on the feedback”? It’s a matter of viewpoint…
Also, I don’t believe she claimed to be ARC broken, as you state. I got that she decided this is not the place to try and get her reality across.
I thought of something else too, reading her latest posts. When people decide not to communicate it’s not always an ARC break – it’s sometimes an exercise of the Code of Honor point, “Do not give or receive communication unless you yourself desire it.”
It seems rather futile to get one’s reality across when she right out refuses to clarify her reality when politely asked to do so.
Marildi, you seem to be overlooking the following:
(1) Elizabeth herself stated that she was ARC broken at Geir’s response.
(2) I have rewritten KHTK 3 and 4 recently based on the feedback I have gotten.
.
Geir, she may have refused to clarify her reality but that was after she felt she had already done so and it hadn’t been accepted. In any case, she tried again with her last comments and clarified her reality fully – and still didn’t get any response to it except from me.
I asked what I asked because I didn’t understand. If that is all it takes, she will have a bumpy road ahead.
Vinaire,
(1) I said that I do not believe (meaning, as far as I am aware) that Elizabeth “claimed to be ARC broken” (as you put it) because I didn’t recall her saying that and couldn’t spot where she did after looking over the comments again. Can you be specific?
(2) Well done.
Here is Elizabeth’s ARC break. She may try to present it as Geir’s, but it is hers. She is upset.
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/06/26/significant-change/#comment-5356
.
Vinaire, someone being “upset” is not the same as “CLAIMING to be ARC broken.” In that post you cited, she doesn’t even state that she was upset. That was your evaluation, right or wrong.
I’m surprised that you would speak that imprecisely. Or did your bias filters get in the way? Happens to the best of us…
I stated what I saw. If there are filters in the way, they’ll get as-is’d sooner or later as I continue to look.
.
That part was clear to me – that you were sincerely trying to clarify. But as I’ve already gone on about – there was a lot of misunderstanding back and forth because of miscommunication due largely to very basic language barriers as well as more esoteric ones – different realities. And possibly part of it was a lack of intention to duplicate and intention to be duplicatable, all around, because of bias.
But, really, the only thing I might “find fault with” would be the fact that when she did come around and tried to express her viewpoints better, she didn’t get any kind of an ack from anybody but me. An out-TR 2 can be deadly, as I’m sure you know. Actually, I felt she even deserved more than a simple ack like “I got what you said” – she expressed some things that could even have been accepted as true, or at least possibly so.
But just a simple ack might have blown the “incomplete comm cycle.” On the other side of the coin, you’re right – this kind of thing happens commonly in life and we have to be able to stand up to it IF want to continue on the same road and not have it be so bumpy. And that is where Elizabeth might be found “at fault.” What I got from her, though, is that she doesn’t want to continue because, right or wrong, she doesn’t believe it will go anywhere. I happen to disagree with that but can accept it as her reality.
Personally, I get that she doesn’t have the vocabularly or constructs to make her reality easily understood or believable, and she might be compared to someone like those tribespeople in Tanzania who have far less vocabulary or philosophic constructs but still might have grasped some profound truths just by direct perception.
I will say too that I’m glad to be able to freely express my opinions to you. That says something very good about your basic intention and comm cycle.
An understanding person should be able to handle a lack of acknowledgement easily.
.
You are mistaken about Vinaire. He defends his “out-TR2” as a legitimate freedom which he enjoys and defends against this freedom being infringed.
In light of this attitude here on Vinaire’s blog, it is comical to me to read the complaints about Elizabeth’s lack of manners. 😉
Vinaire, you said “An understanding person should be able to handle a lack of acknowledgement easily.” I don’t think she ever claimed to be an understanding person (whatever you mean by that, exactly). That’s your hidden standard, perhaps.
But I wanted to tell you also that I remembered later there were a couple of times when you did give her a nice ack, things like “Good you are having wins.” Those were appreciated by her, and me too.
Chris, you are giving Valkov some good competition in razor sharp humor!
I agree that we’re not here to demonstrate our good manners so much as exchange honest viewpoints. I like that line of yours, in reference to blog posts – “kill ’em and let God sort it out.” Ha ha! And Geir seems to have the same viewpoint since he doesn’t seem to censor anything but truly vicious ad hom.
Yes, it’s pretty much free reigns here
Is there such thing as telepathy? Does it involve no distance?
.
I don’t know if there is such a thing as ‘telepathy’, or how that would be defined.
MEST distance is obviously always involved; however I believe Understanding can occur instantaneously or almost instantaneously, in such a way that it appears to bypass MEST distance and operates on some other principle than pushing MEST particles across space, as in the examples I gave.
Perhaps not. Perhaps it is a very fast flow of these mythic ‘bosons’ Geir has mentioned. I’ll let the physicists work that out, but I’m not holding my breath waiting for them to do so!
Any complete understanding will result in the as-isness of whatever solidity is there.
How about this writing style that mimics Hubbard’s. Is it acceptable?
.
As I have stated before Theta and MEST are not two separate systems. They are part of the same system. LRH was in error in putting them in opposition to each other.
Static – theta – MEST idea is parallel to God – good – evil idea. It is the same old idea dressed up to look more scientific. Many are deceived. Some are not.
.
I don’t think LRH was necessarily putting them in opposition to one another.
If you look at the Effect Scale:
From: 40.0 Can cause or receive any effect
To: 0.0 Must cause total effect, can receive none
To: -8.0 Is total effect, is hallucinatory cause
When LRH talked about the ‘conquest’ of the MEST universe, I think this is looking at it in the sense of tone 40.
‘Fighting’ the MEST universe I think is a losing proposition – the game is made up to have losers (broken pieces).
If, on the other hand, one re-discovers the rules of the game and one’s original postulates/2nd postulates & considerations, one can as-is the effects of this MEST phenomena and assume a Cause position.
One must AGREE to be effect, before one actually IS effect.
The recognition of the original considerations/postulates and then creating new ones allow one to change conditions.
Of course Theta – MEST are the two ends of the same scale. Good – Evil are also the two ends of the same scale. That is the sane way of looking at it.
From an exterior viewpoint a thing is neither good nor evil. It is simply a phenomenon to be observed, controlled and ultimately dissolved (as-is’d). Same logic should apply to Theta – MEST.
.
Thanks for the answer Vinaire 🙂
Vinaire: ” From an exterior viewpoint a thing is neither good nor evil. It is simply a phenomenon to be observed, controlled and ultimately dissolved (as-is’d). Same logic should apply to Theta – MEST.”
What term or concept would you use for that ‘thing’ or awareness unit that is actually doing the ‘observing, controlling & dissolving things’ ?
Geir is probably readying the popcorn for this replay. 😀 (Sorry Vin, couldn’t resist.)
It’s readied 😉
There is no ‘thing’. It is an assumption that there has to be something.
.
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/06/26/significant-change/#comment-5664
Hahahaha! Marildi – now it is you who is funny! (“ready the popcorn for this replay” . . . Indeed!)
Dennis is new to dealing with Vinay, but he soon will be “seasoned!”
Chris, I stole that hilarious popcorn line from Geir. He used it a couple of earlier-similar threads back. 😉
Hehe … well, I look at Vinaire as Alonzo Lite 🙂
I seem to get the feeling that this concept of ‘unknowable’ as Vinaire put it, is actually a hidden data line. No need to explain, define or discuss … it just is .. or isn’t 🙂
It does not produce a comm cycle … any speculation as to what this state might be like is answered with ‘unknowable’.
Vinaire, I still wonder what you envision exists after one ‘ de-constructs ‘ himself? One may find it a bit difficult to create a new game if he dissolved (in a spiritual sense). 🙂 Unless, this is similar to a ‘one-life’ belief.
I do like Valkov’s piece below … it did give me an insight into Buddhism in various forms.
I also liked the explanation of arriving at Static (or whatever term you want to use for the state) would likely be a momentary thing until a new game was mocked up.
Although I have very limited knowledge of Buddhism, I find Vinaire’s earlier statement that ‘Buddhism has not been squirreled’ puzzling.
If Buddhism had an exact technique one evolves thru to reach Nirvana, why would there be different types of Buddhism ?
Could it be that some who have reached that state in one version or the original Buddhism still find they have questions about life and wish to seek answers?
😀
Maybe we won’t need as big a bowl this time. Others before him have more or less forged the way for Dennis.
LOL … good one!
Yes, I thank those who came before me. 🙂
I will likely be eating popcorn with the rest of you in very short order.
Merry-go-rounds were never my cup o’ tea 🙂
What makes you think, Vinnie, that LRH put theta and MEST in opposition to each other in such a way that they were not to be considered ‘part of the same system’?
I think you oversimplify Hubbard and then argue against your own over simplifications which do not really represent his actual thinking very well at all.
Right, Valkov. Just a few years later (1954) LRH stated that the theta-MEST theory was “a theory generated by myself in the fall of 1950 as an effort to explain (just a theory) the phenomena of an analyzer working in one direction and a reactive mind working in quite another, the reactive mind being interesting, and the analyzer being interested.” (Tech Dict)
The mind appears to consist of many layers of thought surrounding a central core. That central core may be referred to as self.
The nature of the mind is to assess and determine what is there. This may be called thinking or considering. The outcome of this action may be called a thought or consideration. When mind assesses the sensory input the outcome appears as perception. Therefore, perception may be looked upon as a primitive thought.
…
THINKING & THOUGHT
~Vinaire
The crucial word here appears to be “determine”. It can mean one of two things- 1. as an observer, look, perceive and ascertain what is out there, or 2. cause what is out out there, as in “he determined their fate when he gave the order to charge.”
#1 is an inflow, #2 is an outflow.
Isene said, “I only create and perceive what I create and perceive… ”
That seems to be too simplistic a view. One must add to it the constraints due to automaticity. Due to these constraints, most people visualize within a box.
.
I am looking at my concepts of an expanding universe and a condensing mind – can’t reconcile these.
I think that universe is a part of the mind. It is the sum total of
Sensory input
Perception
Experience
Information
Hypothesis
Theory
Principles
Axioms
Self
.
Holy cow! Here’s is a link that describes a 3D printer that is now in existence. Put something like a wrench (used in their demonstration) into it and it gets “printed” as a real, usable wrench!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZboxMsSz5Aw&feature=youtube_gdata_player
I think it may relate in some way to our metaphysical discussion here. I’m sure Vinaire can use it somehow in his theories, maybe as an analogy to how a thetan comes about… 😀
P.S. Oh gosh, I’m now told this 3D printer has been around for several years so maybe everybody but me already knows about it (ha ha!). But anyway, I still think it might be compared to some of the notions here…
A friend of mine works for a company that manufactures 3-D printers. He introduced it to me 4 years ago, and I introduced it to my company. My company has been using it since.
.
Wow, what do you “print”?
And did that contraption inpsire some of your ideas about the nature of existence? (Only half kidding. 🙂 )
Look up PALL CORPORATION. I work for the Aerospace (Aeropower) division. We use the 3-D printer to print 3-D models from CATIA (3-D software) to show to the customer how his custom order would look like.
My ideas about the nature of existence pre-date the 3-D printer.
.
.
Wow …
Thanks for this Marildi!
Now, I’m starting to wonder whether my parents were being truthful with me … I always loved the smell of Gestetner fluid 🙂
LOL!
And I’m thinking Vinaire’s re-definition of “thetan” comes down to something like this –
just a printout. Not powder to powder like these machines but dust to dust and nothin’ but. But I’m not sure – I haven’t quite duplicated him yet (no pun intended). 🙂
There is nothing to duplicate. 🙂
.
Good one, Vinaire.
But wait – didn’t you say your thetan was a bunch of consideration filters, which you are peeling off one by one until there’s literally nothing left?. But now it seems the thetan isn’t that conglomerate of considerations – it’s just an imaginary endgame that doesn’t exist and won’t even be imagined once there are no more considerations that imagine it.
And I guess the “peeler” of the considerations is also just another consideration, a specialized one that peels. But still, if even the peeler is only a consideration – whose consideration is it?
I’m confused and getting sarcastic now. Second phenomena, I guess – haven’t got your nomenclature down. Try me again.
Unless… when you say, “There is nothing to duplicate,” by “nothing” you mean “nothingness” the way LRH meant it, in which case you really do have the same meaning of “thetan.” Sorry if I’ve boxed you in now. 🙂
You need to understand Axiom #1 better.
.
Vinaire, could you just give me a direct answer? It’s frustrating when you do that. And sometimes you don’t answer at all – not even a no-answer. You do want to be duplicated, don’t you?
In terms of Axiom 1, the exact thing I don’t get is how that fits in with your construct of thetan.
Thetan is the result of a consideration. Static is beyond consideration.
Also, please take a look at my recent posts on Axiom 1 where a comparison is presented. The following essay also presents my look at self or thetan.
KHTK 14: THE SELF AS THE LOOKER
.
You know, Vinaire, I highly doubt that Himduism came up with the term “Unknowable” and then say that not only can you never know anything ABOUT it (which I get) but that it has nothing to do with anything! What would they be naming? Why would they even think to give it a name? Makes no sense whatsoever.
I would bet they actually consider that Unknowable has to do with EVERYTHING. And the fact that you can’t or won’t tell me the connection it has with whatever you’re calling “thetan,” tells me your “answers” are a Q & A. That includes referral, to go read something, which is still either “can’t or won’t” and a Q & A – because if you understand something (and want to answer) you should be able to do so in a basic way. Or maybe the implication is that I won’t be able to grasp a basic answer – if so, I object to the patronizing.
The source doesn’t really matter. What matters is the removal of ignorance through knowledge. “Unknowable” is my way of phrasing “beyond consideration” because knowledge in MEST universe is made of consideration.
A thetan is part of MEST universe knowledge. If it is considered to exist beyond the MEST universe then it is a consideration. A consideration is part of the MEST universe.
This is the best I can do. I think mathematically and autistically. It is clear to me. I hope it is clear to you.
.
Thank you very much, Vinaire. In your reply I really got your intention to answer and that this was your answer. I’ll leave it at that… (for now ;-)).
Marildi, I like how you continually work hard to relate the data you study to some practical application. This is Scientology Study Tech very well applied. Warms my heart because after all the interesting discussing, I too am interested to know the practical utility of our concepts.
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/06/26/significant-change/#comment-5682
Vinaire applies one of the “Two Rules for Happy Living.”
This thread once again has become too long to easily manipulate… Geir? Time to put that giant brain to work…
Yeah, time for a new blog post I guess. But the net is flaky here on the boat in Greece… We’ll see.
Thanks, Chris!
I’ll confess something, though. Besides being practical minded, I enjoy just having an interesting discussion – theta ping pong, so to speak. A game that’s much more in our theta universes than the MEST U. A very theta activity, I’m sure you would agree.
You are a good study-er but you don’t learn… hahaha! You think there’s a comm cycle occurring! Why do you think this? Perpetual optimism? hahaha!
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/06/26/significant-change/#comment-5752
Takes one to know one. 🙂
There are definitely some comm cycles occurring but I’m getting close to giving up on some of the more dubious ones – which will be sooner than I’ve seen you finally give up. You’re a worse optimist than I am!
P.S. And when you finally give up it’s only after you’ve slaaaaaed that ping pong ball over the net a good many times. 😀
P.P.S. I meant to type “sla-a-a-a-a-m-ed.” (and besides, I love P.S’s)
😉
Marildi, Agree. These boys have applied The Factors and Axioms to a practical utility.
(I want to print out a cup of chocolate mousse – color seems to be no problem – but taste? haha)
Yeah, so far it’s just mold that powder into a “reasonable facsimile” of shape and form. These boys are not quite to the point of even duplicating actual dimension points and classes of – like in the Beginning. But I’m not much of a science enthusiast – maybe they’re getting close for all I know or at least are working on it.
I’m not sure I understand your objection. They don’t blog as good as we do?
But they made a wrench from a wrench and the wrench works. Beyond cool – it’s primal.
No no – by “duplicating” I meant actually creating duplicate dimension points – that is, making “exact copies” of ones that already exist in the physical universe. That’s about the only way they could “print” a chocolate mousse that was tasty (not that I didn’t appreciate your funny). Anyway, “beyond cool” was my sentiment exactly about this gadget.
For sure, I didn’t mean scientists have no “understanding” (the other definition of “duplicate”) of what dimension points are. I’m sure they do understand (better than I, to say the least!) about particles and sub particles and all that – which I figure has everything to do with what LRH called dimension points. (Don’t you, BTW?)
Incidentally, using duplication to mean understanding is done commonly (including by me), but I’m not sure LRH meant it to have that def – e.g. per the comm formula, a communication is duplicated AND understood, “duplicate” meaning to make an exact copy of.
Marildi,
Ah! I get you.
I’m thinking that’s the most master clay table I ever saw.
Plus the sci-fi of “replicators” is just too-too.
P.S. But to answer your question – yes, I do think we’re better bloggers. 🙂
Seriously (more or less), let’s face it Chris – you and I are the model bloggers. Just consider this particular comm cycle we’re having. You read my post and think I’m way off and reply by saying as much (but gently so), yet nevertheless grant me the beingness of being able and willing to “hear” and “have” your idea disagreeing with mine. Actually, even replying to me at all grants me beingness, if you think about it, and the fact that you speak directly to my comm shows you don’t think I’m “impossible” or can’t be reasoned with and that you think I (and we) have enough ARC for you to be able speak your mind.
Moving on now – I in turn read your post and think, “Come on, Chris, you know me better than that (as to think I would be so ignorant and arrogant” – I hope 😦 :-)). BUT I resist the impulse to respond with such (a Q & A anyway), and instead make an attempt to clarify what I meant – granting you similar beingnesses to what you had granted me…
Continuing in an even more serious vein. I’m seeing more and more that real discussion is simply an exercise in the comm formula. (What a concept, I know.) You too, as you’ve often said, see the paramount importance of the comm formula and especially ARC as senior to and underlying everything. Taking it further now – LRH actually simplified it for us – to be able put that formula into effect. With none other than…TRs! Think of it – actual use of TRs in the discussion. (Again what a concept!)
Would it be asking too much to think that the folk here might agree to the notion that application of TRs in our written comments would keep the discussion on the rails? Are we all good, practicing Scientologists or what? Well, maybe not, but with those who don’t consider themselves Scientologists and/or don’t use TRs (Scn’ists or not) we could probably still keep things running pretty smoothly by just applying TRs on our end of the comm cycle. (Athough, there might be exceptions to the rule where the appropriate tone level would have to be applied, as you’ve indicated elsewhere today. But that’s just a necessary undercut at times, falling back on the simple use of ARC nonetheless (in tone level). Worse come to worse, there’s always the Code of Honor point to fall back on, “Do not give or receive communication unless you yourself desire it,” in dealing with truly inveterate non-communicators.
What do you think, fellow inveterate optimist?
WOW indeed!
Can it print off a few of me? The I could sit around, read and and post, go to movies and do a lot of other fun things while the others went out and earned money to support myself. I could set up a dormitory for…. what’s the plural of ‘me’? ‘Moo’? Mus? Would all of moo need to be fed?
I like what you’ve mocked up (“moo” – LOL) but I’d be happy with just not having to sleep – think of the additional hours to the day. (Conservative, I know. Small think. Ha!)
There were some comments above relating to LRH looking like he was on drugs, looking 1.1, etc. The following is an excerpt from Elizabeth Hamre’s blog post today on the subject of “prisons.” It gave me a new perspective about LRH to consider, and I think it would be of interest to Scientologists and ex-Scientologists and others:
“Prison plant, the Earth, LRH. recall of the past.”
…
“I have a very good recall on LRH and I not only believe but I know LRH had a bank same as any other being who was born into a body, since bodies go hand in hand with the mind: the implants galore. And to be sure he had a huge one, reactive mind that is. Since he was born into the body he had many lives before here and other places. He too got cut up within the games, the very implants he was so good at making.
“He made that implant which is called “HUMAN LIFE.” Every being is being run by that, controlled by that implant. Now we must admit LRH is a total brilliant genius. I know he has come here for a mission. In fact he was ordered to come here, he had no choice on that matter.
“He was a genius putting together implants, therefore he could put together the Technology which can erase the effects of the implants. Only the same person who can make implants knows how to dissemble one, by knowing the making of one in the first place. That is the reason he was sent here, to do just that. This here was his prison, he was serving his sentence which was for his crime in other place. The TECH here he put together was his AMENDS project, the program to erase, reverse the effects of the many implants existing.
“Angel he was not and Spiritual leader he was not, but he was great at making games, a total genius. Since spirituality, organization, soldiers in uniform and heavy ethics handling, putting people in ethic condition while on the Spiritual Path has nothing to do with the Path of Enlightenment. He was in ethic condition himself that was the reason dramatizing, pushing ethics on others.
“The first part of his tech works wonderfully, because the simplicity of it and it works erasing the effect of all Implants regardless what make.
“Again this is my recall, my experience from the track. Each being will have different recall in sessions, different reality…”
http://elizabethhamre.wordpress.com/
Who sent LRH here? The “Static”?
.
Eh?
That was a question based on Elizabeth’s post posted by Miraldi above. Did you read it?
.
ah.
It seems that such recalls are fantasies designed to express certain opinions. The element of rationality is twisted here.
.
And possibly what “seems” to you is based on your own certain opinions.
Of course, what any of us expresses is how one has found things to be.
.
She too merely stated how she has found things to be. But her opinions you call fantasy and add that the element of rationality is twisted.
In your case you simply describe your opinions as how you “found things to be.” But I guess we could make the same assumption and evaluation about fantasy and twisted rationality.
My point is that your comment is just generality and invalidation, if you think about it.
Vinaire: I find it odd that when YOU express your opinion, it is stated as what should be for ‘everyone’.
In the case of Elizabeth, you put her viewpoint and awareness as a ‘fantasy’.
Like you mentioned before: ” From an exterior viewpoint a thing is neither good nor evil. ”
I would extend this to viewpoints also, wouldn’t you?
I think a little granting of beingness is in order 🙂
I seem to have learned my writing style from Hubbard.
Seriously, what i write is how I see it at that moment. I may have my own filters. I am not a bodhi yet by any means. But I hope to as-is my filters as I come face to face with them.
So, please do continue to point out inconsistencies in what I write, and how I write it. I shall do my best to locate my filters and as-is them.
.
“…I shall do my best to locate my filters and as-is them.”
Good post, Vinaire. What it’s all about.
My current view is that the overall universe may be called SELF of which both THETA and MEST universes are parts. Let’s look at the following excerpt from KHTK 4:
“Similarly, one may say that when mind assesses perception the outcome is experience, and when the mind assesses experience the outcome is information. The results of this successive assessment may be listed as follows.
“1. Sensory input
“2. Perception
“3. Experience
“4. Information
“5. Hypothesis
“6. Theory
“7. Principles
“8. Axioms
“9. Self
“There may be more layers in between. Each layer seems to underlie the previous layer and add more depth to it. Finally, the layer at the bottom seems to provide uniqueness, or individuality, to the whole system. We may call this layer the ‘self‘ and the whole system a ‘universe.’
Here the MEST universe shall be made up of layers 1 and 2. Rest of the layers 3 to 9 may constitute the THETA universe.
.
It seems that the most accurate recall would be made of the “sensory input” which created the initial perception (Layers 1 & 2 above). Recall of any subsequent layers would include thought assessments or opinions and may better be characterized as mixed with increasing visualizations.
A better method of handling visualizations is Looking. Looking seems to be inclusive of logic. Recall does not seem to address logic that well.
LRH seems to have been sloppy in making the distinction between recall and visualization. To me his OT 3 story would classify as visualization and not as accurate recall.
.
Vinaire: ” Recall does not seem to address logic that well. ”
From what I understand, recall is a method to rid oneself of ‘Ill-logics’ or as previously put – held down 7’s.
If one was not discovering truths, then we’d all be happily swimming in some sort of Nirvana.
Recall is simply a method.
Vinaire: ” LRH seems to have been sloppy in making the distinction between recall and visualization. To me his OT 3 story would classify as visualization and not as accurate recall.”
Oh pleeeeze … could you not just simply state something like ‘ I see things differently in that … blah, blah” instead of continually invalidating someone who was also on a path of discovery.
Secondly, I don’t remember LRH making any distinction between visualization and recall. Maybe I missed it.
Thirdly, how do you know what LRH recalled?
If you told me you recalled something and I said ‘bunk’, what sort of comm cycle would that be? It wouldn’t.
What’s real for you is real for you.
Marildi, are you saying that LRH did not “invent” his definitions, and that his data is not squirreled “verbal data”.
If you are taking LRH to be the standard of “not-invented” definitions and non-squirreled data then aren’t you giving LRH the status of “absolute divinity”?
It is hard for me to stomach that. That seems to be the status of “ultimate ego” instead.
.
LRH coined the term “theta universe” to name something he had observed. There’s a difference between disagreeing with an observation and re-defining a word as it is used. I have no problem with anyone disagreeing with LRH’s observations.
What would be, to your understanding, an example of an “invented definition”?
Thetan.
I think your mixing up “re-invented” definition with coming up with a different construct. You must have an MU on “re-invented definition.”
Hubbard selected Buddhism to model his philosophy after. He even wrote HYMN OF ASIA and hinted in many ways of himself being the Maitreya (Sanskit) or Mettaya (Pali).
One may say that Hubbard squirreled the most fundamental tenet of Buddhism that there is no permanent soul. Hubbard invented an immortal thetan patterning it after the Western concept of soul, and making “individuality” the pinnacle of freedom.
Hubbard then derided Nirvana, which he obviously misunderstood. In Scn 8-8008 he wrote:
“One of the control mechanisms which has been used on thetans is that when they rise in potential they are led to believe themselves one with the universe. This is distinctly untrue. 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. One declines into a brotherhood with the universe. When he goes up scale, he becomes more and more an individual capable of creating and maintaining his own universe. In this wise (leading people to believe they had no individuality above that of MEST) the MEST universe cut out all competition.”
Now this sounds nice, but Hubbard didn’t realize that self (thetan or individuality) is a mental construct, and so is the universe. As self dissolves, the universe dissolves with it. There is no merging of person with the physical universe because they are not two different and separate entities.
Hubbard was obsessed with maintaining his individuality. He was no Buddha. Individuality (thetan, or self) is just an idea. It is a harmonic of ego. Self is the universe. There is nothing outside self. It is self that holds the idea of “another.” Another, and all agreements with another, lies within the self, and not outside.
And that self is a construct.
.
.
.
And Buddhism squirreled the basics and changed the static into some impermanent something (mind)…
C’mon Vinaire, you’re treating the basic concepts of Buddhism as gospel and truth. Buddhist theology is a construct just the same.
I condemn the concept of squirreling, which was invented and bequeathed by Hubbard to Scientology. It is anti-Science and it has frozen Scientology in its tracks.
So far, my looking agrees with what has come down as the realization of Buddha. There is no concept of squirreling in Buddhism, so I continue to look.
Basically, these are two theories. You may say that one is championed by Buddha for the East, and the other is championed by Hubbard for the West. My friend Ivan, being a product of the West, could not grasp the Eastern viewpoint either, and decided to stop contributing to Vinaire’s blog some time back.
To me, the Buddhist theory makes more sense. It goes deeper than Scientology. Individuality is there and it can be created and dissolved and created again. There should be no fear about losing one’s individuality, as it seems to be built into Scientology.
Anyway, each one of us should continue to look and discover the ultimate truth for themselves.
.
I think Buddhism and Scientology both are lacking in depth.
And so I keep looking rather than defend any one of them.
Geir posts:
“I think Buddhism and Scientology both are lacking in depth.”
This falls oddly upon the ears of someone like me, who has not gone up the bridge.
“Lacking in depth”, as compared to what?
As I read LRH, or listen to lectures, the philosophy seems pretty deep to me.
Geir is doing the Ls after doing all the levels available in the CoS.
So I wonder, OK, were would Geir be, who would he be, what would he be doing, if he hadn’t done all that, and planning to do more, like the original OT levels…..?
Just puzzled. Is it worth pursuing, or not?
Or is something lost in translation from Norwegian to English?
Scientology as a technology is the est I have seen.
Scientology as a philosophy leaves out a lot of depth in explaining how things are. The basic properties of our agreements are not explained – like why the Planck length, the charge of an electron, the value of “c”, the strength of the force(s) etc. And saying that this is not the domain Scientology does not cut it. The book Scientology 8-80 attempts to tackle this domain, and so does 8-8008 and a scores of lectures. But, as I say, it lacks depth.
Vinnie, you seem more and more to be on a moralistic soapbox.
You ‘condemn’ this, or tell me I ‘should’ this or that, etc.
What’s up, doc?
And Vinnie, you never did answer my question about what is is that you “look” at when you’re ‘looking’. Do you look at your mind and it’s contents, or at objective reality apart from your mind, or what?
What do you actually ‘look’ at?
Geir: ” I think Buddhism and Scientology both are lacking in depth. ”
I see it this way too.
To me, both subjects have been squirreled (altered) in some fashion or another.
When I look at the definition of ‘Cleared Theta Clear’ :
1 . a person who is able to create his own universe; or, living in the mest universe is able to create illusions perceivable by others at will, to handle mest universe objects without mechanical means and to have and feel no need of bodies or even the mest universe to keep himself and his friends interested in existence. (Scn 8-8008, p. 114)
2 . next level above theta clear (which is cleared of need to have a body). All of a person’s engrams have been turned into conceptual experience. He is clear all the way along the track. He can
really deliver the horsepower. (5206CM26A)
3 . one who has full recall of everything and full ability as a thetan. (Scn 8-80, p. 59)
I have not seen this phenomena in a Buddhist or a Scientologist.
Is it possible?
To me – Yes.
How? That’s what I’m looking for.
Although Vinaire continually asserts that we should be ‘looking’, it appears that we are ALL doing exactly that to a greater or lesser degree.
It’s just that we look at different things.
It may not be ‘looking’ at ( read ‘agree with’) things the way Vinaire would like us to, but we do look.
I concur.
+1 to that post.
OK Geir, I get what you mean about those books. But the books are little more than Reader’s digest outlines of the subject. Usually the publicly available lectures go into a lot more detail, not to mention the SHSBC and all it’s lectures.
My guess is there is a good reason why LRH said that a person gets at least 50% of his gains and understanding from his training. (He-he-he – you do want to get trained up through Class VIII, don’t you? 🙂 )
But that aside, it think the point is LRH developed methods for ‘knowing how to know’ or discovering answers and left a little something for us to do – that is, start applying the methods to actually get detailed data on the kind of things you mention – for those who are interested.
Not everyone is that interested in bosons, like I am more interested in linguistics and stuff like that. So I don’t expect Scientology or Hubbard to have already provided me with all the details of the history and evolution of languages on Earth and all that. His job was to develop as much of the overall methods of finding answers and putting people into better shape for discovering the answers they want for themselves.
That’s where the “depth” of the subject is, compared to other routes of conscious evolution and self-improvement. The depth is in the auditing tech and other ‘techs’ he developed. Hubbard developed scientology for that specifically – so people could go up the Training side of the Bridge, to provide them a way to improve their ability to discover answers for themselves.
So yeah, there are a lot of academic disciplines that Scientology doesn’t provide specific detailed answers for. If people lived two or three hundred years and Hubbard was still around researching probably many more details would be emerging about the exact make-up of subatomic particles etc, but that wasn’t necessary to his aim, of developing the methods which are the tech. The folks who developed the concepts of doing double-blind studies left the designing of detailed applications for the gathering of specific data, to others. I think this is analogous. And I am getting long-winded here, hopefully you get my drift….. 🙂
See my other answer to this.
In Buddhism, Static is the Nirvana, which is Unknowable in Hinduism.
.
Vinaire: ” As self dissolves, the universe dissolves with it. ”
Wow … that’s a dead end for me.
So, what’s the point of life & games?
To dissolve?
Give up all one’s ‘worldly belongings’ and go poof ?
While I agree that the current state of ‘self’ is a construct, what do you envision exists after one ‘ de-constructs ‘ himself?
I have to agree with you here, Dennis.
There is no point to ‘dissolving the self’ unless perhaps one gets really tired of being that particular self and wants to create or assume an entirely different one, or something like that. Or is on the lam from the cops or something, then he might really wish he was someone else…. 🙂
But in terms of conscious evolution, self-development or whatever you want to call it, it doesn’t seem like a very desirable goal. One doesn’t sit at Native State,or Static, one is more likely to flash through it on his way to some other game.
And I don’t think Buddha ever indicated that as the actual goal, either. He sin\mply didn’t speak to what your potential was going to do or creatye or become after you achieved “Nirvana”. He left that open.
The ‘old school’ Theravada Buddhists totally don’t speculate about it. They know it is hard enough to achieve personal salvation.
The ‘new school’ Mahayana Buddhists have the concept of achieving Nirvana yet remaining as a human being to help others. This leads to my main point:
The majority of Western thinking about “transpersonal psychology” actually agrees with much of the Eastern thinking, and there are steps that a person goes through on the journey.
1. First, one develops his potential as a personal individual. One becomes “all that he can be”, (not necessarily in the Army!) Many people never get a chance to even do this, in their struggle to survive.
2. Then, one may take the next step, which might be called ‘developing one’s transpersonal potential’.
In this step, one starts to go ‘beyond the self’ – but the kicker is, one’s self does not then dissolve, disappear, or vanish. One retains his individual ‘self’, AND learns to experience, exist, and operate as more than an individual ego-identity.
LRH called it ‘pan-determinism’. One becomes more conscious and aware of more than just First Dynamic concerns. His life may become centered more in other dynamics. But he never ‘loses’ his First dynamic. It is, after all, part and parcel of all and everything, so as Vinnie says, if you dissolve that you are also dissolving the universe – but why strive for that? It’s context is what matters.
Static or Native State is just a rest-stop one passes through on his way to somewhere, not an end in itself.
But having said all that, it takes a lot of work to achieve it, whether by Buddhist means or Scientological, and I don’t mean to take that away from it. If one actually achieves that state, it means he has done an awful lot of the work of freeing himself from those things that trap and bind him, the compulsions and repressions that keep him on the hamster wheel of his miserable existence, the ‘endless cycle of birth and death’, as it were. He will then have a lot more power of choice.
There is power to dissolve as well as to create. Why be stuck with create and not dissolve? Even Hubbard pointed that out to be a basic aberration in PDC tapes.
You guys are contradicting your guru.
.
“Your guru…”. Straw man, a bit?
Straw man indeed.
Yes yes Vinnie, you’re just as smart as Hubbard, no need to be jealous…..
I specifically said there was a place for “dissolving”. It’s just not an end state to me, not a final state one may never come out of. One can go beyond nirvana. Of course that state of nirvana could be a nice place to rest up for awhile, recharge one’s batteries and sort out various of one’s considerations, daydream, consider one’s next step, whatever.
Obviously there is “dissolving” – it’s called “as-ising”. One dissolves things by as-ising them. That’s right there in scientology, as well as in Buddhism.
Hubbard was flesh and blood. He was not made of straw. 🙂
.
Thanks for the great explanation Valkov!
I like this line: ‘Static or Native State is just a rest-stop one passes through on his way to somewhere, not an end in itself.’
That’s how I look at it too … it seems to me that just sitting at ‘Static’ could get awful boring very quickly.
I think I’d be off to create a new game very quickly.
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/06/26/significant-change/#comment-5700
“There is power to dissolve as well as to create.”
Isn’t this actually the same power? How does one ‘dissolve’ something? According to mighty Guru Baba Ron Hubbard, one dissolves things by CREATING a perfect duplicate! Dissolve by Creating! It’s the same power!
So look, we all agree! You, me, Dennis, Marildi, Geir,Chris, even Elizabeth, WE ALL AGREE!
Valkov, best post of the day. Halleluja, come on get happy!
Yes Dennis and Valkov and Everybody…
We all agree! hahaha!
Consider this:
create-survive-destroy (apparency)
create-create-create . . . ad infinitum (actuality)
Here’s how this could be:
1. There’s no “destroy” in this statement because there doesn’t have to be. (impermanent MEST)
2. Because it is impermanent it must continually be created.
3. Create and Destroy are not the same activity nor even flip sides of a coin.
4. MEST dissolves of its own nature.
5. There are different kinds of create and destroy. There is the type of create and destroy which can also be expressed as “re-form” from native materials.
6. This blog normally refers to create and destroy as in the the existence of “as-is.”
7. We only need to concern ourselves with the nature of creation as that is the only creative activity – there being no activity at all in the “destruction” or fizzling out of MEST.
I would say that MEST does not dissolve. Rather it exists as it is created and perceived as it is created. When not created, “it” doesn’t exist. Simple as that.
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/06/26/significant-change/#comment-5814
All of this could also be said about the mind, memories, facsimiles, engrams et al.
And LO! It WAS said in lecture by my Master the Incomparable All-seeing Sheikh Mahaguru Bubba Elron Hubbard-ji, may he endlessly keep on truckin’ through the galaxies and beyond! 🙂
No, that is not the model he selected. He was influenced far more by Crowley and the occult. Hymn of Asia was a PR piece late on the chain.
I have found Scientology to be lacking in depth because i have found many inconsistencies in it. But I cannot say the same about Buddhism because I haven’t yet studied it enough to find inconsistencies in it.
I am not defending Buddhism. I am simply stating what i have found so far. If I run into inconsistencies in Buddhism I shall be the first one to announce them.
.
Geir posted:
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/06/26/significant-change/#comment-5635
And Vinnie posted:
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/06/26/significant-change/#comment-5640
OK, I can make sense of these posts
“Lacking in depth” is relative to viewpoint(expectations). Geir finds scientology philosophy lacking in depth because it offers only sketchy data about bosons,’strong’ and weak forces’,etc. And he is right – it doesn’t. But it was never meant to, that was not scientology’s purpose – to provide detailed information about sub-atomic particles.
In fact, I have often felt teased by Hubbard’s off-hand comments about some aspect of history and wished he went into more detail about it.
Now I think that could have been part of his pitch -‘come-on’ dissemination – “come on, get trained and processed and discover the answers for yourself!”
I think the only depth in scientology is in the depth of auditing tech and associated techs, like Data Series, etc, and the humanistic parts of the philosophy.
The same thing goes for Buddhism. The ONLY claim Buddha made for his teaching is that it is a way to “end suffering”. That’s it – NOTHING else.
So any search for consistency in Buddhism has to be based around that – does the sincere practical application of the teaching end the person’s suffering?
That’s the only ‘consistency’ that matters. If the subject consistently accomplishes that for people, then it is consistent enough.
Buddhism and Scientology are alike in that – they are both intended as practical teachings that are supposed to in some way(s) improve a person’s experience of life.
Other ‘inconsistencies’ don’t matter. The teachings either can or cannot deliver what they promise. To the extent they do, that’s the ‘consistency’ I’m looking for.
Buddhism, in the way it presents itself to the world, contains a glaring central inconsistency I have pointed out before. It’s basic premise is a thought-stopper. But remember, Buddha was teaching to the exact public of his time time and place, and it’s likely he designed his pitch to stop the people of his time in their tracks and get them to think. It was a Socratic approach he used, but he had to be one hell of a bright rhetoretician and debater to pull it off. Which he was.
It’s not about sub-atomic particles. It’s about the description of reality, the game we play, the agreements we have. True, sub-atomic particles is a part of that and they reach down to the basic agreements of this universe, something LRH never really figured out. Scientology also lacks depth in how to organize a group, how to raise children, how to solve many of mankind’s greater problems (climate change, hunger, war) – there is Much Working Knowledge in these areas that is not found in Scientology.
Without going into detail, I don’t disgree and I got that point..
My point was that Hubbard developed certain basic methods and principles of discovery, and left it up to whoever was interested, to apply the methods to develop the Working Knowledge for various specific areas.
He mostly developed basic principles, except in the area of auditing and training, where he developed some detailed Working Knowledge, for example what Pierre has been applying in your sessions.
I’m not sure I agree with your specific examples, because Hubbard did propose that getting as many people as possible trained and cleared was the best way to solve problems like war, poverty, etc. I think there is also a lot there about organizing groups and raising children also that has been largely overlooked.
In fact, hardly anyone anywhere has followed up that much on Hubbard’s proposed solutions to a lot of problems. The thing is, solutions need to be tailored to specific circumstances;Hubbard developed a lot of basic principles that can be applied to develop solutions that work.
I’m thinking of very basic stuff, like the principle that just about every problem we have today was at one time a ‘solution’ to a prior problem. If a majority of the world’s population, or even a large percentage of us, had our Grades and were familiar with the basic ideas of how these things actually work, we might be coming up with more workable solutions instead of making things worse the more we try to ‘solve’ them…..
Hubbard’s proposed solution was to raise the awareness of as many people as possible, and I tend to think, without that, these problems are not going to be solved very soon.
Or maybe I’m cynical from seeing our governments at work, from the local to the state and federal levels. I see a lot of knee-jerk liberals, conservatives, and everything else. Whether it’s a “4th dynamic engram” as Hubbard said, or something else, it’s knee-jerk irrationality, or even worse, naked self-interest masked under the false flag of ‘public service’, nothing will improve much until the basic factors which cause people to behave in some of the negative and destructive ways they do are handled.
i probably see this very differently from the way you see it, coming from my background.
May be. But look at the actual workable technology out there regarding famine, war, water well drilling, environmental control, energy research, child raising, organization, etc. In all these areas I find tech far superior to that of Hubbard – because in these areas his tech lacks depth, it lacks workability. Specifically in the area of organization, where I diligently followed LRH principles for more than 15 years. There are easily 10 major technologies out there far superior to LRH’s green on white.
OK, I can dig that. The technologies are out there(therefor Hubbard didn’t need to develop them anyway)(were they out there in Hubbard’s time?), but they are either not being sufficiently applied, or are being actively counter-intended by those who have an interested in keeping things the way they are.
THAT’S what I’m talking about, and that’s the problem scientology was intended to solve.
Example – California could probably feed much of the world, but it’s not happening. Instead, farmers in California and across the country are paid (from our tax dollars), not to grow food.
If that kind of aberration is not handled, it doesn’t matter how much technology is available, the problems don’t get solved. The solutions cut across someone’s ‘other interests’ and there is actual counter-intention to applying the technology and solving the problems.
Scientology is a perfect example. The technology for Clearing people is there, but it is not being applied, right within the organizations that were supposed to deliver it, it is not being applied. Why?
I have seen much progress in the fields of organization, child care, physics, energy research, conflict resolution etc since LRH published his works. He didn’t cover those fields well. And they are in need of covering – as the progress in those fields have shown. And the humanity is doing better now than in the 50’s – and that is not due to what Hubbard wrote. And this again is due to lack of coverage and depth in his writings. But as I said, the spiritual technology of Scientology is the best I have seen. The rest is largely lacking in depth.
From my perspective on the development of some of those areas in the United States, I must say I think Hubbard’s publication of Dianetics and Child Dianetics was in fact the stimulus for much of the improvement in some areas of the humanities, like childcare, psychology, and even psychiatry. The orientation of these fields was turned around 100% from what they had been in some cases.
Children are now treated like human beings, not little animals to be trained by force and behavioral conditioning. That’s one example.
Was Hubbard the only stimulus for this kind of turnaround? No. There were many others. Hubbard was part of a humanistic wave for change. But I see his influence as significant, not necessarily in the way of developing specific systems, but in the way of developing better attitudes, like “It’s not OK to beat your kids into submission. It’s better to treat them with good ARC and good control.” That was a radical notion in the 1950s and even 1960s, when Ruth Minshull published “Miracles For Breakfast” about using scientology principles in child-rearing(1968).
That’s available as a free PDF download here:
http://www.whale.to/b/minshull_b3a.html
But do you have any specifics in mind about the “progress” that you say has been made in the past few decades, in these fields, like child-rearing? I’m talking in generalities because that’s all you’ve given me to talk about; I can’t talk ‘to the point’ without a specific point to talk to.
What are you looking at, in, say, child-rearing or conflict resolution, that is so advanced?
And most importantly, the technologies to solve any and all human problems may exist, but what good are they if they are not used?
I keep returning to that question and I guess I’ll continue, because to me that is the central question – the technologies exist? Fine. Why aren’t they being applied more?
The technology to Clear people exists. Why isn’t it being applied?
The farming technology to feed the world easily exists. Why are people starving?
Why are my tax dollars paid out to farmers to not grow food?
Is that sane?
The transportation technology exists to ship that food all over the world. Why is it being used to deliver bombs instead?
Technology, as such, to end war? I doubt it. For that, what is needed is not a technology, but a change of heart.
That’s what Scientology is supposed to be for. Also Buddhism, Transcendental Meditation, Subud, Sufism, Christianity, and a myriad other projects that exist for that purpose.
Because without a large-scale change of heart, a large-scale movement upwards, a large-scale ‘enlightenment’, not enough people will use the technologies available to bring about a better world.
Still generally; Child care is very different now than in the 50’s. Attributing any major change in this across the world to a very, very fringe religion is stretching it a few miles at the least.
But I will provide a very concrete example that I can write articles upon articles on; The subject of organization; Here we have advancements way beyond what Hubbard envisioned with frameworks such as ITIL, Cobit, PRINCE2, PM BOK, Six Sigma, TPS/Lean and the Adaptive Case Management. I could easily list another ten frameworks that kicks ass compared to the very unworkable green-on-white. Not only because the Admin Tech lacks in depth in certain places, but mostly because it has too much depth in many wrong places. I have blogged on this before. I may write another post on this if it tickles my fancy (or if you do).
OK, but I did post that Hubbard was not the only stimulus for improvement or more enlightened approaches in those fields.
And I did not attribute the changes to any ‘religion’, fringe or otherwise.
In fact it is always individuals that make an impact and it is the works of individuals that are the stimuli for changes, not the resulting ‘religions’.
It is the dissemination of ideas through society that results in changes.
In this case, I am not even referring to ‘religious’ ideas. I am referring to the publication of DMSMH.
I have no idea if attitudes towards children and childcare have changed at all in Norway since 1950; but in the USA it has been a 180 degree turn around, and I do attribute the broad spread of the ideas in DMSMH as being instrumental. Not the only stimulus for change, but one of the major ones.
I can’t speak to the green on white as I’ve never used those, and it appears to require an amount of education in it that is unreasonable to expect in reality.
Perhaps if thoroughly understood and applied it might actually create an organization that continues on for millions of years; but aside from basic principles, I would guess it’s inappropriate for most organizations we have going.
The devil is always in the details of application. Figuring out what’s appropriate etc. And from what I’ve heard about the behavior of execs and admins in CoS orgs, it’s been a case of squirrelling most of the time – very few of them had much of a grasp of how to use it and so they did not use appropriately, they used the parts they knew out of context and wreaked havoc. I attribute some of those problems to the general failure in getting org staff cleared and trained up.
Doesn’t Admin tech have a sort of a ‘grade chart’ all it’s own? I have the impression that to really grasp that tech one has to invest time equivalent to getting a PhD or a professional degree of some kind.
It would be interesting to do, but who’s got that kind of time to invest? I always felt that for me, getting a grasp of the auditing tech would come first.
But for someone like you, perhaps doing the Executive Courses, (if they are available in the free zone) might appeal more than training up as an auditor? The Executive Courses are the training side of that “bridge” parallel to the L Rundowns, aren’t they?
There are too many wrongs in the Admin Tech to easily cover it in an article. It would require a book. But such a project is not worth the time as the number of people interested would be far too small.
1. There is not one single example of an organization that has worked better with LRH Admin Tech than with comparable systems in their field.
2. The details IS the problem – it robs people of responsibility.
3. If the Admin Tech would require someone with a black belt in it to succeed, then it is far inferior to the systems that doesn’t.
4. You are defending. Why?
Now, there are workable pieces in the Admin Tech (like the Admin Scale, some policies on recruitment, some on marketing [although outdated] as well as many good points strewn around in the many policies) – but in the whole it is based on wrong principles.
I just may have to write at least an article debunking the Admin Tech.
I’m not particularly defending at all – in fact I think some of what I posted is pretty much what you are saying – that it DOES require a ‘blackbelt’ – and not just a First Degree blackbelt, either.
And without knowing much of it, it sounds right that the problem is with all the details. Again, I said it probably had some value in it’s basic principles – not in it’s details.
It’s those details that make it the opposite of Fabian – flexible and fast-moving rather than rigidly fixed. The fact that it might take a half-life time to learn well, is not a plus, unless one is thinking really long-term and has the time.
However, all that said, it does not preclude the possibility that it might be just what the doctor ordered for a certain purpose. That would be creating and running an organization that persisted millions of years, or well-nigh forever.
Ron did say he based it on one like that.
I try to look at things from the POV of “How might it be that way, how might it be true, how might it be right, for what might it be a solution”, etc.
If you believe something simply can’t be right under any circumstances, you might think I am “defending”. But I don’t see that I am exactly defending. In this case, I don’t see how Hubbard would have wasted all that time, thought, and paper writing down, something that was largely an overt product. No. He was smarter than that. I think he designed with a purpose in mind.
Whether it is actually broadly applicable to other organizations, I have no idea. And where WISE has been involved, I speculate it has been squirreled by them into a system by which they can sell expensive ‘consulting services’ to business owners who try to make it work for themselves and find they can’t.
That would be analogous to all the “get rich online” systems that some “gurus” sell online and on TV. They sell a bunch of expensive materials but the application is not so simple and they also leave out crucial details of how to make the system work. In the end you have to pay them more money for their ‘help’ in actually applying it to your particular business. It’s the age-old “mysteries of the inner sanctum” trick and WISE are the priests.
I suspect WISE has been doing this for a long time.
Bottom line is; I have never seen the Admin Tech really work (as a body of knowledge) – and I have never seen anyone report it to work better than other systems either. One could argue that one needs to be A Master of Divinity to make something that unworkable work – but I doubt it. It would be analogous to saying that if one really mastered fascism, one could make it work, or any system that has inherent unworkability in it. Mastering something unworkable makes one a master in an unworkable system, methinks. As LRH says, the stats will be the proof. I have seen few systems with a more abysmal stat record than LRH Admin Tech.
Valkov and Geir, the thing I’ve thought Scientology might have had a significant influence on was the increase of interest in spirituality on the planet in recent years.
Make that relatively recent years, recent decades probably.
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/06/26/significant-change/#comment-5779
I don’t doubt at all what you say in this post; the question it brings to mind is, What were the many successful expanding Missions and orgs doing back in the1970s, if they were not applying Admin tech?
I’m not claiming ALL missions and orgs were successful, but there were certainly some booming orgs back then.
So my question is, it would be great to know WHAT they were actually doing to be successful?
My guess is, they were delivering good products at reasonable prices, and the resulting growth was from word-of-mouth. It was happening by ‘network marketing’!
How this relates to Admin tech, I have no clue. It seems to me to relate to the Conditions Formulas, good Comm, caring about people, and delivering or even overdelivering, as with the old HQS course.
The watchword back then was – The senior policy is, “We deliver what we promise.” Those who really meant it, had successful organizations and did well.
I have heard the original HQS course was the ‘loss leader’ course of all time; it was very inexpensive and generally people who took it got a lot out of it and many continued on to Dianetics(HSDC), as well as spontaneously bringing in people they knew. Some people then bought intensives or the HSDC and co-audited on that, and I met several people who went Clear on Dianetics. Back then, people would do Dianetics first, then the Academy levels(Grades),until the Grade Chart was re-arranged to put Grades before Dianetics as a better gradient.
But my point is, It would be great to know what the successful ones back then, were actually doing!
I just recalled that I do know of a very successful restaurant business in my town that I heard, back in the day, was set up along LRH organizational tech lines and it has lasted over 35 years following that pattern.
But the two guys who set it up that way are long gone and I don’t know exactly what they did and what they applied to that business.
This was done in the mid-70s. It is a vegetarian restaurant called “Seva” in Ann Arbor Michigan, started in 1973.
Were those successful mission in the early 70s applying the Admin Tech by the book? I don’t think so.
.
Underpinning of reality comes from layer’s 1 & 2 in the list below:
1. Sensory input
2. Perception
3. Experience
4. Information
5. Hypothesis
6. Theory
7. Principles
8. Axioms
9. Self
That understanding is not there in Scientology. I plan to study Buddhism in depth to see if that understanding is there.
I suspect a direct connection between Layer 9 and layer 1, but I am not sure.
.
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/06/26/significant-change/#comment-5650
Valkov: And Vinnie, you never did answer my question about what is is that you “look” at when you’re ‘looking’. Do you look at your mind and it’s contents, or at objective reality apart from your mind, or what? What do you actually ‘look’ at?
You look at whatever is there. Why do you want to know beforehand? The only you can do that is through prejudice. Looking, by definition, is non-judgmental.
I hope this answer is satisfactory because I do not have any other answer.
.
I don’t want to know beforehand. I want to know specifically what you LOOKED AT, when you post conclusions, upon what observation you have based the conclusion.
For example, when you make a statement about “the mind”, youaretalkingabout a generality. Did you look at a mind? One mind? Many minds? Whose mind did you look at? How many minds did you look at? How large was your sample of minds, that you looked at, and what makes you think it was a sufficient sample on which tobase any general conclusion about ‘the mind’?
What did you ‘look’ at?
I simply write what comes to me. I don’t think about what I looked at.
Why does one has to worry about what one looked at. If you disagree with what I write then just disagree, and try to improve upon it.
.
.
Well that’s not scientific, is it?
Your conclusions are not evidence-based?
It would seem what you are reporting are your views of samsara. No wonder they are always changing – that is the nature of samsara – an eternal flux, a ceaseless becoming. The Heisenberg principle might apply – just looking at it changes it.
Like a butterfly, it can never be pinned down – without killing it. (Wave function collapse?)
This is not a criticism, I think what you are doing is perfectly valid. It just may not be what some of us thought you were doing. In which case the mistake and misunderstanding has been ours….
Then, probably, there is something more basic than science. Where does intuitions come from? How are they described scientifically?
Maybe there is more to Looking than what i have realized so far.
.
Now, THAT is granting beingness. I’m just not sure it works in comm cycles, but let’s see.
Not sure whether the Samsara will work in comm cycles, that is. Not the granting of beingness! (You understand, Valkov – the ambiguousness of English grammar.)
Samsara = the apparency of existence. Itsa. How it seems to you now. It is ever changing.
Good comparison: Samsara = how it seems to you now; itsa.
Trouble with itsa in a comm cycle is that it may not include a two-way flow or the comm formula. And if it doesn’t, it won’t work because these laws are too basic.
Vinaire, your post above on intuition and looking I think gets at the heart of certain things I and others have ridged on in your theories. And I now get that you have observed and do acknowledge something we’ve been trying to express. 🙂
Looking is high on the scale, as you know, just under the highest point – Know. Intuition falls in the category of Know. But of course looking is still very valuable since we don’t have total Knowingness about everything (or we wouldn’t even be “here”). And science is valuable for the same reason. As I see it science is Look and intuition is Know, so in a sense I think you really could say that intuition is more basic than science.
I think there’s a parallel when we get into discussions of whether to include spirit/static/thetan in theories about existence. Seems to me that ignoring such is very much like only granting the validity of Look and denying Know. You leave out a big part of truth. Just saying, for your consideration…
It is very easy to convert an intuition into consideration and there is some loss in this conversion, and further loos in trying to communicate it.
Being judgmental of the person and his intentions does not help. Keeping to the subject may go a long way to clarify any misunderstanding.
.
Since this thread is basically to do with L11 wins, let’s take a look at what L11 is. According to my understanding, L11 was originally designed to address the problem of psychosis. Hubbard somehow saw a connection between psychosis and the intention to harm. So, L11 focuses on getting a person de-stimulated enough to audit, and then auditing him on evil purposes and O/W’s.
The description of L11 raised my curiosity to really dig into the significance underlying the concept of HARM. That summed up to the following understanding in my mind:
HARM is the wrong-targeting of the source of one’s discomfort.
I then looked up PSYCHOSIS in Wikipedia. To paraphrase: Psychosis … is abnormal condition of mind or soul, … a mental state involving a “loss of contact with reality,” during which hallucinations and delusions and impaired insight may occur. There is more.
It seems that when a person is suffering from psychosis, he or she is unable to respond to the sensory input in the normal way, and is responding to some internally generated input. It seems that there has to be too much turbulence or confusion at the level of perception for hallucination to occur with respect to one’s surroundings. Here I am referring to the second of the nine layers of the mind described in KHTK 4.
1. Sensory input
2. Perception
3. Experience
4. Information
5. Hypothesis
6. Theory
7. Principles
8. Axioms
9. Self
Thus, there can be at least nine different types of psychoses corresponding to too much turbulence on one of these layers. The psychosis that L11 is addressing seems to be the psychosis at the bottom layer of self.
The psychosis at the level of perceptions can be best addressed by objectives.
.
I kinda like your analysis of the layers of mind or experience.
OK, but Wikipedia did not exist in Hubbard’s day so he may have been using a somewhat different definition of psychosis. I think he actually defined what he meant by it, somewhere.
But I tend to think he was using it pretty much in the sense you have given it here, because even back then the traditional psychiatric test was to see if the person was “oriented as to time, place, or person”. (Knew when he was(the date), where he was, and who he was).
For L11 he may have settled on a very specific understanding of it, though.
To momentarily resurrect the discussion on withholds: Much was said about confessing of withholds; but my (very slight)understanding of withholds is, that what one is withholding is the overt act itself.
In otherwords, it is a way the being is trying to restrain himself from committing the overt, by not-knowing. But of course he is not-ising committing the overt, which then might put the overt on automatic(!),when he might do it again and again without taking responsibility for it.
Confessing it allows him to begin taking responsibility for it. Because he can’t take responsibility for it as long as he can make himself believe he didn’t do it, because “I’m not that kind of person!”
So essentially he is restraining himself by disowning a part of himself, so he is disowning some of his power and ability.The more often he does this, the less power he has and the less power of choice or free will he has, until he can only be a good little slave while all around him the evil deeds loom larger and larger…..
It’s like one of those scary kids books! Yikes!
A deep psychosis would be psychosis at the level of Axiom #1, and that we see in the fixation of people on making self survive.
.
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/06/26/significant-change/#comment-5682
Marildi: Vinaire, you said “An understanding person should be able to handle a lack of acknowledgement easily.” I don’t think she ever claimed to be an understanding person (whatever you mean by that, exactly). That’s your hidden standard, perhaps.
(1) I never implied that Elizabeth ever claimed to be an understanding person.
(2) My understanding is that ARC and understanding increase as one goes up the scale.
(3) Lots of auditing is supposed to do that.
(4) You may call it my hidden standard.
.
I will pitch in my comment here:
If Elisabeth had achieved full exteriorization from the MEST universe, she would not be affected by any letters or words on my blog.
Why do you think so, Geir? I’m not sure why one would follow the other.
Can’t one be exterior to the MEST but still have significances to deal with? Mass and significance, right?
Also not sure that what you mean by “MEST universe” is the same thing as what she means by “MEST universe.”
Oh, significances, significances.
Where there is mass there is also significance… and vice versa.
You can’t have significance without mass. It is like ARC. Mass and significance always go together.
.
I don’t believe this correct.
I believe one could run out significances, leaving the masses still in the mind to cause trouble. Why not vice-versa?
I see no reason to assume masses and significances can’t exist without each other, or that they always go together.
What do you base this assertion on? It seems entirely baseless.
Maybe we are using different definitions of mass and significance. I associate mass with the degree of condensation, and significance with what is being condensed. They represent two different aspects of the same thing. It is very similar to how A-R-C represent three different aspects of the same thing.
.
Valkov, please see my reply at bottom of page, over to the far left.
Amen, Valkov.
Geir, I believe you were taking her words too literally. That was the reason I posted (on your earlier thread), the Gradient Scale of Exteriorization (in COHA and the new Scn 0-8). I thought with that scale it could be seen (from ALL her wordings and descriptions – i.e. the whole context) that she is on one of those higher levels in her “contact with a universe” as well as “contact with a physical body” (the two parts of the scale); and that the vast majority of the rest of us are somewhere on the lower levels of the scale.
When Elizabeth refers to being “out of the MEST,” and “in the theta universe” it’s not using the words with their literal meanings, including particularly “out” and “theta universe” (the term we’ve been discussing as a common MU). She even stated that she isn’t very conversant with LRH’s words and concepts, that she only studied what was required to go through the OT levels (a couple decades ago). She just knows what she has experienced, and from her descriptions on both yours and her blog, I got that she really is on those higher levels. But she is basically an un-trained (in the fullest sense, not just solo trained) OT and, as we know, training is 50% of the possible gains. Again, to give a more extreme analogy, those villagers you met in Tanzania didn’t even have the concept of distance and they may even be barbaric in some ways, but it’s conceivable to me that there could be some true OT understandings of theta and MEST in their simple culture. Simple people are known to have a better grasp and be more at peace with existence sometimes.
That’s my 2 cents. 🙂
I believe you are justifying for her.
Not really, I don’t think. But I can easily understand that viewpoint. I sincerely feel that I’m looking at the whole picture and seeing what is truly worth noting and what is less so.
If Elizabeth is not upset she can come back and continue contributing to this blog.
This blog is simply a place where we pool knowledge, discuss it and simplify it together. There should be no one-up-man-ship.
.
Well as long as everyone is being just, there is no problem, right?
Word Origin & History
justify
c.1300, “to administer justice,” also “to show (something) to be just or right,” from O.Fr. justifer, from L. justificare “act justly toward, make just,” from justificus “dealing justly, righteous,” from justus “just” (see just (adj.)) + root of facere “to do” (see factitious). Meaning “to make exact” (now largely restricted to typesetting) is from 1551.
And LRH’s definition? 😉
Well, if you have a tech dictionary you could post it for us. 🙂
It’s clear that Geir was using the technical definition for “justifying.” But I think Valkov had picked up on the actual intention of my comments when he brought up the terms “just” and “justice.”
What I was trying to do is similar to the principle we use in considering whether someone is a social personality or not – i.e. make sure to look at the positive characteristics as well as the negative. It seemed to me that in this situation there was a lot of looking at the negative and very little at any positive, and I wanted to shed some light on at least what I myself perceived as positive. It may sound dramatic but, yes, the purpose could be viewed in terms of justice, being just.
” But she is basically an un-trained (in the fullest sense, not just solo trained) OT and, as we know, training is 50% of the possible gains”
“Not as you know”, but rather, “as you’ve been told”, by LRH. You accept this without proper inspection, IMO.
You liken Elizabeth to a tribesman, what a joke. You are the tribesmen, she is the enlightened one. How funny that you would see it in reverse.
You must not have read my post very carefully as regards Elizabeth. It wasn’t a direct correlation with tribesmen at all. Plus, in the first paragraph I pointed out the uniquely high level she has achieved. Holy cow, I’m the one on this thread and others who was sticking up for her and praising her to the hilt. Her English and writing weren’t as good then as they are now and I got that this was a barrier to duplicating her.
Same thing on the point of her not understanding the terms and Scn constructs people were using, or their not understanding hers. In other words, I saw the situation as a combination of English and her lack of training on the specific Scn constructs being discussed and as the reason she wasn’t being recognized for who she is. And I expressed many times that those factors don’t mean she doesn’t have understanding of the basic truth of the constructs – she just would put them in different metaphors, you could say, or express them in different constructs of her own.
But yes, there can be such a thing as an OT who may not have learned all the ropes in the physical universe. And it’s not that I “believe LRH” about the value of training. This has been my own observation from personal experience on different flows. Just today I got an extremely nice compliment from Elizabeth herself and she asked me how I did it – the answer is training, plain and simple.
Nor from any lack of acknowledgement…
People who insist on being acknowledged have some agenda beyond simple looking.
Knowledge comes from looking and not from somebody acknowledging you in agreement.
whew! at last – the standard!
I totally get what you’re saying, Vinaire. It’s just that although there are some general things we might expect of those who’ve had a lot of auditing, thetan to thetan they are unique individuals and have their strengths and weaknesses and vary widely in their understanding, from my observations. And to rigidly expect any particular quality makes it essentially a hidden standard. There’s also the factor of training, as I commented to Geir below, and ARC can be expressed in unique ways because of that as well. Don’t forget, if communication is impeded by language and training barriers (two huge ones), that would of course lower the other corners whenever they come into play.
There’s another 2 cents worth. I must be up to a couple bucks on this subject. 🙂
I agree with Geir. I believe you are justifying for Elizabeth.
.
I tend to think that Understanding and ARC do increase with auditing, but Understanding does not necessarily mean approval, agreement, or sympathy.
However I am no C/S and have no clue what Elizabeth is actually running out and/or not running out.
In any case, I don’t think a person who has a lot of auditing goes into some kind of serene, ‘I understand, everything is OK’ kind of valence.
That’s not what ARC=Understanding means to me.
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/06/26/significant-change/#comment-5622
Geir: “ And Buddhism squirreled the basics and changed the static into some impermanent something (mind)…”
Axiom 1 of Scientology refers to STATIC.
Axiom 1 of Buddhism refers to NIRVANA, which is the blowing out of all forms and considerations.
Axiom 1 of Hinduism refers to BRAHMA, which is “neti, neti” or unknowable.
Comment from Geir above indicates his ignorance of Buddhism.
.
You didn’t get my point.
Here; Let’s pretend that the basic is in fact Static. Then Buddhism altered that to something else… (or squirreled it, if you like [or not]).
I was trying to be sarcastic. Next time I will pre- and postfix it with “bla-bla-bla”.
On a more serious note regarding squirreling. The concept isn’t bad at all as long as it applies to a procedure to achieve a specific result. Like the making of Cars or Clears. Or packing a parachute. There are two ways to pack a parachute, and you don’t want anyone squirreling the packing of yours. However, the concept of squirreling has no place in science or research, as that is covering virgin ground.
Actually, if you look from a cool head 🙂 you will find that the three statements of Axiom 1 above point to the same concept.
Scientology: Static is beyond all forms and considerations of matter, energy, space and time, and that includes theta MEST.
Buddhism: Nirvana is attained when all forms and considerations are blown out.
Hinduism: BRAHMA cannot be considered. Anything that you may consider is not BRAHMA.
There is no alter-is or squirreling out there in those subjects. It is only in your head. 🙂
.
You still didn’t get the sarcasm. Well, ok.
AXIOM #1
A comparison of Axiom #1 in Scientology, Buddhism and Hinduism should go a long way in handling any psychosis at the level of “Axioms” in the mind. A psychosis at the level of “Axioms” would indeed be very deep rooted. And any relief at this level would bring relief to all the levels above it.
According to Logic #8: “A datum can be evaluated only by a datum of comparable magnitude.” And that is what we are doing here.
I hope that this brings a much better understanding to Axiom #1 in Scientology.
.
THETA UNIVERSE
Recently there has been a lot of discussion on this blog about Theta Universe. Theta universe simply means a ‘thought universe’, or a ‘universe of considerations’. KHTK 4: Thinking & Thought talks about the following layers in the mind:
1. Sensory input
2. Perception
3. Experience
4. Information
5. Hypothesis
6. Theory
7. Principles
8. Axioms
9. Self
In my view, the layers 2 to 9 constitute the Theta Universe. Layer 1 constitutes the MEST Universe. Layer 2, probably, forms the transition from MEST to the THETA universe.
.
The basic element of the Theta Universe is a thought or consideration.
.
In my opinion the fabric of electromagnetic energy is pure space.
Space condenses as energy, and energy condenses as matter.
Space – energy – matter correspond to freedom – activity – stability.
.
Interesting.
0. Maybe there is something to this.
1. Also something relevant here to your posting on High TA.
2. Also something relevant here to resting and eating.
PS: Welcome home.
Space – energy – matter correspond to freedom – activity – stability.
too cryptic
Hey, this sounds similar to the aether theory, but I guess in this case it would not have any substance.
Could this pure space be considered as an absolutely static frame of reference?
This goes against relativity, but from the viewpoint of the observer it still works if each one is creating its own space as an inertial frame of reference.
Now, how all the observer´s universes synchronize?
Glup! This is directly related to the acceptance of individual creativity…….
Space seems to be a fundamental consideration. Can a consideration be thought of as a fabric? If so, then vibrations in this fabric may appear as electromagnetic waves. This is weird, I know, but what could it be otherwise?
In Essay #5: THE NATURE OF EXISTENCE, I looked at space as an overall sense of a manifestation. The physical space may provide an overall sense of the physical universe. Anything in this universe is just a condensed form of that space.
The speed associated with the electromagnetic wave may provide some clue to the nature of physical space. Maybe it is the first quantum of condensation.
Anyway, this is simply a bit of speculation about the outermost sensory input “layer” of the mind. It is different from thought as we know it. Compared to it, perception is a very primitive form of thought.
.
“Space seems to be a fundamental consideration. Can a consideration be thought of as a fabric? If so, then vibrations in this fabric may appear as electromagnetic waves. This is weird, I know, but what could it be otherwise?”
Vinaire: “””can a consideration be thought of fabric?””” 100percent righ, perfect way to describe, also it has a sound to it that depands on the heaviness, it’s mass, also has color waight. You are talking about the MEST U. Good word, “fabric” I use that word but I sat it as “energy”.
Wow, cool – a consideration has not only mass but sound and color and weight. I’m starting to think that the physical universe and the theta universe may really be just “layers” of theta itself, the different layers only having differences in solidity. And it’s like what you’ve said about such things as not only flowers but the Earth having a spirit and probably other non-living things – all just forms of the spirit, the spirit in its different forms. Maybe those peoples we call primitive actually know what they’re talking about when they believe that everything has a spirit. My wording is that maybe everything IS spirit – but in its various forms. What do you think, Elizabeth?
The theory of L11 rundown is that:
(a) Man is basically good,
Comments:
> Good and evil are relative to each other.
> Good and evil are a function of viewpoint.
> There is no absolute good or absolute evil
> So, the statement “Man is basically good” plays on one’s bias. It doesn’t really mean much.
(b) That when faced with doing evil that Man restrains himself and limits or lowers his power/cause level,
Comments:
> Man will behave non-optimumly only when there is confusion.
> It is lowering of abilities that leads to non-optimium behavior and not the other way around.
> The statement by LRH above contains the outpoint of ALTERED SEQUENCE (see Data Series).
.
The Theory of L11 continued:
(c) That long ago on the wholetrack, evil persons (originally said to be “psychs”) implanted people with evil purposes. Such an implant is referred to in this rundown as an “Implant to Harm”, as these implants embedded commands to do something harmful.
Comments:
> If there were a whole track a lot of it would have merged into layers below PERCEPTION and EXPERIENCE. (Ref KHTK 4: THINKING & THOUGHT
)
> If some perception didn’t merge then it would be peculiar to a person who is looking into his mind.
> One person’s state of track may not be the same as another person’s state of track.
> Any suggestion as to what should be on another person’s perceptional or experiential track is a gross evaluation.
.
HIGH TA
E-meter is used heavily in Scientology. In fact, upper level auditing cannot be done without an E-meter. This dependency is odd.
In any Scientology auditing, which includes L11, the first action is to handle High TA. It is important to understand what High TA really represents.
The reason for High TA seems to be protest. TA goes up because of confusion (non-optimum attention). TA blows down when that confusion blows off. But when confusion does not blow off and layer upon layer of confusion keeps building up then protest starts to enter in and TA stays high.
High TA, essentially, is a person sitting in the middle of a state of high confusion, and he is not liking it.
.
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/06/26/significant-change#comment-5711
Good one Marildi. Second phenomena indeed! Keen as a razor.
But a person can only be boxed if they agree to it as a possibility of the game – agree to be effect. If they won’t agree to be effect of your communication, well then you cannot have a game nor play with them. Just sayin’ – !
Yes, the response I got to that comment was some sort of logical fallacy that some logician (maybe Geir) could probably name. I just know that it didn’t speak to my question, only implied something negative about it and at the same time diverted off onto something else. Exasperating! You’re right, we have to abide by the rules of the discussion game if we’re going to have one. So let’s see if that can be…
C/S Series 37R: “The usual definition of OVERRUN is “gone on too long” or “happened too often”. This causes high TAs to occur.”
When OVERRUN occurs so often in auditing such that it has to be routinely assessed on repair lists, then it is highly likely that the auditing procedure has shortcomings. It can’t just be the auditor’s fault every time. It means that the Scientology auditing procedure does not have enough safeguards built into them to prevent overrun.
Overrun occurs when the preclear is being pushed to answer questions for which his mind is offering no answers. If the question is correct per the way preclear’s bank is stacked up, then the answer would always be there. Overrun occurs when questions are asked that violate the principle of UN-STACKING. Please see KHTK 6: UN-STACKING
Hubbard assumed that the reactive mind puts up resistance, and he devised drills like TR3 to overcome that. This is inconsistent with the fact that the preclear wants to get better. The problem seems to be with Hubbard’s assumption. The mind will cooperate if it is allowed to un-stack in the order that it is stacked up.
The problem really has to do with the questions that the preclear is being asked. The principle of un-stacking is violated each time when the preclear does not have an answer but the auditor insists upon it by asking the auditing question again and again.
C/Sing takes a broad look. It cannot be dynamic because the auditor is not supposed to C/S in the chair. If C/Sing is incorrect then it will result in the auditor asking the wrong questions. By the time its is discovered that the C/Sing is wrong some overrun could already have occurred.
The auditor mainly relies on the meter to check if a question reads or not. There is always some background noise. Increasing the sensitivity will increase the reads on the background noise also. So, picking up any reads other than the most obvious ones is always going to be risky. Thus, there is a built-in flaw in the use of the E-meter in Scientology.
What has gone on too long in auditing? It is the asking of questions for which the answer doesn’t appear.
.
You forgot to preface your comments here, with “In my opinion…..”
I noticed you did do that at least once recently, and it makes you sound a lot less dogmatic.
Since I know you are not really a dogmatic person, you might try building that little preface into more of your comments. 🙂
This post starts out being judgmental and continues in the same vein. It does not discuss the subject fairly and squarely.
This post does not grant beingness.
.
OK, I take it back. I think you are a really dogmatic person at times.
No. I am mathematical, and may be autistic.
.
yes. . . and mathematics is a language and not to be confused with tone nor beingness.
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/06/26/significant-change/#comment-5760
This conclusion is illogical from the start.
Auditing is a process of two way communication. If the auditor is not an excellent communicator overruns will happen.
That’s why the subject needs to be addressed, because some(many? most?) auditing students would never to realize it for themselves. That’s only natural, as auditing is not an inborn skill to most people. They have to learn how to do it and overcome their own blind spots in the process.
There is nothing wrong with the auditing tech in the sense you seem to imply there is; the data on overruns is part of the auditing tech and makes it that much more complete.
In fact, I see it as an essential part of what a student auditor needs to learn because left to himself, the concept is not even likely to occur to him.
Also, overrun happens in life a lot. That alone makes it a valuable concept to have.
.
This post also starts out being judgmental and does not grant beingness.
One does not have to judge the other person in a discussion. Just discuss the subject.
.
Yes but this is not being held against you. You just need to work through it. I will help wherever I can.
Nice flow, Chris.
And while I’m at it, let me commend you on several other good posts today. You artIculated some outpoints about comments that left me not even knowing where to begin. Good job!
So now stating that I find some argument illogical is “judgemental”. Yeah, it’s a judgement, duh! It’s my judgement. Does it bother you?Does it, make you angry, or hurt your feelings?
Would you prefer I not mention it when some argument of yours appears to be illogical?
God forbid we should judge anything,eh? Unless it is to heap praise, I suppose.
I calls them as I sees them. Your argument is objectively illogical. That IS granting beingness to what it is.
Your post doesn’t discuss the point that was being made originally. It simply says it is illogical. Then it makes comment about the person making the argument, such as, “Does it bother you?Does it, make you angry, or hurt your feelings?”
This does not follow my understanding of “Granting of beingness.” The tone is hostile and confrontational.
.
Vinaire: “One does not have to judge the other person in a discussion. Just discuss the subject.”
You have judged things, we judge things otherwise there would be no discussions, debates. Judging has nothing to with beingness.
The being remain the same being regadless what the judgment is, only the concepts the “concideration=Fabric” is altered Nothing changes the being the being is static, remember? In fact the concept the “consideration=fabric” is not altered but new, different reality created for to be view, to experience. The problem is the being who put forth the first subject=fabric want that fabric the only one to exists We are selfish beast when comes to creation of the fabric.
.
Welcome back.
(1) Judging a person, who is not the subject of discussion but a participant in a discussion, is being judgmental. Judging what is being discussed per Data series is proper evaluation.
(2) The being is not static. The being is the fabric wrapped around considerations. It is the common denominator of all considerations of which it appears to be the source.
.
Vinaire: ” When OVERRUN occurs so often in auditing such that it has to be routinely assessed on repair lists, then it is highly likely that the auditing procedure has shortcomings. It can’t just be the auditor’s fault every time. It means that the Scientology auditing procedure does not have enough safeguards built into them to prevent overrun. ”
I would say most times it is the auditor … missed an F/N, missed an acknowledgment, lack of duplication of what PC said, wrong item, no charge in the 1st place, wrong process … there’s many possibilities. There’s also the PC hat … willing to talk to the auditor – maybe the pc had a thought but didn’t voice it.
There’s also something the LRH mentioned somewhere that there is no such think as overrun … a thetan can do anything forever (not verbatim)
Really, I think it comes down to the simple comm cycle and having real duplication of what is going on with the pc. Years ago we used to audit with no meter and in some cases this is still true today … one goes on indicators and high ARC – basics – you know when that pc has blown something.
Vinaire: ” Hubbard assumed that the reactive mind puts up resistance, and he devised drills like TR3 to overcome that. This is inconsistent with the fact that the preclear wants to get better. ”
Of course the pc wants to get better … there are things HE/SHE feels that are not under his control – he is at effect – whether the cause is self-generated, or the pc has assigned Cause to something or someone else. In these cases, the PC believes something other than himself is putting up resistance.
This has NOTHING to do with what Hubbard thinks the pc is thinking or should be thinking – Auditor’s Code. It has EVERYTHING to do with how the pc views himself and what he believes to be real for him at that moment in time.
Vinaire: ” The principle of un-stacking is violated each time … ”
WTF? You use your method as the standard by which other paths are judged?
Man, seems a bit of the know-best.
Why not just state how you see it as your opinion instead of denigrating and making anything that isn’t your ‘method’ wrong. Have a look into your foray into Identics …
I think ANYONE who is looking to improve their life and the lives of others is on the RIGHT path – in whatever manner they do this. To make other philosophers(ies) and the like wrong for not bowing to your method simply defeats the goodness that everyone is striving for.
I need popcorn. 🙂
There’s more to TR 3 than what you mention … re-read it and demo possible reasons why TR 3 would be used.
No real auditor INSISTS on getting an answer … there is something else happening.
Re: e-meter … I suggest re-training … exterior noise is handled in session set-up, NOT after the session started unless someone starts a jackhammer once session starts … then again, it could be the incident 🙂
Ahh, made myself laugh there.
Popcorn? (with butter)
(1) F/Ns are missed when they are not obvious. Scientology is trying to make E-meter work beyond its limit. In 1950s only the obvious meter reads were taken up that were clearly recognizable above background noise.
(2) It is the improper demands put on the use of e-meter beyond its limits that indicates that there is something wrong with this method of auditing itself. When auditor is too much focused on operating the e-meter he would naturally miss many other things.
(3) When, per LRH, there is no such thing as overrun then why is so much attention put on it in auditing? This does not make sense.
(4) It is hard to maintain a proper comm cycle when attention is given too much to the e-meter.
(5) The mind puts up resistance only when its natural order of un-stacking is violated. The very method of Scientology auditing with too much attention on e-meter promotes that.
[I shall stop here because the rest of Dennis’s post is invalidative and does not grant beingness.]
.
I have had excellent auditing without any attention on the e-meter. If the auditor’s TRs are good, then there is no issue.
I have no doubt that you had excellent auditing from Pierre. I am sure that there are very good psychologists too who have done wonders. There are also excellent human beings that make one feel really good.
One can take a lot of time and produce a marvel of a car, but mass producing a marvel car requires a different technology.
Scientology never had a theory and technology to clear the planet.
.
IYNSHO.
I produced such excellent results from word clearing that at times difficult preclears from Flag HGC were sent to me for debug.
I operated from basic principles and not from millions of directives and do’s and don’ts put out by LRH. I must have missed hundreds of F/Ns but I produced great results because I did not just depend on the e-meter. I went by pc’s indicators.
.
IYNSHO = In your not so humble opinion.
Really?
.
Seems so
I do not think Scientology Tech will survive in the form it is laid out by LRH. It will be greatly modified to be more functional.
.
.
I agree.
Do I have to be humble always? 🙂
.
Geir, you do? Agree that Scn will have to be “greatly” modified? I already got that you think research in it should be continued and I have no question or problem with that – but “greatly modified to be functional”? Other than what you said about OT III (in the Radical New View post), I don’t recall anything like this coming from you. Please elaborate a bit!
It is the best I have seen so far. But I do believe it has to be greatly modified to deliver on LRH’s original promises in the times that he envisioned.
Re:
1) That’s what e-meter drills are for, and practice as an auditor. One learns how to audit by auditing. E-meters are quite different from the ones used in the ’50s.
2) The e-meter is a tool – nothing more, nothing less. I agree with your statement regarding auditor attention/focus. If an auditor is focused too much on the meter, his basics are out -simple as that. It needs correcting. It appears you have had some bad auditing. What you express is definitely not good auditing.
3) There isn’t SO MUCH attention … this is a minor thing BUT when it does occur, there is a procedure to correct it.
4) I agree.
5) You make Hubbard wrong regarding the mind’s resistance in saying this above
” Hubbard assumed that the reactive mind puts up resistance, and he devised drills like TR3 to overcome that. This is inconsistent with the fact that the preclear wants to get better. The problem seems to be with Hubbard’s assumption.”
Now you say: “(5) The mind puts up resistance only when its natural order of un-stacking is violated. ” Confusing to me.
In auditing, what comes up comes up. It is the pc communicating HIS items, not the auditor.
Exterior noise, the e-meter focusing, etc … it is simply out basics. It is not proper auditing. Would one expect these occurences in a new auditor? Yes. In a seasoned auditor? No.
Sorry you took the rest of the post as invalidation. It is simply that you have misunderstoods and what appears to be concepts from different philosophies mushed together. It may be some of the reason why comm cycles go awry from time to time.
Thank you Dennis – I am enjoying your comments as well.
Regarding Vin’s litany of complaints about auditing – none of it is clear to me. Judging by what he has shared I don’t think he has given or received auditing. He is leaping to wrong conclusions but based on what? I don’t know. What he writes has the valence of authority as he quotes whole passages of HCOBs but then his remarks show that he does not understand the materials he is complaining about.
I am quite open to scrutinizing Scientology with a critical mind. There factually are some problems. Sometimes my automobile has problems as well. My cell phone is prone to problems. Sometimes the air conditioning in my house fails to cool.
My experience is that the data of Scientology when used as stable data is superior to having no stable data and more useful than other types of stable data that I have tried. So that is just me. If another practice sets one free, I have no problem with that. If a person just wishes to maunder and is not being destructive to me, I have no problem with that. but when criticizing it seems the criticism should be based on factual problems and not invented problems rooted in misunderstanding of the tech being criticized.
Vin blames his social awkwardness on autism. Maybe there is something to this. However, Vinay is a very smart guy and if he can recognize a social awkwardness in himself and is sentient enough to name a reason for it, then I leap to conclude that he can invent a device to compensate for it.
I’ve run into this before. I had an employee once who seriously thought that using simple ordinary manners on the customers was “kissing their asses,” and he wouldn’t do it! Now I could see that he had a simple false data sitting there, but telling him to smile instead of glower and to speak instead of pursing his lips went nowhere and consequently he ended up digging a ditch away from the sphere of our “customers.”
Vinay has told me that I was impinging “on his freedom” by “insisting” that he acknowledge when communicating. He doesn’t see that leaving out this important component part of communication cycle pisses people off. He doesn’t see this at all and instead says that the problem lies in my expectation toward him. He says that acknowledgement is a form of agreement which he doesn’t feel compelled to do. I get that except that acknowledgement is not a form of agreement. It is only a signal that one has duplicated that which was communicated. So there is a false data about . . . maybe the comm course or something sitting there. Vin says he worked as a program chief once upon a time. This would be a good post for him as program chiefs don’t ack shit. They jam orders in a continuous stream and hammer hammer hammer… hahaha! Maybe his false data lies around there. Maybe not.
Anyway, Vinay Argawala could experience some “Significant Change” if he would turn that big brain of his toward some looking at how he communicates with others and what effects he is creating. Everyone here wants to get along with him. His reasonable attitude toward himself on this subject is irresponsible and is causing his good ideas to be somewhat ignored.
It is better to discuss the subject and not the other person, otherwise discussion stalls.
.
Poor Chris! He is being an affect of the authoritarian Vinay Agarwala.
If you don’t see it. This is an acknowledgement.
🙂
(1) No they aren’t. There is no attempt to make the emeter work beyond its limit. It has always been used within its limit. I fail to see the merit of your complaints about the invention of metering in the 1950’s.
(2) Possibly you have tried to use the emeter and found it overwhelming? It is quite a bit to coordinate but with interested drilling and practicing it is very possible to become proficient at each task.
(3) Your complaint is too cryptic.
(4) It is hard to maintain a proper comm cycle when you resist the component parts. This filter is really blocking your success. Take a look at it and see what you can see.
(5) This is not true at all – Simply natter. Your filter and pretended knowledge of what the proper way of unstacking the mind doesn’t really go anywhere does it? Scientology takes the low hanging fruit first – I’m not sure what better way the mind could be unstacked than by taking the hottest buttons first and erasing them first, and then the next and the next…
Your preoccupation with being granted beingness seems selfish to me. If you are an enlightened being then you should not be put off by a little invalidation.
There is no attempt to discuss in the post above. It simply tries to make the other person wrong.
.
CS Series 37R says, “The truth is A THETAN CAN DO ANYTHING FOREVER.”
This is a false datum. A thetan is limited by its own considerations. And if it could get rid of all its considerations then it would no longer be a thetan.
.
The operative word is “can”.
I don’t think it’s a false datum because:
A thetan might also consider that he CAN do anything forever, and in that case it would not be a false datum. Because anything that a thetan can consider, he can do. (as a thetan)
A thetan cannot consider that he CAN do anything forever, if it is dissolved.
.
If there is no limit to considerations, it can.
So who’s gonna dissolve a thetan? You with some kind of ‘thetan dissolver gun’ you have invented?
What if the fellow didn’t have the consideration that he COULDN’T ?
Then I guess he naturally COULD.
I see the following to be a basic principle:
PRIOR CONSIDERATIONS TAKE PRECEDNCE OVER LATER CONSIDERATIONS. THUS, A THETAN IS LIMITED BY ITS OWN CONSIDERATIONS.
Thus, a thetan cannot make its later consideration supersede a prior consideration. If the prior consideration is as-ised then there is no prior consideration.
To me, a thetan (or self) is the consideration “to be” and that is the mother of all limiting considerations. Thus, I take exception to the datum, “A THETAN CAN DO ANYTHING FOREVER.”
.
Vin,
Try reading the Factors.
Factor #2. In the beginning and FOREVER is the decision,and the decision is TO BE.
Dig it? FOREVER. That is the consideration prior to all other considerations.
You know, Scientology philosophy really is a self-consistent whole, which means to grasp it you have to look at all the inter-related parts of it.
“Scientology philosophy really is a self-consistent whole, which means to grasp it you have to look at all the inter-related parts of it.”
Good point to make. Lots of truth to it, from my perspective.
I used to misunderstand “forever” as well. Once you get the idea that forever is finite it doesn’t seem so long anymore.
I think this is arguable. Read both definitions, Finite and Infinite.
Only the consideration “to be” can be forever. Any subsequent consideration would be limited by the consideration “to be”. If the primary consideration is to be a thetan, then any subsequent consideration would be limited by the consideration of a thetan. He cannot be anything other than a thetan, unless he unmocks being a thetan.
.
You changed the statement “to be” into “to be a thetan.”
The consideration is what it is without your additive.
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/06/26/significant-change/#comment-5908
No. Your reasoning is circular.
A “thetan” by definition can be anything he decides to be. That’s covered by first, second, third and fourth postulates.
“To be” is unlimited. It is Static + the consideration “to be” – that is what a “thetan’ IS. No other limits there. It is the subsequent postulates that are limited, but derive their power from the prior postulate.
Does that mean that anything being can be a thetan? That is what you seem to be saying.
.
I’m not sure I understand your question:
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/06/26/significant-change/#comment-6072
Did you mean to say “any being can be a thetan”, or what you wrote which is – “anything being can be a theta”?
I am saying that a thetan can be anything at will, can assume any beingness at will. But the converse is not true – any beingness can’t be a thetan at will.
So a thetan can be a human, a cat, a chair, a tree or a garbage can at will; but a garbage can cannot be a thetan.
It relates to the expanded Know to Mystery Scale, the top of which goes like this
Native State
Not Know (Unknow)
Know About
etc.
NATIVE STATE is very close to Static. Native State knows everything or can know everything, it is similar to Dali Lama’s statement of “Omniscient Mind”.
It is more of a ‘potential’ knowing of all and everything.
There is no game at that level because there is no randomity.
Native State knows all and can be said to be all and everything, the entire universe. 100% pan determinism.
NOT KNOW is the First Postulate. Native State says “I don’t know”(something).Now there is randomity, because now there is something he doesn’t know and is not responsible for, he is no longer 100% pan-determined. He is disowning some part of the original total knowingness and total beingness and is thus putting it outside of his immediate control.
I correlate this to Buddha’s concept of “ignorance”. One ‘ignores’ the truth of what he knows and eventually be comes mired in samsara.
KNOW ABOUT is the Second Postulate. He now states he can “know about” – ie ‘learn’ about these aspects of life he postulated he “didn’t know”.
So now he can go out and ‘learn’ to know about and do and be all the things he decided he ‘didn’t know'(which, at Native State, he originally did know completely 100%)
Well this is all very thoroughly covered in the 4th London ACC lectures which are available for free download, but I’ll have to search for the link.
I can also put them on a USB memory stick and mail it to you.
These are must have lectures for all Axioms and Factors geeks. They are from Fall of 1955.
Many of the lectures cover Native State, First,Second,Third and Fourth Postulates in great detail and relate them to BE,DO, and HAVE. Highly recommended.
All Hail my Master the Incomparable Celestial Mahaguru Baba Elron Hubbard-ji! 🙂
Or maybe that’s Bubba Elron etc? LOL.
So, if there is a cat, how do you know it is a real cat, and not a thetan being a cat?
According to you a thetan can be anything. So, a thetan can be a cat. So what is the difference between a cat, and a thetan being a cat?
This is a valid question.
.
I don’t think this is a false datum at all. Stating the obvious is unnecessary. When all the considerations are gone, then something is no longer anything.
Take a look at your considerations about authority. Simply stating opinion as fact is not convincing enough.
CS Series 37R says, “To Audit ‘overruns’ is auditing toward an untruth. Thus if carried on as a process it is really an out of ARC Process.”
If auditing is the same as Looking then there would be no problem. One would Look and immediately know the obvious that one was being asked questions for which one had no answer. But, as there seem to be problem with auditing ‘overruns’ then auditing seems to be more than simply Looking.
More likely, Auditing = Looking + additive of insisting on an answer.
.
What the heck are you talking about?
LOL
CS Series 37R says:
– That which makes a thetan believe something can be overrun is the EFFORT TO STOP or THE EFFORT TO STOP HIM.
– The effort to stop something, when generalized, becomes a “stop everything” and IS the entrance point of insanity.
– This has been known since 1967. But I did not earlier connect it with the OVERRUN phenomenon.
Is a thetan being convinced that he is being stopped when he Looks at overrun? I don’t think so. If he Looks at overrun he will recognize that he is being asked too many questions for which the mind cannot present any answers.
However, it is true that extreme overrun can cause insanity; but the mechanism underlying that is different. What happens as follows:
(1) The mind does not bring up any answer to the question.
(2) An answer is being insisted upon.
(3) The mind starts to speculate upon answers.
(4) This starts a figure-figure.
(5) An extreme form of figure-figure is called insanity.
.
Vinaire: ” Is a thetan being convinced that he is being stopped when he Looks at overrun? ”
No, it is what the PC considers. Most PCs have not read the C/S series, and if they did and start evaluating their own case, they are 1) Not in session, and 2) Violating the PC hat, and 3) Out of comm – a possible source of a great many problems in session.
Vinaire: ” If he Looks at overrun he will recognize that he is being asked too many questions for which the mind cannot present any answers.”
Again, ‘asking too many questions’ is YOUR version of what is happening … if one as an auditor had these kinds of misunderstoods on auditing basics, problems would ensue.
Vinaire: ” (1) The mind does not bring up any answer to the question.
(2) An answer is being insisted upon.
(3) The mind starts to speculate upon answers.
(4) This starts a figure-figure.
(5) An extreme form of figure-figure is called insanity. ”
Again, ‘Insisting’ on an answer is not auditing. That’s NOT a comm cycle.
+1
Exactly. Let me step one more: The comm cycle is senior to looking.
ARC is dependant upon communicating for there to be any distance or something to agree upon. This is why it is the initial activity drilled which is drilled by the Novice and Expert Scientologist alike. Not to understand the importance of the communication cycle and of ARC is maybe the primary and most significant failing of humans and further may be what makes humanoids out of run of the mill humans.
CS Series 37R says:
– When a thetan has a long chain of efforts to stop or a chain of efforts to stop him
– (mixed up with protest, of course, and shame, blame and regret and other human emotion and reaction)
– he accumulates ridges. These make mass.
– This mass makes the high TA.
– In truth it is not possible to kill a thetan, so therefore any effort to stop a thetan would only have partial success.
– So the chain is also full of INCOMPLETES.
– An incomplete cycle of action causes ARC Breaks.
– Thus an OVERRUN is full of MASS and ARC Breaks!”
An OVERRUN is simply confusion piled up upon confusion because one is being prevented from Looking. When one’s Looking at ‘nothing’ is continually invalidated because one is being insisted to find something, it causes massive confusion.
Not really. But possibly you have an experience where you were overrun in another way?
I have not noticed you sharing personal experiences receiving auditing. Why is this?
Possibly take a look at your projection of another negative experience in your life onto auditing.
Here the responder is going on a tangent, and makes no attempts to discuss the point being raised.
.
Here is the “responder” and he has a name and that name is Chris.
Overrun is not a confusion piled on top of a confusion “because the person is being prevented from looking.”
How do you arrive at such a statement?
For one familiar with auditing, auditors, auditing concepts and principles, the 2 way comm cycle, metering, and the rest; your comment is truly foreign.
So my question about your statement is do you have an experience which would foment in such a way to cause you to express this bias? First you would reply yes or no and then you would add a bit of commentary to support your answer. This would be discussion.
The point that you have raised is not one of “overrun” but of a particular bias that you have due to some unhappy earlier experience and I am asking you to share that on this board for discussion. That experience would truly be a thing of interest and I believe you would generate quite a bit if discussion if you were to spill.
OK. This is better. At least there is some effort to discuss, though the prejudice is still expressed.
LRH says that overrun occurs because something has gone on too long, and the preclear starts to protest it. One handles that overrun by rehabbing the point where the preclear was keyed out on that question. Am I right so far?
Let me confirm this before I continue further.
.
Chris,
That is your evaluation of why he acts the way he does. You maybe right, you may be wrong, but it is evaluation.
Even if you are right, he may not be able to tell you what the experience was, because it might be engramic and below his level of awareness.
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/06/26/significant-change/#comment-6061
That is your evaluation of why he acts the way he does. You maybe right, you may be wrong, but it is evaluation.
Agreed. I think I already said as much. You said “evaluation” like a dirty word. Did you mean it that way? I’m not unaware of the communication that I am emitting. I’m not auditing Vinnie and – in this case – not attempting to apply the Auditor’s Code.
“Computations” are harder than diamonds. Vinay is one tough son-of-a-bitch! He endured years and years at Flag! Believe me when I say that I understand what that means about his toughness. The MAAs at Flag couldn’t crack him – I don’t think a few off-color comments from me are going to affect his nut!
The policy I am applying is “when in doubt – communicate.” I feel that you can just say what you’re thinking and if it turns out to be true for the other person then something might happen. Maybe something good. If something bad I can recant, apologize and move on if not too much blood is spilt.
Besides, Valkov, you don’t exactly use kid gloves on Vinnie, do you?
Anyway, sometime read his story (you probably already did) – it is quite intimate and revealing and heartwarming as well. Vinay as it turns out is a poor little rich Indian kid who grew up to live quite the adventure!
You are right Chris, but let me play Devil’s advocate here….
you are not auditing Vin, but yet you are, because in the very basic sense doesn’t ‘a good comm cycle’ actually apply the basics of the Comm Course and the Auditor’sCode? Didn’t LRH propose it as a standard of ‘civilized communication’?
Wouldn’t the world be more civilized if we all applied those ideas with each other?
So I’m not trying to criticize you, but I am suggesting there is some virtue to Vinnie’s objections, and that he may actually be proposing or wishing for a different standard of communication.
On the other hand, you are spot on in discussing his arguments, too.
I’m talking ‘ideal scene’ here; and it is actually Vinnie who objects to ‘evaluation’ and I’m quite sure he means it in the Auditor’s Code sense. Not because he lacks toughness, but because he would like the discussion to proceed without the ‘personal comments’ (evaluations).
And yes, I have evaluated him a-plenty. And he has always objected to it. He has always said he wanted the discussion to be about his ideas, not his personality.
He also has done his fair share of responding evaluatively towards others.. One can be aware of an ideal scene, but being human, one doesn’t always live up to it!
This was Geir’s rule on The Scientology Forum: people would be infracted (from Warning, deletion of adhom text by mods to Yellow Card )for adhom(address to the person, rather than the argument). It was an interesting rule to try and follow. It sometimes led to “work-arounds” towards ‘implied adhom’ through some fancy verbal footwork, and did sometimes lead to postings phrased as generalities. See some of the threads involving Alanzo, there. It was a great learning experience for me.
But watching Eminem’s movie “8 Mile” is a great learning experience, too. “Rap battles” elevate adhom to an art form. In that movie our hero wins in the end by being completely truthful about himself. Highly recommended movie, two thumbs up from Valkov!
I’ll see if I can find a good ‘8 Mile’ clip on Youtube.
CS Series 37R says:
– the one process you must not run on a pc is “Look out of here and find something you can go out of ARC with.”
– This sends him into a dwindling spiral.
– The common denominators of a bank are OUT OF ARC and STOP!
– Thus if too long a list of “What has been Overrun” is required to obtain the first BD F/N item
– the listing action may very well restimulate much more bank than can easily be handled on some pcs.
To go out of ARC means to bring about a lack of affinity, reality, communication or understanding. So, the process, “Look out of here and find something you can go out of ARC with,” is basically asking one to find possible confusions in one’s environment. This would definitely demoralize the preclear as more confusion is simply the route to inaction.
But overrun is a single condition. You only have to spot that questions were being asked for which there were no answers. It doesn’t matter what those questions were. Here the very idea of listing those questions is ridiculous.
.
Not true because one can be overrun on an Objective process also, which does not involve being asked any questions at all.
I think what you are describing is very very bad auditing by an auditor who does not understand auditing or is deliberately misapplying it, not a problem with the technology itself. You are describing very poor application.
Progress in auditing means that one is looking and realizing what is there by penetrating appearances. Layers of PERCEPTION down to SELF are increasing interpretations of the SENSORY INPUT. Thus, they are appearances. In auditing one is penetrating through the appearances of the lower layers toward directly appreciating the higher layers. The highest appreciation would be the direct contact with the SENSORY INPUT and a realization of what is really occurring there.
It seems that Objectives help one penetrate layers that are closer to and below the layer of perception. But the wider is the gap between a lower layer and the layer of perception; objectives may not be that efficient.
Overrun on objectives may occur when objectives are not addressing what needs to be un-stacked in the mind. This is the case with any process that is overrun. When no response is occurring to a process or to a process question, that process question should be not be asked again and again and the process should be discontinued.
What I am talking about here is not Q&A but dynamic un-stacking of the mind through a more sophisticated approach than discrete processes as in Scientology.
.
It is unclear to me what your purpose is for making patently false statements about auditing. The preclear is consulted about his overrun. His answer about this is taken as his answer. Your false statements about what goes on during auditing are a curiosity to me. It doesn’t seem ridiculous to me to effectively help someone using 2 way communication.
There is no discussion of the subject here either. There is only prejudice.
.
1. “Penetrating appearances…” is inconsistent from your other statements wherein you extol the virtues of KHTK because of its natural and gentle way of un-stacking the mind. If one is not going to take up what “comes up” then what in the world are you talking about? I think that the way I run Scientology processes is gentle and naturally unstacks my mind because I simply take up what comes up. Nothing is forced. Isn’t this what you’ve stated should happen? Your use of language of “penetrating appearances” – without delving deeper – sounds forced — something you’ve stated is “bad.”
2. Referring Scientology as “un-sophisticated” shows bias on your part.
3. The discrete processes of Scientology selectively restimulate the reactive mind in a gentle and controlled environment. Everything is taken into account: The PC’s focus of attention, physical and thusly mental rudiments such as nourishment and rest; distractions; present time problems; physical health; any incapacities from drug use; and a gradient approach based on standard practices developed over years, programmed by a trained case supervisor sitting in an ivory tower and then applied in as controlled manner as possible so as to routinely produce specific improvements to the PC’s satisfaction. Then once this has been done, the PC is examined by yet another person to ensure that the desired result has been obtained. Can I just ask you and get a response as to WHAT IS NOT SOPHISTICATED ABOUT THAT?
4. There is such a thing as making false statements. You made false statements about Scientology through no prejudice of my own. This is indisputable.
4. I ask you: If this discussion has stalled, on which of the following flows is this “discussion” stalling:
self to self?
self to others?
others to self?
others to others?
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/06/26/significant-change/#comment-5918
Well if that’s not a blanket invalidation, I don’t know what it is! Gonna take your ball and go home?
CS Series 37R says:
– As these are also the pcs with very high TA, if one lists for overrun and runs much too long a list
– to get his first BD F/N item, the pc can be heavily restimulated.
– Listing errors or upsets can make this, then, too uncomfortable a proceeding for a pc and should NOT now be done.
It seems that once listing was done to find the OVERRUN item. This shows a misunderstood about the phenomenon of overrun. It is never a particular question that causes the overrun. It is the insistence on answers when none are coming up, which causes the overrun.
That misunderstanding seems to be still there in Scientology.
.
I think the misunderstanding of Scientology auditing lies with you.
It is quite obvious that someone has given you some off-beat procedure and you thought it was auditing or were led to believe it was.
It was not.
I truly wish you had an auditor who HAD his basics in, his attention on YOU and not the meter, had checked external noises and the session environment to ensure it was comfortable for the pc, etc, etc. Then you would have something to compare it to.
(sheesh, I keyed-in for a second – was going to say external influences hahaha)
Keyed into “external influences”? Is that an allusion that only an ex-staffer would understand? As one myself, I’m inclined to interpret it as referencing the obsessive importance that was given to beware of all the so-called suppressive external influences. There was even a checksheet compiled for a course we all had to do.
Or did your meaning go right over my head? Ha ha!
Marildi, what year would that have been?
Probably the early 2000’s. Were you on staff then?
You hit it on the head Marildi 🙂
Yes, an ex-staffer.
I think that was used as part of or in conjunction with the whole roll-back evolution.
I remember the 1st time I was called in for a rollback … I didn’t know what the term meant.
As I walked down the hallway, I remember how excited I felt getting singled out to get this new thing. Hahahahahah
My viewpoint rapidly changed a few seconds after the door was locked 🙂
Oh yes, the dreaded roll-backs… But actually I think those started in the early part of Miscavige’s reign – early 80’s. And the course on external influences I believe came along much later – after he had clearly established himself as the dictator and the whole Scn world became an extension of him. “Dictator” was literally the word I had for him – keeping it strictly to myself of course! Until I eventually decided “I can’t takes no more” (in the immortal words of Popeye :-)).
Well, if I have misunderstood, then why is there no discussion of that misunderstanding? Again, the subject is not being discussed but the person raising a point is being discussed.
.
Because everyone is waiting for you to drop your shields and “discuss.”
No one here enjoys being talked down to and asked esoteric open ended questions.
My personal feeling is that you are uncomfortable in a 2-way communication. The root reason for this will have a fear attached to a significance and mass. This is for you to find.
But I am not aware of another blog (since we cannot get together) where it would be safer for you to let down your hair. It could be both a fun and growing experience.
There is a 2 -way communication here if you look at it. It helped me write the essay on FANATICISM.
.
Maybe clearing up the definitions for auditing & auditor’s code will give some relief for your misunderstanding of the auditing comm cycle. No insistence on getting answers from a PC when none are coming up is a part of auditing.
What is your experience that makes you think auditors ask questions and insist on answers for which the PC has no answer? We should look at this filter of yours to see how it came into existence.
No discussion. Prejudiced response.
.
Then on which flow of this communication did the discussion stop?
self to self?
self to others?
others to self?
others to others?
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/06/26/significant-change/#comment-5920
Back atcha!
Dismissive of poster. No discussion by you, avoidance of valid questions, validates wrongness instead of rightness, does not grant beingness to the poster.
Pot/kettle
CS Series 37R says:
– And if it doesn’t work on some pcs in the hands of some auditors, it must therefore be cancelled.
– Any recommendation on VIII Course to do it is cancelled.
– The theory is correct as given on the VIII Course.
– There, a few items were intended.
– But now some very long lists have come up on some pcs which made the pc uncomfortable and were hard for the auditor to handle. — Thus the BD F/N item overrun list must not be done.
– CONTINUE is then the Reverse Action to overrun. Continue equals Survival.
– The REVERSE to overrun therefore can be run as a process,
– to wit, “What would you be permitted to continue?” or “What could be Continued?”
– This however would not be very successful.
– Thus the listing action is recommended as the process to use.
This seems to be a lot of figure-figure above. A simple solution would be to skip the question for which no answer is coming up. An optimum approach would be as covered by KHTK 5 and KHTK 6.
.
It seems that you have quite worked yourself up about auditing. If you were to look at this, what would you say is the reason?
Do you imagine that your rapid fire belittling and negative comments are having the effect of convincing that you know what you are writing about?
Again, there is no discussion here.
.
Well, the question hangs in the air like a fart. What has you so worked up about Scientology auditing?
You’ve stated falsely about how Scientology is processed. I’d like to know where these ideas come from?
I am looking for a discussion and not just a flat denial. I am neither stupid nor antagonistic. If you don’t understand my point then ask for more detail.
Either you have a very low opinion of me (not granting beingness) or you are identifying yourself with LRH and Scientology and can’t discuss it without taking offense.
Take a pick.
.
CS Series 37R says:
– The same exact thing causes LOW TAs. The flow could be said to have overwhelmed the pc.
– Exactly how you read the list for Low TA will be given in another HCOB after further tests are made.
– In theory it would go lower on assessment.
– Please note that OUT TRs on the part of auditors is the most frequent cause of low TAs.
– TR 1 that drives the pc out through the back of his head can cause a low (below 2.0) TA on a lot of pcs.
In my view, low TA would occur when the preclear has gone into apathy about being asked questions for which he has no answer. Nothing is coming up in his mind. The problem, then, seems to be with the auditing procedure and not with the auditor’s TRs.
.
Was this your experience?
No discussion on the point presented.
.
Correct. The discussion died on one of the following flows. Which one do you think it was:
self to self?
self to others?
others to self?
Others to others?
CS Series 37R says:
– “Flow” is an electronic flow in a direction.
– In Phoenix, Arizona, in 1952 an “Oscilloscope” was once hooked up to an E-Meter movement
– and showed that a mental flow will flow just so long in one direction.
– By reversing the repetitive commands when the left-right directional flow slowed,
– the flow turned around and flowed right-left then slowed, etc.
– So actual electrical flow occurs in response to the directional command (like “self to another”).
– Also it jams up when run too long on an average human because his mind has “overruns” in it already.
The simple reason that flow jams up is because there are no more answers coming up, and, maybe, overrun is taking place because amswers are being insisted upon.
Repetitive questioning seems to be the main culprit.
.
Not really. There is not a culprit. “Overrun” is not a problem which has not been solved for decades. The term “overrun” was coined coincidentally with the correction for overrun. This is done with simple two-way communication and the point where the PC was doing well is rehabbed.
Pretending to discover and solve non-existent problems with auditing seems an inefficient way to spend your time. Maybe try taking a look at “overrun” as it applies to yourself.
I do not think that the root cause of overrun has been found and handled, because it continues to occur in Scientology auditing, and has to be repaired.
.
Two thumbs up!
Valkov, you say, “I believe one could run out significances, leaving the masses still in the mind to cause trouble,” As a matter of fact, LRH himself talks about the possibility of running significances only and leaving the masses (and advised against it, I believe). As for your question, “Why not vice-versa?” I know that with running engrams – “postulate off equals erasure” [NED course] and that’s when you get the F/N, indicating the mass is blown.
But on this subject of masses and significances in the mind, I’m thinking that maybe we’re talking about substrates again – significances in the mind (i.e. recordings of thoughts) being one substrate, and the masses there being the other (recordings of the physical universe as well as recordings of energy or charge generated, as opposed to thoughts – charge or emotion having a grosser wave length than thought, per the scale of approximate wave lengths in Scn 8-80).
We already have the two “happening-in-PT” substrates of (a) the continuous newly-created physical universe (created in unison by all), and (b) the newly created mock-ups of individuals (not mocked up or perceived by others, generally). Both (a) and (b) are retained in the mind as recordings and would make up the two substrates of – masses and significances in the mind. The significances there are recordings of (b) the higher, finer wave lengths (i.e. the mental energy of thoughts). And the masses are recordings of (a) – the wave lengths of physical universe energy as well as the recordings (by individuals) of newly created energy (charge and the mental masses of ridges or other condensed energy in the mind).
And Geir has already put out the idea of Static substrates. Per The Factors this would be Cause and then viewpoints, viewpoints being later referred to as theta (as I see it) and after that called thetans, to my understanding.- “Thetan” being much more clearly defined than “theta” was when the original Theta-MEST Theory was developed and thetan seems uniformly to be described as static, specifically or in so many words .
I’m liking these substrates theories. 🙂
(Okay, now, did all that significance leave you craving mass? I had trouble even knowing what the words in front of me meant by the time I finished. The mass of those little symbols seemed to have lost their significance and it was hard to proofread so I hope it makes sense. :-))
You are “beating the dead horse” with this “analysis” of CS Series 37R.
If you understood Scientology and auditing, then you would already know you were describing out-tech and a basic-basic “Auditor’s Code” violation. No one receiving a “standard auditing session” from themself or another has ever been “continually invalidated and forced to look at nothing.” Your “look” at and critique of auditing is thin and without depth of understanding. Auditing is not only “looking,” but it is also “directed” looking. It is a co-operative effort based on the formula that (PC Bank]. It is a Supremely benevolent and friendly cooperation between two people to wage war against the mess of mental inconsistencies which hang like a cloud about the PC. As a PC grows in “freed Theta” and experience, he becomes able to do both activities and effectively solo audit himself. This disproportionately weighted Reactive Mind is the game we find ourselves playing here on Earth.
You have taken this thread off-topic by pretending to re-hash tech which has already been worked out. The tech of what you are writing about has been worked out; the out-tech of what you are writing about has been worked out; as well as the corrective tech for what you are writing about. Auditors, both in trying to help, and also when solo auditing make mistakes. When this happens, “massive confusion” does not ensue. A small and extremely effective corrective action ensues and the whole activity is put back to right.
If you don’t want to “do” Scientology no one is insisting, but pretending to address and glibly analyzing time-worn technology and qual actions from an uninformed point of view is belittling to yourself and to a technology of the spirit and mind which has been and is being successfully practiced.
If you have in your time been invalidated and overrun and are feeling the upset of it all, it would be more productive to simply share this with your friends here.
The post above also starts out with not granting of beingness and continues in that vein till the end. Please see my post on granting of beingness.
The points that I am making are as follows:
(1) The tech, such as, the “repetitive processing” itself is not optimum and it cannot be treated as a measure of standard, or as a holy cow (beyond criticism). It contributes to overrun to a large degree. Poka-yoke is missing. Geir with his understanding of wog tech would appreciate what I am saying here. Overrun occurring as a routine is a fact of Scientology auditing. It is built into the repair lists.
(2) Strictly speaking C/Sing is itself evaluative to the person. It is not the person looking at his case but somebody else telling him what to look at. It is an Auditor Code violation that is built into the tech.
(3) Out-tech is built into the auditing procedure with heavy reliance on the e-meter. E-meter introduces via to looking. This via acts more and more erratically as e-meter is pushed beyond the limit where a read cannot be differentiated clearly from background noise.
I am looking at C/S series 37 because it is used on L11. This thread started with auditing on L11. Please respond to the points above.
Vinnie’s point #3. What a failure to differentiate!
The C/S is the C/S, the Auditor is the Auditor. The Auditor’s Code is for the Auditor to follow when he is in session with the PC!
Evaluation takes place in delivering an Idenics session, too.
Unless you can credential your remarks somehow, I find I am having to consider they are all dub-in on your part. What observations are your conclusions based on?
What assumptions are they based on?
They are simply not making any sense to me. Time, place, form, event, dude!
That would be Vin’s point #2 I am referencing, not point #3.
Again this post starts with the comment “What a failure to differentiate!” It pre-judges, deals in generalities and does not address specifics of the point being made. It uses Idenics as a justification.
.
Yes, well, you did fail to differentiate, didn’t you?
You applied the auditor’s code to the case supervisor, etc.,. I can go on if you require.
Maybe respond to just the specifics and ignore the generalities.
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/06/26/significant-change/#comment-5891
No, this post starts with my CONCLUSION, not my ‘pre-judgement’. Here is the post Vin is referencing:
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/06/26/significant-change/#comment-5847
Much of the rest asks for specifics from Vin, which of course he does not provide.
I am not understanding why you need me to grant you beingness.
A well and healthy individual would not need to be granted beingness.
1. Repair Lists:
A. Is there an extant mental technology which does not make errors?
B. Is there another mental tech with repair lists?
2. This is the reason for the “ivory tower rule” for C/S’ing. It is not an auditor’s code violation since it is not auditing. It is C/S’ing.
3. No it’s not. The PC’s answer is always taken as THE answer. Anyone familiar with auditing knows this rule exists. Your comment is a simple fabrication of yours based upon your flawed looking. You will want to re-visit your looking on the subject of auditing. Possibly contact one of the independents and get a session.
I feel no compulsion to respond to your request for me to respond as why should you limit my freedom to not respond by demanding a response from me. This is an unnecessary additive on your part which you may want to take a look at.
My comments stand unamended as your response seem to reinforce my points.
Maybe your comments on auditing would be more realistic if you would refer to some of your own experiences when getting auditing. This might give me something to relate to.
You are on a roll,, Chris.
Down the hill, maybe. Sorry, I couldn’t resist. 🙂
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/06/26/significant-change/#comment-5966
. . . and over the falls! hahaha!
I never said I need anyone to grant me beingness. I am simply observing that Scientologists on this board neither under this concept nor apply it.
Also, absence of granting beingness interferes with discussions to take place.
.
Yes agree. And thank you for responding directly to me.
Wow, nicely said, Chris!
CS Series 37R says:
– “Ridges” and masses come about from a conflict of flows opposing or being pulled back as in withholds.
– High TAs are caused by two or more flows opposing thus making a mass or ridge.
– Low TAs are caused by overwhelm by flows.
I don’t think that is a precise enough why. High TA may be caused, in general, by some doscomfort that has gone on too long to create protest. But in auditing, High TA is caused when confusion keeps building up and up with no relief in sight. This happens when nothing comes up in response to the auditing question but the technique of repetitive questioning keeps pressuring the preclear for more answers. The preclear then starts to speculate upon answers and, thus, restimulates more and more of his bank. Finally, there comes a point when he runs out of speculations even. Low TA occurs, when the preclear goes into apathy about this whole situation.
.
Your reasons for overrun are speculation. Your have a theory. Hubbard had a lot more than theory under his belt when it comes to this matter,
What you continually keep missing all along here is that you are making pronouncements that fly in the face of others understanding of the subject.
Your continual use of “not discussing/no granting of beingness” is a nasty ploy. You are using it to refuse to discuss when the other posters do respond. Very poor form on your part.
It is clear to me that you have reached a conclusion that is based on your ideas and not on a complete understanding of the tech of auditing, because if you really did understand the details involved you would not keep harping on this one point you keep making.
I know this is a year late, but I just wanted to add my 2 belated cents.
CS Series 37R says:
– The thetan thinks of them as overruns and so quits on a subject or wishes he could.
– This is why the TA behaves as it does on life and certain subjects.
– There is no real reason why a flow can’t go on forever in one direction unless a thetan tries to stop it.
– Then it ridges and makes mass which then reads on a TA.
I don’t that C/S Series 37R does a good job of explaining OVERRUN in such a way that it can be prevented all together. It provides a very complex explanation that is difficult to apply, and which hasn’t been successful in the long run. Overruns stll occur routinely in Scientology auditing.
Overruns occur because the preclear is not able to as-is situations in his life and the confusions keep on building up. When this happens in auditing, it has a more damaging affect on the preclear, who expects auditing to help him as-is situations and confusions. The worst culprit in auditing is the technique of repetitive questioning, especially when “no answer” is ignored “because the needle is not floating.” The needle will not F/N when a question has no interest, or no charge, in the first place. Then there is no answer and no as-isness either.
I read your explanation and the question I have is:
How do you know this? Are you an auditor?
Your explanation is full of assumptions about what the preclear expects and all that.
Nothing much of what you have posted rings any bells with me, based on my (limited) experience as a pc.
Please discuss instead of simply disagreeing.
I am talking from lot of experience as a word clearer, auditor, Idenics practitioner, and KHTK practitioner.
.
I am trying to discuss, you are not.
I asked you a couple of questions you, as usual, didn’t stoop (or deign) to answer.
I pointed out that you were assuming you know “what the preclear expects”.
I then stated that none of what you said was true according to my experience, as a preclear by the way – which is true – it isn’t true according to my experience..
Out of all that, you respond that I “disagreed without discussion”!???
Get a clue!
CS Series 37R says:
AUDITOR QUALIFICATIONS
– An Auditor must be a master at Listing and Nulling in order to touch such Actions as these lists.
– To foul up on listing on an already fouled-up pc is quite out-tech !
– An auditor’s TRs should have been passed the Hard Way.
– His metering must be excellent and flawless.
– His command and use of the Auditor’s Code must be complete.
– He should himself have had case gain.
– He must have a full checkout on this HCO B and be able to do it in clay.
– And as I say, he must know the subject of Listing and Nulling so well,
– he can always list smoothly to a BD F/N item with never a quiver.
This is simply much ado about nothing. This is an excellent example of wrong targeting. The target should be the auditing tech and not the auditor. The very fact that the preclear’s case is being C/S’d is an evaluation and a violation of the auditor’s code. Then pre-determined questions are being fed to the preclear to get reaction that the pc may as-is. This is hell of a risky approach. Why not have the pc tell you where his or her attention is, and then guide the person to look at that area from all possible angles until all confusion is sorted out. That would be much safer approach.
.
. . . “wrong targeting.” ???
You’ve got the source data right in front of you and yet you conclude exactly backwards and upside down. Maybe take a look at backwards and upside down.
We tried to confront this subject on “Scientology and Scientific Standards” and I don’t think we got anywhere at all. The reason being that the Practice of Scientology has everything to do with technique. Technique is improved gradiently through practice.
If anyone here has had a very successful auditing session, they typically “thank” both the auditing tech and the auditor. This is because successful auditors are made through years of study and of practice. It is something to be admired. Scientology technology minus the seasoned auditor is just so much printed matter bound in books and of no particular use.
Everyone who has had an auditing session – either “good” or “bad” – knows that the first thing an auditor does to begin the session is to ask the PC where their attention is at. The PC’s preoccupation with what I would term “low hanging fruit” but which the C/S and auditor call “rudiments” is addressed – Everytime. Not-knowing this impugns your competence to comment correctly on Scientology technology and sheds an unholy light on your intentions toward this thread.
Let me say that I am looking from an unjaundiced eye.
.
. . . from your point of view, not from mine.
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/06/26/significant-change/#comment-5926
What did you say granting of beingness means?
.
I said granting of beingness is mine to grant. If you are in short supply, I will grant you some.
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/06/26/significant-change/#comment-5996
Hubbard used to criticize psychology and psychiatry for how long it takes to make a practitioner in those professions. Now Scientology itself seems to be in the same boat.
.
True
Yes he did, and as far as I can discern from the scanty statistical information leaking out of the Church, there aren’t any auditors being made at all. Truly, the number of Church sanctioned auditors are for sure dwindling by the day. Especially true of the more highly trained auditors. It is my observation that auditors are leaving the Church at a rate multiples of those graduating from courses.
On the other hand, I think there is enough Scientology to learn to justify taking a couple years full time to make a competent auditor… As in any field some will be brighter and quicker and some slower. Learning a trade takes time. That’s just the way it is in the world. As in any trade, anyone can learn the principles but some will have talent and some will not be so talented.
My god! You just admitted to LRH’s out-reality.
Now let’s take it a step further. What does tech say about the person making such criticism, which has no basis in reality?
As I told you I look at things mathematically.
.
A psychiatrist goes to school for 13 to 17 years. To be a clinical psychologist it can take from 9 to 11 years. Much of that time is spent in doing unrelated undergraduate studies. After having those it still takes many years to get the requisite professional degree. Even then, a psychiatrist may not have the skills to be a therapeutic practitioner, but may only be able to prescribe drugs.
Having a degree in either field doesn’t even guarantee any kind of therapeutic competency, only that one has done the required academic coursework. But a psychologist is likely to have more competency because of the “practical” clinical requirements s/he has to meet.
How long does it take to train and intern a Class IV Auditor? Or a Dianetics Auditor on the HSDC?
Lacking any specific, the kind of analogy you posted is so vague as to be meaningless to my eyes (my ‘looking’). Or misleading. It appears like an attempt to make wrong or degrade LRH and scientology.
“Scientology” is not in the same boat. The CoS (Corruption of Scientology) may appear to be in the same boat, but it isn’t really, Because there, it is a deliberate policy to not train practitioners. The Corruption of Scientology doesn’t want any auditors, it wants people who belong to the “religion of Scientology”.Thus it has the endless runway of studying The Basics, which you might notice, does not include any practical training.
Let’s see a grassroots movement of Scientology then. I am against promoting it as a religion. Probably, the word “Scientology” is too much damaged to survive.
.
The grassroots movement is coming. As more and more experienced and properly trained auditors, C/Ses, and Course Supervisors leave the CoS and start practicing independently outside theCoS, it will come.
That was my original hope when I took up Scientology.
.
I wouldn’t say it’s ‘much ado about nothing’.
Having an out list, or being given an item that is not yours, or forcing an item on one can be nasty.
It is an exact tech and when applied properly can produce amazing relief.
Are you talking about repairing what has gone wrong in auditing? The Scientology approach is too risky. That is the point I am making.
.
What do you mean by “risky?”
It takes many many years before an auditor is flubless. Every flub is a risk. Scientology has gone the route of psychoanalysis.
.
No, I was responding to your post regarding Listing
vinaire | 2011-07-15 at 04:08
Listing & Nulling is very precise.
I think that L & N is like an arrow that penetrates deep into the mind. If it misses its mark all hell breaks lose. If it finds its mark, it may handle something substantial. In untrained hands it is very risky.
.
You’re right.
That’s why Listing & Nulling are covered later on when an auditor has some experience.
One cannot have L&N as part of a grass roots tech.
.
Pre-determined questions are asked in Idenics processing, too.
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/06/26/significant-change/#comment-5812
What does granting of beingness mean? Would agreeing with the other person be “granting of beingness”? I don’t think so, because one can disagree and still grant beingness. Now invalidation is different from disagreeing and that would definitely go contrary to granting of beingness.
That is the difference I see between Marildi and Valkov. Marildi does not deal in invalidations but Valkov does.
So, “granting of beingness” would have to do with neither invalidating nor validating, but simply acknowledging the presence of the other person non-judgmentally. This sums up to being respectful.
When somebody gets pissed off at other person’s ideas, and instead of discussing those ideas, they start attacking the other person with evaluations, such as, ”You don’t know what you are taking about,” then that would be “not granting beingness.” Any ad hominem is “not granting beingness.”
Another example of “not granting beingness” would be, instead discussing the subject, just telling the other person that he is wrong or incorrect. I find that many supporters of LRH tend to do that. They don’t want to discuss the tech. To them it is a sacred cow.
“Granting of beingness” is misunderstood if one interprets it to mean validating the other person and expressing agreement with him or her.
.
The revealing datum in your post is that you think I am getting pissed off at your “ideas” when I have repeatedly stated that your faulty comm cycle is the source of the problem. To not acknowledge the receipt of a communication is to break the cycle of that communication.
If you are still unclear about this, possibly you should take a look at your filters which tell you that it is okay to not acknowledge communication for this filter is known in Scientology jargon as a “service facsimile.”
I can say without prejudice that I am neither evaluating for you nor am I invalidating you. I am simply looking and reporting to you what I have seen.
Truthfully, I like many of your ideas and my only desire is to communicate about them. This requires effort on your part to hold up your end of the comm cycle.
Maybe take a look at “in communication” vs “out of communication.”
This post from Chris is an example of not granting of beingness:
(1) It veers of subject of “granting of beingness.”
(2) It makes unwarranted assumptions about intentions of the writer of the post.
(3) It attacks the writer of the post.
.
Vin,
You asked to have your inconsistencies pointed out so that you can look at them and correct them.
What happened to that? It seems that your filters are exciting you in a negative way.
wow – never saw “granting of beingness” misunderstood to this complicated of a degree before.
“Granting of beingness” is the ability plus willingness to assume the other person’s point of view. It is very simple and high in ARC to do so.
This is something for you to look at as the service facsimile attached to not doing this is a tough one but will dissolve rapidly if you look right at it.
The following quote is from Tech Dictionary:
GRANT BEINGNESS, the ability to assume or grant (give, allow) beingness is
probably the highest of human virtues. It is even more important to be able to
permit (allow) other people to have beingness than to be able oneself to
assume it. (FOT, p. 27)
The above post from Chris does not grant beingness. That post,
(1) provides a squirrel definition, and then it does not follow even that definition.
(2) It then pre-judges the writer of the original post.
.
Well, good point Vinaire – now I am a squirrel. Well, then coming from you that would be meant as a compliment! Thank you! I knew you would find a point on which to agree with me!
But seriously, isn’t “granting you beingness” from me – mine to grant? I would not think you would be bothered by nor restrict my freedom by insisting that I grant you beingness – something which you neither need nor desire. hahaha!
That’s correct. You have total freedom to conduct your actions the way you want to. I have no objections to it. I simply enjoy spotting inconsistencies and then working through them to the end till they are dissolved.
.
Wow, Chris, I don’t think I’ve seen that definition for “granting beingness,” but it’s thought provoking. Is it your own?
haha – well, good question. I’ve studied so much Scientology and made those concepts my own that I normally consider that “my own” concepts are not original to me… (mouthful).
If this is not a standard definition then I suppose it is my own through cognition… since this seems to be the case (New Standard for me: if Marildi didn’t read it, it wasn’t written!”) then should I say something more on it?
What I am looking at is the “height of the affinity.”
To grant another beingness we must assume their point of view even if just a little bit – like with the slightest nod of the head indicating “I see you.” This seems basic to me.
It is an acknowledgement and might be why it drives us to madness when our comm cycle if interrupted by “no acknowledgement.”
Chris, your description of making Scn concepts your own to the degree that you consider them such – that is so cool! (And you said I’M the one who’s a good student – once again, takes one to know one.) Oh, and I literally laughed out loud when I read your New Standard – hilarious! (I wish it were even remotely true that I’ve read everything. But I sopped up the flattery anyway. :-))
The reason I was so interested in where you got the definition for granting beingness, was that I’ve never actually found a definition – and I’ve looked. The one in the Tech Dict isn’t really a def, just a quote stating that it’s a high virtue and important to do to “allow other people to have beingness” – which doesn’t say anything as to just what it is or how it’s done.
Your own concept of ability to assume the viewpoints of others actually made total sense, when I thought about it. And that def doesn’t really limit it to only the ultimate of being fully “in the same space” (the ultimate in affinity) – because we do just that (assume the viewpoint) to one degree or another when we “get into” another’s viewpoint to whatever degree. So I love your definition! It’s minimumly a great description of how to get in a state of mind that will help a lot in being able to grant beingness
By the way, what you said about acknowledgement – if only by a nod of the head – lines up perfectly with one of the defs of invalidation: “basically, non-attention.” Insidious, isn’t that? And yes, mis- acknowledgement is probably the worst (best?) out TR for driving us to madness. (We all gotta get our damn TRs in! LOL)
I think the basic definition of ‘granting beingness’ can easily be understood from defining the words ‘grant, granting’ and taking them back to their derivation.
It’s not complicated, the basic sense is that of allowing, accepting, believing (actually derived from Latin ‘to believe’, which our word ‘credit’ also comes from.
To me it also carries the sense of “accepting at face value”. It’s kinda like saying “Yep, you’re who you say you are”.
Has a lot to do with accepting or allowing a person’s presentation of himself without trying to alter-is it, just accepting a person a and what he says at face value.
“Beingness”is scientological but I think we get what it means.
Valkov, yes of course it means allowing beingness, just by the meaning of the word “granting” – that much is clear from the Tech Dict “definition” that I quoted. But how? What’s the doingness?
Nothing wrong or incorrect-sounding about anything you’ve said about it, but it’s all still in the abstract for me. How exactly does one go about doing those kinds of things – in life – that you listed out. Other than maybe simply giving a good ack with no “additives.” And even then, giving a good ack to what exactly, anything and everything?
Relevant to discussion or conversation especially, in what way would one be demonstrating “accepting or allowing a person’s presentation of himself without trying to alter-is it”? Or how would it be manifested when you are essentially saying to someone“you are who you say you are”? And what would be an example of “accepting at face value”?
Perhaps the application is more a matter of HOW you respond and interact with others in whatever you’re saying or doing, rather than specifically WHAT you’re saying or doing. But I’m still blank somehow – i.e. I’ve got an MU (possibly the no-definition type) or some sort of fixed idea or held-down seven maybe. But maybe it’s just missing mass. Remember the Personal Integrity Course with all the examples with pictures, of the points in the Code of Honor? That course gave students some mass to what otherwise might have been very esoteric for them.
I thought Chris’ idea of assuming the viewpoint of others seemed like it might be a good stable datum for the doingness that would amount to granting beingness, the doingness that would achieve the beingness of granting beingness (mouthfull!). Would you agree?
So again, I do like the sound of your words, but if I were to use them in explaining what granting beingness is it would just be glib. Say more? 🙂
Vinaire, first let me say thanks for the compliment. My immediate response to it was an impulse to be sure to keep it “in”, in fact do better than I have been at not invalidating. Well, it figures – that impulse is precisely the value of doing the opposite: validating, acknowledging, granting beingness – which do just that, GRANT the beingness and put it more there. (Funny how you “know” something, but whenever you actually get the mass in a new unit of time it becomes more yours,)
Anyway,I wanted to join in on the current debate about INvalidation – which seems to be a very relative matter. Here’s the definition: “refuting or degrading or discrediting or denying something someone else considers to be fact.” Now, that’s pretty wide ranging and adhering to it fully would apply to practically nothing but an auditing session – certainly not a discussion, because any differing idea could be looked at as denying what someone else considers fact. So as I say, that leaves a relative application of one sort or another – which would have to depend on whatever leeway/rules a given group might decide to agree upon, and which would be based on the group’s unique dynamics.
Here in Geir’s Cheers virtual coffee shop he’s set the boundaries pretty liberally. Wisely so – he’s too smart to set himself up as judge, jury and referee. He’s letting us kids work it out, and (knowing him a bit, by now) he probably has in mind that we’ll gain some wisdom from that aspect of this blog experience alone. Plus, in general he doesn’t want to put restraints on individuals or on the comm, to keep it free-flowing. (Geir, correct me on speaking for you, as needed, I do know that “Geir’s” and “Cheers” don’t actually rhyme, but the probable mispronunciation does. And Geir’s Friars just didn’t cut it. ;-))
It seems this group is evolving the rules of the game as we go along, trial and error, on-the-job training, “even as we speak.” And from what I can see, a couple things have happened so far, whenever someone is being invalidative. Sometimes some other poster or posters will jump on the guy doing the invalidating. Other times they won’t – and it’s probably because the guy being jumped on and invalidated deserves it, at least to some degree. In other words, it seems like the group (like life) is putting ethics in on itself, little by little. (Not to get too heavy now. :-))
Let’s take as an example – this debate on the Tech, the other hot topic of the day. You, my fond friend Vinaire, should consider the possibility that you’re getting a lot of opposition and guff because you factually are in error, whether due to MU’s, false data, or bad experiences. I don’t know how much auditor training you’ve had, and I’ve only had a fair amount myself, but I too feel certain that you are largely mistaken in your understanding of the Tech. I say this to you hoping that whatever amount of truth to it you may see will help you and all of us get on to bigger and better discussions, whether on the Tech or otherwise. (And you don’t wanna see me on this soap box again, do ya?)
Namaste. _/!\_ (palms together) ( I learned that from a Buddhist poster,)
Maybe “Geir’s Liars,” considering Chris’ proposed metaphysical stance. Ha ha!
“‘Chris’ the Liar” will do nicely for now! hahaha!
Another basic OT level – “I sit around and maunder about how much I lie!” haha!
Maunder, my eye (but that’s funny!) – you’re developing an ontological theory. The word “liars” is quite accurate to use as a description of what we’re all doing all the time, considering the construct we’ve worked out – inspired largely by Geir, I think (but I”ve already “made it my own” he he) – that the physical universe doesn’t really exist in any persistent way. but we go on thinking and acting like it does. (Now, that was a long-winded sentence.)
So anyway, I’m going with “Geir’s Liars.” 🙂
The references to me are quite correct. I think you know me pretty well by now 🙂
The current debate is about granting of beingness, and not about invalidation. Validation and invalidation of beingness is a part of judging the intentions of the beingness. In my opinion, any such judgment amounts to not granting of beingness.
If a person identifies himself with the subject he is discussing then that is A=A=A. That person won’t be able to discuss the subject and contribute to knowledge. I do not think that discussing a subject, and disagreement with what somebody says, also “judges” the self. Self and the subject should be kept separate.
I am not trying to influence Geir’s blog. This is a simple discussion on the subject of “granting of beingness”, a phrase that is very important for a Scientologist. It is so important that it is defines an important characteristic of a Scientologist. I suppose that we all are interested in knowledge. If we do not exchange notes then we won’t learn and make progress.
If I am in error I would like that error to be pointed out to me with an explanation patiently delivered so that I can understand. A hostile response of “you are wrong” doesn’t not help. Also personal attacks do not help. Both add up to not granting of beingness.
.
One way to help you understand would be to hold two mirrors up facing each other…
There is the observer and the observed. If you are seeing hostility then possibly you are creating that hostility with the use of your filters.
There is another aspect that might help. When a person shows the mask of a valence that is not his own, the rejection of that beingness may not be directed at the “being” but at the out of valence beingness which they have presented with their “mask.”
Ah! so. Thank you, O! Wise Master. 🙂
.
“If I am in error I would like that error to be pointed out to me with an explanation patiently delivered so that I can understand” Good attitude. What more could be asked.
“A hostile response of “you are wrong” doesn’t help…” And the operative term here would be “hostile,” as we are in a Discussion and part of that can be to disagree, if it’s a candid, honest one.
“…Also personal attacks do not help. Both add up to not granting of beingness.” Right again, Vinaire. I’m with you. 🙂
I mostly ignore posts that do not fairly and squarely discuss the subject, instead they are judgmental of the person. Such posts do not grant beingness.
A justification for being judgmental to another person is given as, “You do that too.”
.
Vinaire.
We cant judge the person, we cant grant beigness, the being is static, is intangible, infinite the being simply IS. Only to the creation we can grant beigness but even that is a very silly consideration=fabric. Is is already exists it has existance you just want agreement on that from others too. You want others to agree therefore that Item, consideration=fabric becomes solid it’s is assured permanecy. What is the point? It is there you know it is. Therefore it is. You just simply want others to change and be have and do like you are. Implants do just that. Agreement causes solidity.
(1) A being is a postulate.
(2) Static is beyond postulate.
(3) Focus goes on the being as it appears to be the source of postulates and considerations.
(4) The Being is actually the whole universe that has shrunk into being a point in that universe.
(5) Implants are there because they are considered to be there.
(6) The Being is the implant and much much more.
(7) “You” is a similar order of postulate as “I”.It also appears to be the source of postulates and considerations.
.
Posts such as these are judgmental of the person and do not grant beingness. A discussion should stay fairly and squarely on the subject of discussion and should not stray into evaluating the people discussing it.
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/06/26/significant-change/#comment-5741
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/06/26/significant-change/#comment-5404
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/06/26/significant-change/#comment-5413
There is generally a lot of not granting of beingness by Scientologists when tech is discussed. Many a time the excuse of humor is used, but that is justification.
“Vin does it too,” is also a justification. If one let’s oneself be influenced by others, one is announcing one’s weakness. If Vin does it then simply point out to Vin when he does it, instead of doing it yourself.
.
It has to do with Argumentum ad Hominem. But describing it as you do probably speaks better to a Scientologist.
Do you have an idea of why that is?
I think I should look into the subject of fanaticism. 🙂
.
. . . or possibly look at your filters.
Maybe the person feels his beingness is under attack.
It happens when the knowledge under discussion is his stable data.
IMHO, self, or thetan,is one of the most stable datums in Scientology.
I don´t really care, or worry about it being an ultimate truth or not, and, at least at this level (or should I say my level) it is not something which can be known with certainty. If we keep increasing our understanding, we will get there. (And hopefully beyond).
What I consider important is not to let myself be limited by any consideration.
We should not forget that any stable datum is kind of a scientific model which always should be open to improvements or drastic changes.
If the consideration “To be” were our limiting factor, then SO BE IT, lets face it and take whatever responsibility it involves, if not, then maybe we are created beings and instead of trying to understand life, we should get busy living before our creator wakes up from his dream or gets bored of this game, or send us to hell or whatever.
Of course it is always funny to know that we could be the creators and our making it real is what turns us into created beings, etc.,etc.,bla, bla, bla.
All I´m saying is:
Let´s not get ourselves into a fixed position of defending or attacking the concept of “self” as if it were “us”,(je, je).
Let´s discuss it just as any other knowledge and have fun!
Want to experience some funny feelings?
Just play with the consideration that you´re not really a “self”.
To me, it is equivalent of daring to get rid of all your stable datums.
Remember knowledge is just a sum of created things, no more. And the bigger the knowledge, the bigger the frame of reference it takes to know it.
So far “I” have not dissapeared. On the contrary, it has been making my own creativity more real to me, but I´m always open to whatever might come next…….even the vanishment of the “self”.
And I guess this is what Buddha meant to tell us.
Rafael, this is a very insightful post and a spot-on contribution to this particular thread. Shows you to be a contemplative student of these matters, IMO. I’d be curous to know if you are as much a student of Buddhism as of Scientology. Or maybe I should have phrased that the other way around, but I don’t know enough about Buddhism to know better. Anyway, good post!
Thanks Marildi, I admire very much all posters here: Beautiful place toi hang arround and a lot of food for thought!
I have studied Scientology a lot and not very much of Buddhism, nevertheless some points of Buddhism seem deeper to me, and on the other side auditing tech undoubtably has been a gigantic breakthrough
Glad you like it here and I look forward to further comments of yours, as the “spirit” moves you.
I liked especially what you were saying relating to “the bigger the knowledge, the bigger the frame of reference it takes to know it.” If there’s a better perspective, I can’t think of what it would be. Well, maybe the other point you made – to discuss and have fun. Yay!
Rafael.
So far “I” have not dissapeared. On the contrary, it has been making my own creativity more real to me, but I´m always open to whatever might come next…….even the vanishment of the “self”.
I would be honored if you would accept my aknowledgement.
Hi Elizabeth!
The honor is all mine.
As I mentioned in the thread of Geir & Trude, I love to see you blossoming life into art.
Rafael makes excellent points.
I think fanaticism comes from identifying self with some datum. It is A=A=A. If that datum is question, then that person feels that his beingness (self) is being questioned and invalidated.
.
I think fanaticism is just a wild-eyed key-in.
What I’ve noticed is that fanatics have great difficulty in looking at other’s viewpoints, let alone hearing them.
I remember a time when I was talking to a born again christian on a street corner. No matter what I said to strike up a conversation, the guy and his girlfriend repeated ‘Jesus loves you’, or ‘Have you been reborn’. A very strange few moments. It was not a comm cycle whatsoever.
The other tell-tale sign of many fanatics is they ‘have to be right’. They see their vision and nothing else. Anything that is different from the wording of their computation and their opinion (and that’s all it is), is dismissed.
A rational discussion seldom takes place.
This is very different from one who is open to discussing different ideas. He may have his own viewpoint, but he does not insist others agree and can look at similarities, differences. He can change his viewpoint/considerations as he chooses. He is open to learning. He is open to change.
This is covered extensively on the Grades in Scientology. Done well, one CAN move out of fixed conditions and look at the world anew.
… and I must add that I have met fanatics in all walks of life – yes, even Scientologists and Buddhists.
How many people have you seen on this board who are willing to look at from a viewpoint other than that of LRH?
.
Good post, Dennis. Well said and well written. (I appreciate both of those things in a post. :-))
. . . and what I like about this blog is because of all the differing contributing viewpoints, it makes me assume the other viewpoints in order to review them. Thus dissolving the “fanatical” aspect of my own point of view.
Granting of beingness is an unimportant additive on the part of your filter. Maybe you should take a look at this.
This post is judgmental and does not grant beingness.
.
I was agreeing with you about filters and agreement and granting of beingness.
Now you change your tune!
Vinaire, You writting is ever present here. Everybody read your comment and respond, therefore acknowledge you and grant you being here. Something else is missing, bothering you?
No.
.
Vinaire.
About Beingness. You are, therefore you are, We all know we are, we have come to conclusion because is very simple, we create. This creation manifest here in this blog is the comments represent us, the being. If you have a different reality what is a being beside static, intengible, infinite. than you should describe that concept=fabric in order for otheres to undertand.
It would help you a great deal to aknowledge yourself that you are, therefore you would not have that great need to others acknowledge that you exists.
(1) Beingness = existingness.
(2) Static is beyond beingness or existingness.
(3) I am NOTHING unless I postulate to be.
.
Vin. So, worried now about the judgements of others? This is unimportant what they think. Your post is riddled with sparkling generalizations and worry. “Vin does it too?” Maybe I’m wrong but I didn’t read that except by your hand. You don’t even believe in the O-W cycle and tear away at it as you routinely degrade what others find useful. Manners?
“Not a lot of granting of beingness by Scientologists?” What do you think TR2 -Acknowledgement is? It is a demonstration of respect that one shows another by completing the comm cycle. It is not about compulsive agreement but about duplication. Communicating takes thought and effort. When an in-valence person attempts to communicate it is an honor and one honors that attempt by acknowledgement if they have indeed been communicated with. Not acknowledging lets the originator of the comm to know that their communication has not been received. When the reason for this is mechanical, it lets the originator to make the attempt again. When there is no acknowledgement for no good reason it is taken as a sign of disrespect and rightly so.
For you to complain of others lack of manners rings hollow. Time for you to do more than look.
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/06/26/significant-change/#comment-5814
Geir: “I would say that MEST does not dissolve. Rather it exists as it is created and perceived as it is created. When not created, “it” doesn’t exist. Simple as that.”
There is truth to what Geir says if we look at MEST as the layer of SENSORY INPUT. The subsequent layers of PERCEPTION, EXPERIENCE, INFORMATION, etc. are merely interpretation upon interpretation of the basic input.
It is like it all starting with the “machine language” and then the higher languages develop from there.
So, what dissolves are the later layers of interpretation and not the initial layer of MEST as sensory input. The sensory input is either there or not there.
Persistence comes about because of interpretation (alter-is). Each subsequent layer would be more persistent because of gradually increasing degree of interpretation. This would make SELF to be the most persistent “layer.” That is commensurate with observation. It is not easy to dissolve SELF.
.
Actually what Geir is saying is that to dissolve anything one only has to stop creating it.
Glad to be of assistance.
+2
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/06/26/significant-change/#comment-5784
Marildi:” Vinaire, most of your posts that relate to Scn are pretty anti-Scn. So anyone who hasn’t read the rare few here and there where you say something that indicates you have been a Scn might conclude you haven’t. Can’t you stop picking on her?”
I don’t think in terms of Scientology at all, or in terms of Hinduism, or Buddhism. I think only in terms of knowledge, and I don’t think I am anti-knowledge.
So it puzzles me to contemplate that I could be anti-Scn. It doesn’t make sense to me. Am I objecting to knowledge or to ignorance?
Could you be more specific?
.
Sure. First, there are all your bitter comments about LRH. Now, not everyone would take that as anti-Scn in itself, as they feel similarly but are still pro-Scn. But many others would and do, I’m sure. (Even the ones who know you have been a Scn-ist.)
However, the more telling comments of yours are all the many, many criticisms and rejection of not only Scn philosophy but of Scn tech – and that’s the whole of Scn, nothing left. So the fact that you are critical and disagree with so much of that whole, well…of course you appear to be anti-Scn! What would be the basis for anyone to think otherwise?
I am definite anti-ignorance. It would be a fanatic viewpoint that LRH is always right and never wrong. Here one would be identifying self with LRH.
When I have criticized LRH, it has been for a specific reason. You can always question my argument there for that specific reason. But you are not doing that. You are calling me anti-Scn for simply criticizing LRH. You are ignoring the specific reason for which I had criticized LRH. This is the very point I covered in my essay on FANATICISM. You are not discussing the subject. You are getting personal.
I know it is hard to see that.
.
Well, you surely wouldn’t describe yourself as pro-Scientology would you?
Your ad hom attacks are on record. This is indisputable. Anyway, you are preaching to the choir about LRH. Everyone on this blog (I think I got this right) accepts any type of sensible or constructive criticism about LRH or Scientology. You are the one who made generalities about sacred cows. No one else. This is not the problem – If I tried to write every opinion that I have about LRH it would take pages and much of it would not be flattering – but some of it would be flattering. If I wrote how I think LRH came to rise above the bank because I believe him to be a “Master Creator” of implants then you’d begin to get the idea. He is not my god. Really he personally is nothing at all to me. . . but the Tech IS, and in my world it is very open to revision – but carefully!
But I don’t really care about any of that. The Bridge for me has come sharply into focus and I am working on going free using it. As you wrote elsewhere, the goal is not to unmock the physical universe . . . but to erase our identification with it. This is really a very good quote from you that I really like.
Anyway, you – for my money – are the biggest fanatic on this blog. That’s fine until you do your bullshit of going out of ARC and saying that acknowledgements don’t matter and all…the hell they don’t! ARC is all we’ve got and because of the cyberspace thingy it is very thin ARC – good but thin….
Anyway, it feels like we may be increasing in ARC and getting back on track – what do you say?
My criticisms are constructive. They are intended to get one out of a slave mentality and work on improving Scientology.
.
Like, you think we are in a ‘slave mentality’? Why else post it here?
A lot of people, who think strictly from LRH’s viewpoint, and get upset when a different viewpoint is presented, may be said to suffer from a slave mentality.
If they don’t get upset, and can discuss the subject calmly without judging the personality of the person presenting the different viewpoint, then they are, probably, capable of thinking for themselves.
.
No, Vinaire, I’m not at all saying that you appear to be anti-Scn because of your being critical of LRH. I even made a point of saying that not everyone would equate criticism of LRH to being anti-Scn and added “as they feel similarly but are still pro-Scn.” The criticising in itself isn’t the point – it’s your bitterness in so doing, since those who are pro-Scn usually have enough appreciation of the subject itself that they don’t feel and talk so bitterly about LRH. But that’s just my observation and evaluation and you may not agree.
So let’s leave that first paragraph aside and get on to the main point, which was in the second paragraph. That was where I indicated the truly “telling” reason for how and why you come across as being anti-Scn. Why not respond to that paragraph?
Also, you never did respond to the question I asked, “What would be the basis for anyone to think otherwise?” (other than that you are anti-Scn). Please answer this too.
Basically, my comment was meant to answer your request for specifics. Exactly what was in it that you considered getting personal on my part? Please respond directly to this and the two questions in the paragraphs just above.
To be clear, the above should read “What would be the basis for anyone to think otherwise?” (to think other than that you are anti-Scn).
Not hold a fanatic viewpoint…
LRH is just a consideration. Knowledge is all that matters ultimately. Self doesn’t matter.
Scientology can be greatly improved.
.
Vinaire, okay, got what you said. But what about the other two questions in the post above? You responded only to the tag-on I added to it.
I don’t think I am bitter about LRH. And I don’t think I am bitter at all. I am simply targeting ignorance. LRH is just a consideration that one need not get attached to.
When a person becomes judgmental about another participating in a discussion, instead of discussing the subject of discussion, he or she is getting personal. Now go back and read your posts if you question about how you have been personal.
If “Vin does it” it doesn’t get you off the hook. So using that argument would be unnecessary.
.
Vinaire, you’re answering my question (as to specifically how it was that I was getting personal) by telling me to go back and read my own posts again. I had already gone back and re-read my posts after you made the same comment the first time in this thread, about my getting personal. And after looking that first time I asked you the question about specifics, but you never answered. Now I’ve asked again and you say that I should look for myself. Well, that’s not really an answer, but since you don’t seem to want to give me a direct answer the best I can figure is that what you’re referring to as personal is my use of the words “bitter” and “anti-Scn”.
Those words weren’t meant to be judgmental of YOU personally but were my judgment – i.e. evaluation – about COMMENTS you have made. If that’s being “judgmental” then I’m not sure how to go about having a discussion in which nothing negative can be said about a STATEMENT. That’s the nature of disagreement and discussion thereof, isn’t it?
Also, it seems you do not agree that your comments might come across to a reader as indicative of your being anti-Scientology. And you also do not agree that you are in fact anti-Scn. Do I have those two things right?
Another question (elsewhere on this thread) that I haven’t been able to get an answer for yet is – what auditor training have you had? I think that’s a fair and sensible question since you make a lot of comments and evaluations about auditing tech. Please include as well your experience as an auditor, because that would also be relevant to one’s knowledge and understanding of auditing tech. But even if you don’t agree that these questions about your auditor training and experience are relevant, I would still be interested.
So we’ve still got the questions in the above two paragraphs, needing answers to complete the comm cycle.
+1
si-si!
btw thank you for your nice words elsewhere. . . that thread didn’t have a button left to reply!
When you routinely degrade and hold up to ridicule Scientology and Hubbard you are anti-Scientology.
I do not believe that you are bothered by your bias. This is your right to be anti-Scientology and anti-Hubbard. It is your right to degrade whatever you wish. This is a freedom which you enjoy. Make your choices freely. Then stand by them.
When you violate the comm cycle, you may do so freely. Then do not be amazed that people find you to be abrasive. Make your choices freely. Then stand by them.
Being puzzled about the effects that you create rings hollow and is covertly hostile. Be however you want to be, then in turn be confident about the effects that you create.
Asking someone to be more specific about why they are saying that the fresh turd in the toilet stinks is covertly hostile and doesn’t deserve a reply but here is one anyway.
You have been quite personal throughout. Please see my response to Marildi above.
.
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/06/26/significant-change/#comment-5814
what then of “cycling in the Planck second?”
Everything you see, you create – every Planck second. In between, it doesn’t exist. It’s digital… on-off-on-off…
1. I understand – so from your comment I infer both a flow and a circuit. I am not sure that it ultimately will be a digital answer.
2. Which came first, the particle or the wave?
3. At high frequency waves can look solid like particles and at high frequencies particles can look like waves.
4. Which concept if more exquisite – particle or wave?
5. Maybe the computer of the future is analog – right now they are both.
6. The big bang states all the mass of the universe was in a small place and then it expanded. So the matter was already here first and then there was created space?
corollary: So matter was not created but space was and is being created?
7. Maybe everything that has been created is still there – left behind after the previous iteration of the creation formula.
8. Maybe this is the dark matter.
9. Maybe dark matter exists just degrees off from top dead center of the Planck cycle.
10. Maybe the expanding universe is nothing more than the inflating sphere of considerations.
11. Considering the Mandelbrott Set, it seems that the expanding universe and the expanding sphere of considerations may grow smaller at the same time and at the same rate as it grows larger.
12. Matter is condensed energy? Therefore, matter already existed and before the big bang was a period of condensation? So space existed for the matter to condense from before the big bang?
13. Considering Time: Maybe the past does exist in the physical universe? Maybe time is moved along because the iteration of the Creation Formula advances (or retards) the timing of creation to be just degrees off the Planck second.
14. I am so confused about the link-up between my universe and the physical. I can demonstrate the link to myself but I can’t see what is happening when I “intend.”
Understanding this a little more would bring about Significant Change.
I held this in the approval queue until I could get around to answer these excellent questions.
But for now, I will take it as food for thought. It’s so good it will require more than me on a vacation to answer it.
One may consider that it is the flow that condenses into a particle. Personally, I find this consideration consistent with my other considerations.
A free flowing electromagnetic wave may occupy quite a bit of space. Suppose we put a boundary around that space such that it reflects back the wave. Then we start making the enclosed space smaller and smaller. The wave will start reflecting back on itself more and more rapidly, until, when the space has become sufficiently small, that trapped wave may appear as a particle called photon.
I don’t believe in the Big Bang Theory. It seems that space condenses into energy, and energy condenses into matter. An atom may contain a whole universe worth of space.
Time is simply a measure of the degree of condensation; because the more something condenses the longer it persists.
.
Interesting comments about waves Chris.
If you look at music and tuning 2 instruments.
If two trumpets as an example play the same note and one is out of tune with the other, there will be 2 different wavelengths or amplitudes. Each is emitting a wave but they differ so one can hear the difference, and some can feel the dissonance.
Definition: Amplitude – the maximum extent of a vibration or oscillation, measured from the position of equilibrium.
So, if one moves the tuning slide, one varies this oscillation from a ragged sound to a wavelength that matches the other trumpet – then, the two trumpets sound like ONE – they are ‘in tune’.
Similarly, as per LRH, we emit or put out various wavelengths. Aesthetics is almost a flat wave – it is very close to theta, therefore communication or ARC as a whole would be like ‘being in the same space/time – or equilibrium.
The further away from each other the waves become – say one heads down to Anger, ragged – hence low ARC.
This may also be an explanation of duplicating another’s viewpoint/perception as in matching wavelengths as an answer so to speak.
Good points, Dennis.
If I only focused on ARC and Tone Scale, I’m sure I would have my work lined up for years.
And maybe that is the correct focus.
happening when I “intend.”
Chris, Don’t look for link. Do a demo for yourself that would bring understanding. For example: You read the line a concept, here in the blog. You have on answer yes? Instantly? Was there a link? No, only on experience.
From that experience you created a different one which is your thought now that thought is your creation this time, than you interpret than transfer that though into your computer.
You have had intention than you do something about that intention have it transferred into MEST U, like getting hamburger for the kids for lunch. We are operating in two different reality levels.[ because of that there is confusion].
The first one is the self.
The self, creates the thought=concept=consideration=fabric than to make it permanent than one associate that item=concept with a solid item so that first creation now manifest itself as a permanent and exists in MEST U now.
Than the kids add to this creation by eating, talking, drinking laughing, One creation triggers causes a chain reaction we all add to the original INTENTION. Same as here in this blog or mine. We create= thought=, that is in the same instance, intention has no time span, intention exists only in the theta u.
The time span only exists in the MEST because it is interpreted in the MEST U. where everything seats in place [intended to be there]
What I believe you doing is making the bridge between the intentions as a being than that items appearance in the MEST.
MEST universe is the manifestation of the intentions and the interactions of others If you look around you see nothing but chain intentions=creations and which is the continuum of the MEST.
Chris, this here is i did not copy well I hope my explanation is good enough or help.
14. I am so confused about the link-up between my universe and the physical. I can demonstrate the link to myself but I can’t see what is happening when I “intend.”
Chris This PS is a after thought about intention.
PS. Intention simply IS than we pile on it different thought , ideas, considerations, PLUS we assign a piece of energy=hamburger[ solidity] than we all agree or not agree on that that makes it solid now with that we have given the intention existence. We allow that intention to be-is.
Vin says: “Source doesn’t matter.”
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/06/26/significant-change#comment-5835
I think the idea of source matters. To think that it doesn’t matter seems irresponsible.
I’d say the source of action matters in reference to responsibility. The source of knowledge matters less (or not).
my bad – misunderstood “source of what” – knowledge – yes doesn’t matter Vin
I am glad that you see this point. 🙂
I don’t care that you agree with me or not, because “me” is only a consideration.
.
Knowledge can come from anywhere. Knowledge does not depend on source.
.
You guys are crazy. Here I am happily enjoying life on the seas among the Greek islands. A few hours away from the PC and what do you know? 45 comments awaiting approval…
But hey, I love you all 🙂
Yes, crazy – there you are navigating the beautiful Mediterranean and here we are navigating this monstrosity of a thread! But hey, we love you back :-).
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/06/26/significant-change#comment-5885
sooo – are we heading toward no such thing as full OT as regards all dynamics?
“There is no spoon” – only for me?
By that I really mean “no spoon in “my universe” only?”
Vin has now produced excellent results as a word clearer because he missed 100’s of FNs and didn’t do what he was supposed to, but of course watching the PC’s indicators is exactly what one is supposed to do. And now Geir is lucky to have Peter Ethier audit him to good result because Peter is non-standard.
In the face of good results, you are saying they are for a wrong reason. What is the compulsion here to make Scientology be wrong?
It is amazing to see how Scientologists on this board cannot discuss the subject of Scientology without getting personal about the other person. The same phenomenon I notice among ex-Scientologists on ESMB.
Their basic personalities seem to be very similar.
.
Nice sparkling generality but this will not stand.
I like to discuss. – AND I am way past the point of protecting holy cows in Scientology. All points of Scientology are open for discussion, refutation, etc.,.
But if you launch attacks ad hom then expect to push buttons and get a similar negative reaction.
This board is quite different than ex-Scn, etc.,. If you want to be a hater of Scientology, you will find lots of agreement to do this elsewhere. The posters on this blog are way too quick on the uptake to listen to 1.1 attacks without calling it. My own “phenomenon” of pushing back when pushed and disrespected is causitive on my part. I can do it or I don’t have to do it. I am selecting my own tone to find one which is real to you.
“Their basic personalities are similar?” hahaha! come on! You want to discuss? Take a look at “discussion” and come back with a discussion. Your lectures on poorly defined topics and rants about I am not sure what come from a place in you and not me. These are your filters and they have worn thin on me.
Conversely, I remain here, interested and ready to discuss.
Vinaire, there is a point since this blog belongs to a scientologists, people read here and comment here because of that.
But it is very Interesting to note that no one talks of beingness, personal, acknowledgements as much as you do. You hammer on those items.
Have you been Not-ised so badly in the past that you feel you no loger exsit therefore you must re-establish self into the MEST Universe and that can only happen if you get a group agreement that you realy are?
Forgive if on your comment i do not give on aswer here I dont visit aften. But you can communicate in my blog anytime. You can find me home there most days.
(1) I believe in LOOKING without being judgmental. I may not be perfect yet in carrying out that belief.
(2) I believe in discussing a subject without being judgmental of the people discussing it. I may not be perfect yet in carrying out that belief.
(3) It is up to you if you give answer to my comments or not. My intention is to look and learn from whatever is there.
.
Here is my latest essay:
FANATICISM
It seems that a fanatic person identifies himself with his favorite subject. That identification is so strong that any criticism of that subject is taken as a personal attack. He then responds as if his personal survival is at stake.
A fanatic person is unable to discuss, rationally, the subject with which he is identifying himself with. He responds back in a way to undermine the critic by discussing critic’s intentions, ignorance, or some flaw, whether actual or imagined. It is impossible for the fanatic person to simply focus on the subject and discuss it.
To a fanatic person, his “self” and his “belief” are one and the same.
I would define “fanatic” as a person who is unable to examine his beliefs rationally.
.
Nice.
Here is how the discussion on FANATICISM is proceeding on ESMB.
FANATICISM ON ESMB
.
Yep, and you’re getting your butt kicked in that thread much the same way as has been happening here, for much the same reasons, and ‘oppterming’ and ‘counter-attacking’ people there in much the same way as you’ve been doing here.
I heartily recommend that thread on ESMB.
It doesn’t matter as “me” and “butt” are just considerations. What matters is knowledge. I think I am on the right track with this essay on FANATICISM.
.
.
Bah! If everything is just a consideration, then ‘fanaticism’ is also just a consideration that doesn’t matter either.
Socrates wants to know: If it doesn’t matter, what prompted you to post about it?
Why would considerations not matter?
There can be relative importances among considerations. (Ref: Data Series).
.
To me, knowledge is much more important than the considerations of “me” and “butt.”
.
Ask Vinaire. He said it here:
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/06/26/significant-change/#comment-6024
That is not clear, Valkov. Can you please be more explicit about the argument you are making?
.
This is a good start. Please continue.
Thank you, O! Wise Master. 🙂
.
I read your essay on “fanaticism” and LOL! because I can’t think of anyone who posts on this blog who “violates prevailing social (communication) norms” more than you do!
Also, this quote often seems to me to describe you to a “T”:
“A fanatic person is unable to discuss, rationally, the subject with which he is identifying himself with. He responds back in a way to undermine the critic by discussing critic’s intentions, ignorance, or some flaw, whether actual or imagined. It seems impossible for the fanatic person to consider differing viewpoints on that subject without also attacking, denigrating or judging the person holding the differing viewpoint.”
Are you not heavily identified with a ‘critical’ stance towards scientology and Hubbard?
Having been through all this with Alanzo for over a year back on The Scientology Forum when Geir was still running it, I hate to see the same kind of politics arising here, purveyed by you.
Anyone who disagrees with you, apparently gets tarred as a ‘fanatic’, “not able to think on a subject because he’s too “identified”, etc etc etc ad nauseum – all the cheap mind-tricks the doctrinaire critics like to use.
Oh, I’m sorry – am I getting PERSONAL?
The cheapest trick of all – pretending to be a disinterested, objective impersonal uninvolved observer who is thereby somehow ‘above’ others. I believe the prevailing social zeitgeist would call that ‘depersonalization’.
Valkov, excellent post!. I hope Vinaire goes back to one of his better beingnesses soon (we all have many).
And Marildi doesn’t get off the hook either.
.
.
The principles of the essay on FANATICISM are quire sound. They apply to everybody including to Vinaire, LRH and you as well.
You don’t get off the hook. 🙂
.
Vinaire said: https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/06/26/significant-change#comment-5922
Chris says:
People are generally not in very good shape case-wise. They are born into and grow up in a “world” which from my own point of view is mostly a nightmare of implants. They know they are out of balance; uncomfortable; feeling pressures; pains; their world computes with “held down 7s” until they are very frustrated indeed. These people, the ones in better shape, feel the need of change from all these sensations. Some demand an improvement in their lives and consequently put their feet on paths promising an improvement.
I will speak from my own experience. In Scientology as well as other practices which attempt to run “processes” designed to confront directly the contents of the mind, I had to get used to looking. I was not particularly used to looking specifically at or for my “right items.” I could pick up some things for sure, but often “my cat would lay the mouse right at my feet” and I would look at it and not get the significance of it.
During auditing, “the mouse” is the right item. To wax poetic, the Right Item is the best gift in the world. It is the most valuable mass + significance that a person with his feet on the Road to Truth can receive. In plain English, it is the thing of interest to the PC.
But if the significance of this was not always instantly recognized by me. If I hesitated as I often have, the process continued. The auditor was not “trying” to overrun me and I was surely not trying to bypass a win. It is a simple mistake. The mechanics of it are as simple as I have just laid out. The responsiblilty for overrun is laid on the auditor because it just HAS to be. The auditor must be in control of the session and must take responsibility for the success of the session. In truth, if I were in better shape then I would have picked up on these “success points” more quickly. As I grew in freed Theta, I became more able to pick up on these and made the auditor’s job that much easier. In truth, I feel the PC has come on board to walk this path from the point of view of sad effect of the physical universe. It is really the PC who is “waiting for something to happen.” It is the PC who is in such bad shape that he thinks the answers are “out there” rather than within the purview of his own universe. I know I was like that.
In my opinion overrun will continue occur in any processing of the mind, especially among the least experienced. Fortunately, the competent auditor does this less and less. As he grows in experience, he picks up on it and repairs it more quickly. If he did not have the tools to repair this then it would be a problem.
Conversely, overrun as a subject is not a serious problem to the competent auditor nor the serious PC anymore than a flat tire is a serious problem to the motorist. Sure it puts you on the side of the road, but for me is a 20 minute break in stride and never seriously affects my goal of motoring — Should it?
Let me see if I understand you (I am looking at it mathematically):
(1) Overrun is inevitable to some degree and cannot be avoided in Scientology auditing. It is just the nature of the beast.
(2) The problem of overrun is not significant.
Have I duplicated you?
.
Yes, standardly the overrun is not a momentous problem because it is picked right up and handled promptly. I am speaking from experience. My experience is that I am not afraid of overrun because I trust that small problems, mistakes occur and are simply picked right up and handled promptly and the show just goes on – pleasantly.
In the non-standard event, or in life, if a person would be overrun without relief, then he might mount the watchtower with rifle and scope.
Vinaire says I am trying to make him wrong. https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/06/26/significant-change/#comment-5916
Chris says: Guilty as charged.
Reason: You’ve revealed your bias against Scientology on an increasing gradient over months. You’ve belittled and degraded but most importantly made many false statements about Scientology technology for a reason which only you can reveal. You’ve quoted volumes of materials straight from the HCOBs and then made false statements about the contents of those materials – mainly the make up of the mind and about auditing – how it’s done and what the results are.
From my point of view, you don’t share personal experiences neither wins nor losses. You are cryptic. You answer questions with questions. You lecture as though you have altitude. This is irritating to me and I suppose you might say I am “overrun.”
I have said some mean things toward you and your covert hostility on the subject – granted. That was deliberate. I tried ignoring you but the natter just wouldn’t abate.
Any admiration that I have flowed toward you and your “good ideas” is still existing.
I remain ready to drop my tirade if you are prepared to begin to participate in a smooth 2-way communication. Weigh your choices carefully for there are ramifications for you. Otherwise you are no fun to be around and the pain of that outweighs the benefit of your good ideas for me.
I am only writing for myself and my own opinion. If I have made any false statement I will recant.
Let me repeat this again. I am looking for a discussion and not just a flat denial. I am neither stupid nor antagonistic. If you don’t understand my point then ask for more detail.
Either you have a very low opinion of me (not granting beingness) or you are identifying yourself with LRH and Scientology and can’t discuss it without taking offense.
Take your pick.
.
Holy cow, I’ve asked for more detail more than once. Occassionally I’ve gotten it, but just as often I’ve received no reply, a cryptic remark, a question for a question when you were playing Socrates, or a non-answer of some kind.
Vinaire,
“ Either you have a very low opinion of me (not granting beingness) or you are identifying yourself with LRH and Scientology and can’t discuss it without taking offense.”
I have been doing my best to FIGURE OUT What you believes is “granting beingness”. You believe beingness is only good, great smart brilliant, I realized that because “EITHER YOU HAVE A LOW OPINION OF ME [Not granting beingness] LOW OPINION= NOT GRANTING BEINGNESS.
So by believing if the opinion, in reality it is not what you like you are than the one who has a different opinion of you like being ignorant, stupid stubborn, etc than by having those thoughts=fabric than you are not allowed beingness.
Vinaire now that is a most incredible believe I ever seen, to believe we only exists if we are being thought by others that one is brilliant smart, educated, You are missed the boat. As we have creation self we create the good and the bad and they have equal value in the THETA UNIVERSE.
I am astounded by your believe that beingness can only be good. You are only allowed beingness if you are acknowledged you have said something smart, if somebody do not agree on that than you complain, not being allowed beingness.
Therefore you totally associate yourself with your created believes in this case your knowledge, which is your beingness, Solid to the core. No wonder you defend.
I wonder what Overts hanging over your head because you have the “must, believe” one is only good, create only good and only good must be.
Thank you for the Cognition.
.
(1) Granting beingness, in my view, is not being judgmental of a person.
(2) You have simply written about your considerations and not mine.
(3) You are welcome to your cognition.
.
Chris,
When the Emperor(Maharajah?) forgets to put his clothes on before stepping out in public, we are supposed to pretend we don’t notice, and tell him “Hey Vin, nice suit!” lest we be guilty of ‘making him wrong’ and incur his wrath in the form of an essay on “Fanaticism”,which he will of course portray as an impersonal academic inquiry, rather than a counter-offensive cause by hurt feelings.
Having said all that, I will also say that we might actually be more helpful to Vin and this board by refraining from the personal ‘comments’, letting Vin itsa and get charge off all he wants about whatever, LRon, scientology, C/S series.
In terms of the very basic Comm Course (remember that?) and the TRs (remember those?), we are ‘commenting’ rather than ‘originating’ in our responses to him.
We would in fact be better served to reply to him with 1st person originations on the subject at hand, and to leave out any adhom or personal comments.
It is actually possible to state one’s own experiences and conclusions without attacking the other person’s experiences and conclusions no matter how wrong they might seem to us; and to disagree simply by stating our own experience and perceptions with integrity.
And basically I think this is all Vin is asking us to do when we reply to his posts on this blog.
And he is right, that would be taking the high road.
Ultimately, all anyone can honestly say is “OK, my experience was/is different from yours, here’s how….”.
It’s always better to find something right about a viewpoint, than hammer away at how wrong it is. That just makes a person dig in and hold more closely to the viewpoint being ‘attacked’.
Val I do understand your point and agree when talking to an in-valence person.
But if the “high road” were always effective then there wouldn’t need to be police, troops, etc., to deal with out-of-valence people and groups.
Before anyone bats this back, let me write that I suspect there is better technology than pure force to deal with psychotic (or gradients thereof) behavior. I am quite open to the idea and welcome it. No sane person enjoys being appointed the executioner.
But for now, I don’t know what that technique would be.
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/06/26/significant-change/#comment-6063
Chris, the more severe the case, the lighter the touch must be. Using force against a psychotic person usually makes him worse, not better.
Actually usuing force against any one, makes them worse, not better.
Police,troops etc are not designed to help any individual, they are designed to coerce individuals, supposedly ‘for the good of society’. Police at best are involved with Justice actions, which are the society protecting itself from individuals it deems destructive in some way to it’s way of life.
“Ethics is REASON and the contemplation of Optimum Survival”.
It seems counter-intuitive, but the more irrational or psychotic a person seems to be, the more Reason and gentle handling you have to apply to help him out of it.
Here is a video of a high-toned person with good comm skills and presence dealing with a robotic CoS intruder:
http://youtu.be/nOyBD3ie8NA
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/06/26/significant-change/#comment-6063
Chris, I heartily recommend ‘Evolution of a Science’.
In dealing with out-of-valence people, if you are genuinely interested in getting in comm with them, it is essential to talk to the person ‘behind the curtain’. He or she is there, whether they are apparent or not. Their comm lag may be horrendously long – try moths or even years(!), but it is the person himself you must speak to, and ignore the valence as much as possible,handling the valence only as necessary.
It is the beingness of the basic person that needs to be granted, not the beingness of the valence.
The appeal and comm has to be to the reason of the person, to their analytical mind,their Basic Personality, to have any therapeutic effect.
You get what you put your attention on. You get what you validate. Thus in talking even to a raving psycho, you have to talk to him as though he is a sane as a Clear. In fact this is not a bad ploy -mock it up that you are actually talking to a Clear, or a OTIII.
It goes back to the fundamental of the AP/BP spilt as conceptualized in the very earliest books of Dianetics.
Chris, iin answer to your last unexpressed question, here’s a quote from a link Vinaire posted that and I then posted in a reply:
“The Buddha…always spoke to people bearing in mind their standard of development, their tendencies, their make-up, their character, their capacity to understand a particular question.”
And I’ll have the audacity to also quote – ME (from a previous post):
Would it be asking too much to think that the folk here might agree to the notion that application of TRs in our written comments would keep the discussion on the rails? Are we all good, practicing Scientologists or what? Well, maybe not, but with those who don’t consider themselves Scientologists and/or don’t use TRs (Scn’ists or not) we could probably still keep things running pretty smoothly by just applying TRs on our end of the comm cycle. (Athough, there might be exceptions to the rule where the appropriate tone level would have to be applied, as you’ve indicated elsewhere today. But that’s just a necessary undercut at times, falling back on the simple use of ARC nonetheless (in tone level). Worse come to worse, there’s always the Code of Honor point to fall back on, “Do not give or receive communication unless you yourself desire it,” in dealing with truly inveterate non-communicators.
Valkov, this is so funny. I had just posted a comment to Chris (in the thread above with the 3D printer link) talking about all of us using TRs in our comments and right then Geir released a bunch of posts including this one of yours talking about the Comm Course and TRs! And also Chris’ above, offering to start being in 2-way comm. etc. And I’m thinking – it’s like what they say about inventions or other developments – sometimes two or more people are all coming up with the same thing at once but in entirely different locations and unbeknownst to each other. We may be more connected than we think, all of us. I’m serious! 🙂 And of course there’s the obvious truism that reat minds think alike…
Anyway, TRs would sure handle the biggest complaints – lack of acknowledgement (with TR 2) and Q & A (TR 3) – and otherwise not getting our “question” answered, by not ignoring “comments” (in the TRs sense). Etc etc. I’m jazzed!
100% Right Valkov! That’s the high road and thank you for the head’s up.
But when communicating, if one wants to build ARC, I have been taught and found to be useful that one must communicate with reality including Tone level. So when you read about me “cutting out his liver and eating it,” please be certain that I am doing this on purpose. Coupled together with the datum that this is a simple internet blog – a hobby really – and not something important like being fucked over by a mortgage company or whatever. Understand that I am only evaluating and invalidating Vinnie for his own good! It is me experimenting. I am looking in my simple-minded and self-educated way for an entry point to his hard-headed maybe incapacity (according to him) or unwillingness (according to me) to put his voluminous knowledge of life and livingness to practical application in a two-way communication (something a comm course student learns in a week.)
Flatteringly to Geir (I suppose) Vinay ratchets up his production until he is posting dozens (I didn’t count) of times per day and 9/10’s is batting comm back or doing some kind of deflection martial art to the perfectly reasonable comm. It became difficult for me to ignore. So I thought, “when in doubt, communicate.” So I just posted up to everyone of Vinay’s posts and let me tell you – I cannot keep that up! I can’t sit in front a computer screen all day like I did this past weekend. Ridiculous! My wife and kids would walk by – look concerned – see my determined and furrowed brow while I rattled away on the keyboard and just walk on out!
There are a lot of smart people participating in this blog who I want to learn from – Vinay included. I spent months writing to Vin and admiring some of his work. Vin likes to “make wrong” even when someone is trying to agree with him. I’m not sure how I would state that computation, it’s over there in the vicinity of “I can only be right when making others wrong” or “If I were to agree then blah blah.” But unable to get answers to straightforward questions about what in my perception were inconsistencies, I finally decided I was participating in a games condition and “gave up.” My plan was to just to ignore the pomp and read and respond to other posts which were more “friendly.” After all, I’m really only here to enjoy the interesting points of view, maybe share a few of my own, bounce these around to help me get fresh (for me) ideas, and maybe have a little fun. I can always go to a different blog if I want to enjoy angry people!
So though it was painful to watch and possibly uncomfortable for others, according to my own observation, my dedication and hard work has paid off with an increase in communication and reality between me and Vinnie. Certainly it raised the affinity as I feel closer to him than ever! Vin even referred to me by name a time or two as the battle raged – I was flattered. Maybe this can continue at a higher tone level. I would like that.
No apology or justification needed, Chris. You know I know just how you feel and think about this – I’ve been there, done that, now you really know why some of my posts are like out of National Lampoon.
I think an excellent feature for WordPress would be an “Ignore” kinda function whereby one could select certain posters and WordPress would simply not display those people’s posts to me! It would have been one way to deal with Alanzo on Geir’s forum, in the past.
However, a strict protocol of refraining from ‘comments’ and doing only first-person originations is an experiment I would be willing to try; quite a few of the posters on ESMB do exactly that, and it works for having flame-free threads.
Probably be a good policy for someone like me, who likes fooling around with flame-throwers.
Seriously, if you want to change someone’ behavior it is usually necessary to accept them as they are, find something right about what they’re doing and go from there. That doesn’t necessarily preclude venting your frustration at times, or expressing disapproval of gamesmanship in some way.
Chris,
Vinnie’s motto might as well be “Have soap box, will travel”. He is a shameless self-promoter who posts the same stuff over and over again wherever he can – here, on ESMB, on his own blog. Used to post on The Scientology Forum when Geir was running it.
He started some really good threads over there, actually. That’s where I first rubbed him the wrong way and it’s been all downhill since.
I have stated this before regarding my personal experiences.
Please google VINAIRE’S STORY on Internet.
Thank you.
.
I’ve read your story before. It is a good start but is truncated (by you.)
Did you finish it?
That is a beautiful piece of writing – very real. I found my affinity for you soaring as I read it. But I seem to missing big pieces – did you finish it?
I have the sensation that your viewpoint has changed quite a bit even in the more than a couple years since writing your story. Is this your reality as well?
I noticed a statement on your blog on ESMB: “I am not a thing. I am not what I create. I am not this MATTER or ENERGY. I am not even this TIME or SPACE. I am not even the postulates or considerations of these things. Am I not THAT which is putting out these postulates and considerations in the first place?”
Do you see this as a departure from your current viewpoint as expressed on this blog?
I ask because I do see it as a change and would like to ask you to say a bit about that.
Chris, very admirable post – an honest and straightforward attempt at reconciliation. Warms my heart! I think Vinaire will appreciate it and accept your offer to begin again, with 2-way communication.
Hey, check out my comment to Valkov just below. (You really are one of the great minds, BTW. :-))
I meant this to go under your comment just above, right above Valkov’s.
Vinaire says: https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/06/26/significant-change/#comment-5839
Vinny, is this a sample of how you grant beingness? I am thinking you should take a look at this.
Talking about granting beingness, I haven’t seen much of it from Scientologists on this thread. I suspect they have no clue about what it means. So, your question is moot.
.
Vin: Poor Chris! He is being an affect of the authoritarian Vinay Agarwala.
If you don’t see it. This is an acknowledgement.
Chris: Yes thank you! and I take as such! Now we are having fun!
(Quote from “Jerry Maguire” . . . “You think we’re arguing and I think we are just starting to communicate!”)
MU’s GALORE. Also posted in G. Isene’s Bog since it was written for him.
You truly believe I can’t handle a few invalidating words? You real have miss placed your logical mind! That would be very good great In fact, since you would not make irrational statements about me and the state I have achieved [it is the logical side get audited out as-ised, that is the irrational side.]
What do you thing I been doing all this years but handling invalidation and evaluation which in fact they were my own believes on the long run? What are ARC.B-k’s? Handling, running the invalidations, evaluations of the MEST. Which we believe has happened, but in fact NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. We did things and We just did not know better. Uneducated spiritual being is not better than a cannibal and I know that for the fact.
By believing such from your side you are the one who believes that those few miserable evaluation and invalidation are so powerful that I am running away because none confront? Bank has kicked in me on the ass and I am licking my wounds?
Wake up man, and realize what auditing is all about. HANDLING=CONFRONTING THE INVALIDATIONS EVALUATIONS_=THE ASSIGNED POWER THAT OTHERES ARE MORE BETTER ETC…… running away from few remarks…. You truly believe you hold that much power in my Universe?
Why did you not simply ask why I won’t write in your blog?
You were visiting my blog you could have. Have communication problems outside of your own turf, not safe to speak out some place else? Too much pride or what? Or I am in your reality too low on the tone scale you might get some kind of disease from communication with me? Or just did not see any value in communication?
Here is a novel idea for you, could it be simply passible I am not interested in the debate, to chew over the chewed over? But I have a much better reason which aligns with my universe, my knowledge.
I have solo audited out all the concepts which you are looking for now in your blog, why the hell I would wish to debate it again? Give me one very good reason for that. The concepts do not have meaning for me how could I debate on them?
You are looking for the answers outside; you want to learn what is. Only By looking inside you will find all the answers since you have them, ALL OF IT, and not in discussions.
Discussion is for passing of time, to find different view point, to extend ones reality, for pure fun show off, exhibit ones knowledge, air things out and compare. It is a game an up-man ship, has many sides. There are so many view points on debate but debate will not set you free.
So all that data accumulated can be FILTERED [good word] in session to the basic simple form without any distortion=lies. That will be the cognition an all that data =Purity, the true understanding on the matter.
I love big words, strong expression,
Rattling gates of Heaven and Hell,
I love the creations the muck up communication
The thundering and lightning of wrath
Rattling of sabres and bones,
Resounding crackling of the whip
And I have the gentle side the love of nature
I truly love the sound of bubbling creek,
The magic of the universe,
Have the ability to do have and be.
Exteriorization Or interiorization.
LRH made big mistake here with these concepts as with so many other things. As Bunkai pointed out he has spread himself to thin and I agree with him on that, LRH has completed only few subjects and most subjects he has over complicated.
Look at the confusion around you including your own confusion understanding about another being. And WHAT IS ON OT. You have a huge MU on that item. Evaluation, you bet.
Now you are totally in the dark about the above subject. Let there be light. The being is Made to believe he in inside or outside and those thoughts are “implant related item.”
They are simply view point EXP: view from inside, view something from outside.
WE are, we never have, never will move!!!
WE DO NOT MOVE, OBJECTS CAN BE MOVED AND ARE MOVED, SPIRITUAL BEINGS OT’S, STATIC DO NOT MOVE!!!
We VIEW our creation, from same or no place at all that is the reason we can view from all direction, and not only from outside but the same moment the inside of things. We have created the bloody thing why should we not see it from every angle? Hah? Only the body moves.
Example: you are outside of your boat and you have the view of the exterior of the boat. The body is outside of the boat and the eyes see, look perceives the outer exterior of the boat.
When you INTEND the body to be inside the boat you move the body to the inside of the boat. Hence you now believe that you are inside something. There the body is “inside” than the eyes perceive everything inside the cabin as you have postulated the things to be there to see and have and be. Meanwhile you have not moved only the postulates have changed, like rolling a movie, a film slide after slide, CREATIONS IN SEQUENCE. Imagination is an OT AT WORK.
[Eyes are a mechanisms, cause the being to believe what one sees with the eyes IS THE REAL THING. not what the being perceive, confusion big time here]
You postulate is just that, you experience just that because you consider you see with the eyes, it is your believe that you walk because you postulate that movement the sound of the footsteps, that sensation into existence. Therefore they are there for your enjoyment. The spiritual being can’t walk has no body no feet, only experiences.
But as a spiritual being you have on x-ray perception and you have no location and you do not go places BUT you postulate to happen and whatever that it is you have postulated into existence and you view=experience accordingly.
If you decide you walk toward the boat you do not walk toward the boat, the body do that.
THIS HERE IS THE CONFUSION; THE BEING BELIEVES THAT HE IS THE BODY THEREFORE THE BODY IS WHO SEES DO AND HAVE!!!!!!!!!!!
You postulate and experience and that experience is in full perception like a holograph everything the 360dergee you know everything about since that it is your creation.
NO SPIRITUAL BEING GOES IN OR OUT of things ONLY ONE CAN POSTULATE TO EXPERIENCE SEE THING INSIDE OR OUTSIDE OF THINGS..
LOOK at THE FAR SIDE OF THE PLANET DO NOT MEANS I HAVE FLOWN THERE IT SIMPLY MEANS I CAN SEE=PERCEIVE THAT MOCK UP. IF I would have flown there than I would be a mock-up too, made out of energy a shape=form etc.. etc…
THE OT is a spiritual being who hold no considerations which associates self with any subject, object, thought, agreements have no such a thoughts that self is something.
There is very heavy miss conception what the OT is and should be doing or not. I have written on that fact in my Blog I bet you have not read it, if you had then you did not get the meaning of.
Just look around your and see, look into every nook and cranny of this blasted creation this Planet,[ yet there is so much beauty] watch the news, listen to people and most of all listen to yourself when saying idiotic thinks about Elizabeth. [You are not an idiot but you can say idiotic things which is simply un-education on the matter] I know you are no used to be spoken too like the way I do.
You believe that I am in the certain way therefore I am in that certain way. You have no reality on my way. You could have by now since I write a torrent of cognitions!!!
Instead of guessing what on OT can do or cant. Observe the obvious around you. All is creation.
AND YES SCIENTOLOGY AND AUDITING IS THE ONLY WAY AND YES THOUSANDS TIME YES!!! And Vinn, too bad, you won’t like this little fact: auditing could move you out of stuck=solid=heavy=unmovable condition, your considerations. Which you experience as smart above all better than any other view. Brother, I have new for you. If you only would dare to move out and have sessions than you would real see the universe and not through filters. Yes this is heavy evaluation no tip toe through the tulips. No politeness. Go and hate openly OK by me.
GEIR, Give up your miss- conception what is the OT should be.
OT’s have created Heaven and HELL, OT’s mocked –up this planet with all within and the destruction also at the same time. The drucken bum in the allay is on OT creation, so is a drug addict an OT who is shooting up. The cemeteries are full of OT creation so are the prisons and hospital and the palaces and the shacks in Africa and the bodies dying of hunger and thirst. OT’s who sing in the great opera house and OT’s do the rap music on the street corners. You see the going down scale the OT can only create destruction no beauty but beauty again is only the eyes of the beholder!!!
OT creations are the fields of wild flowers, and the class room fool of children all learning the basic the “how” to continue with the creation as same as parents have and the grandparent before. OT creation everything one sees in the Universe!!!
Look at your dinner plate when you seat down, OT creation for the experience and the enjoyment of the creation..
Lapping of the water at the side of the boat, and the rhythmical movement by the moving of the water is created by OT. You hear it, you sense it, you see it therefore it is your creation. Your reality is not my reality but I know yours since I been there.
But for heaven’s sake you have not walked in my footsteps so you do not have a reality on me. Do not forget Geir Isene I had past lives good or bad whatever but I know how to create and be on OT and I know what is a OT can do and do.
In this planet and in many others I ridden the planes, did drugs, ruled empires, loved to dive for pearls, and lived in the desert the purity of the sand dunes still hold beauty because of its powerful energy flows, my art still in major museum here and I am positive you are great admirer of my work. But I won’t hit you with the name or names. You have not recovered from of me announcement of being Buddha.
By the way I was acknowledged by a Zen Buddhist, Ironic yes? Not by Scientologists but by a being who is in fact a Buddhist? A being I do not know this life and not met. He read all my writing and have come to conclusion. I believe that in fact speaks for my achievements. And to be acknowledged was and is a humbling experience. Because that acknowledgement is the affirmation that the TECHNOLOGY WORKS, AUDITING WORKS. That Acknowledgement held great power, Affirmation on my work as a SOLO AUDITOR, The technology and its power. And when used one can as is the MEST.
Geir you have no reality of the power one has as on OT, but you will have in the future I have no doubt about it. Only reason I have concluded since to you a root canal without novocaine meant OT power. Bad form, man.
BACK TO OT DOING-NESS, CREATIVITY AND SEE WHAT IS AN OT ALL ABOUT.
I dwelled in muck, and bathed perfumed others, adored and been revered and celebrated worshiped, been called criminal, committed great crimes, eaten humans and been eaten by the same species. I have been a Boa and been eaten by the Boa so I know both side of the coin.
I also know what is like to be on ape because I have been that ape more than once. Learning from beings, yes good one, but what is better opportunity one has, than become one and to learn from that view point the real thing that is an experience A learning experience understanding of others.
You wish to know what OT can do. Well let’s compare some Overts shell we, do you dare? From obverts one really can find out the bad ass stuff were power lays and man, I been bad in the past but bad too is part of being OT. The other side of the coin which humans believe is the only way one should be. SO CALLED GOOD. NO NO NO NO, That is not the way.. Can’t keep the good and as-is the bad. No such a thing. BANK IS BANK.
I can take any beings liver chop it up but I won’t eat it, that is degusting in reality here, but not in the Universe of on OT where all mock =up are fine where there are no Overts no Withhold and there are no ARC-K’S so the OT can do anything any time because the OT ability is the same there is no bad or good thing simply is and the “thing ” is YOUR OT Ability IS your IMEGINATION NOTHING MORE AND NOTHING LESS.
Learn you want, yes I understand that. I am sorry I could not help you with such. But that was your decision, not mine. If you have you never let that out of the bag.
Before I have left the Flag I have written a long note about the out points and I have signed my name and I said Put this in your pipe and smoke it. Geir the same goes for you too.
This is also on OT creation and mock-up so will be whatever bad things you will read into it and how you will interpret it in your blog by evaluations invalidation you will put it down as bank, ARC.B etc. you will simply justify your reality, defend that “I” since that is the way it is needs to be the demand of the implants.
Go for it rip this into pieces sentence by sentence, chop it, mangle it dissect it, put down as pure hogwash raving of a lunatic. Go for it throw it front of Vinn, let him chew it over. He will have a heyday, glow of destruction in form of analysing. Beautiful and well deserved by me.
But don’t speak for me and don’t assume in my name how I should be do or have, When you do that that is your reality and not what is in fact in my universe my creation.
When you speak so low of on OT you are miss leading others too. Your believes how a OT should be is pure HOGWASH. OT is no saint, not holy, not angels with flapping wings. They are not myth built up, not like some deity siting top of the mountain or under the banyan tree but beings like me who walked on the surfaces of all Earths who have created the Heavens and Hells by doing so having fun. Lived with rats and was one too because the experience I know one when see’s one too. [ This remark do not imply that you are one. That is not the reason for that remark. You have not deserved such. In fact I believe you are one nice being.]
Have had root canals and homosexual activities and every kind of experiences one could have under all the SUNS. That is an OT. And brother I love a good, a good mock up a dramatization, it is fun it is a game it is a OT ability to do, have and be.
Elizabeth Hamre
I left out the other well-known names I used to go by since I do not wish to cause any more reality breaks as I have so far.
We could have benefited by having friendship and offering others different view point. Too bad you could not see that, but understandable since you have not duplicated any of my writing and see the wins as a great accomplishment. When the time comes you will understand the cognitions and they will be the guiding light for you. Even these words here you will acknowledge.
It is written in the Book of Knowledge, in the section: Future.
This here posting too will be in my Blog too, as is.
If now, you just have that strange sensation you have been rolled over by steam roller well I would not be surprised a bit. For the future I postulate for you the same wins as I have had so far.
I thought you had stopped posting here.
I see your comment as a representation of who you are, and thus feel no need to reply to it.
I think that Scientology not done right, seems to stick people in “self.”
.
I think that Scientology not done right, seems to stick people in “self.” Elizabeth reminds me of Mystic on ESMB.
.
Here you are berating us on granting of beingness and then you pop out this??
Pot calling the kettle …
The definition of granting beingness applies to everybody, including Vinaire and LRH. I’ll berate Vinaire as well as LRH when they violate it.
This doesn’t get you off the hook.
.
Elizabeth, the basic, underlying intention here comes through – a tremendous desire to communicate your gains with the hope that others will hear and be helped in their own journey. Thanks for the great intention and effort in writing this post and for pouring you heart out so fully.
I do feel your frustration! And it’s true that you may not always be able to transcend the barriers to understanding. But I’m reminded of a comment from a poster here (Rafael) written just a few days ago, “The bigger the knowledge, the bigger the frame of reference it takes to know it.” And then my own comment in response to it, “If there’s a better perspective, I can’t think of what it would be.” I would only wish that everyone keep that perspective, no matter what their own reality or their viewpoint of yours. You’ve made it clear that you yourself do so and that says a lot it itself.
Love to you, Marildi
Good take Marildi! Namaste!
From Tech Dictionary:
IMPLANT, 1. a painful and forceful means of overwhelming a being with artificial purpose or false concepts in a malicious attempt to control and suppress him. (Aud 71 ASHO) 2 . an electronic means of overwhelming the thetan with a significance. (HCOB 8 May 63) 3 . an unwilling and unknowing receipt of a thought. An intentional installation of fixed ideas, contrasurvival to the thetan. (SH Spec 83, 6612C06)
The idea here is that to aberrate a person overwhelmimg force is required. Elsewhere LRH says that a person is responsible for his own condition. LRH, the hypnotist, also said that it takes gradual agreement to hypnotize a person. I find these statements to be inconsistent. I would like to know how the Scientologists on this board have reconciled these datums for themselves.
What does it really take to aberrate a person?
.
It depends on what condition he is in. Obviously.
That is not obvious to me. It seems to me that an “incident” would appear as implant when you try to bypass “un-stacking”. But if one follows “un-stacking” the incident would appear as a series of gradual agreements.
The overwhelming does not come from somebody else’s malicious attempts way back in the past. It seems that overwhelming comes right in the present, from trying to force the mind, bypassing the un-stacking, to get to the incident. The clue is in the book “Evolution of a Science” where LRH talks about how he discovered the engram. He had to buck the patient forcefully into the incident.
That is the basis of Scientology auditing… to trick the mind (bypass the mind’s resistance) in getting to the incident. But, from my observation, the mind’s resistance comes when “un-stacking” is bypassed.
.
.
So, is that question intended to introvert us and key us in?
Why don’t you look within your own mind, and tell us what you find?
And, what does it really take to de-abberate a person, or make him well?
Please see my response to Geir above. In my opinion, it is the bypass of natural unstacking of the mind, which brings about all the complexity, such as, engrams, implants, etc. that LRH attributes to the reactive mind.
.
Geir, this is in response to your last reply in the thread above beginning with your comment that you believe the tech “has to be greatly modified.”
Okay, that doesn’t sound nearly as sweeping when you qualify it with “to deliver on the original promises” and “in the times that he envisioned.” I guess you could be referring to OT levels in addition to OT III – maybe even all of them? Or do you have in mind simply resurrecting all of the “old” OT levels? (which, from what I’ve gathered, included actual drills in OT abilities, to help the baby OT learn how to walk and then “run” [operate] as an OT). But that’s still LRH’s tech – albeit lost tech. (You can see I’m not easily convinced that LRH’s tech should be “greatly” improved. But don’t get me wrong, I could be!)
Or maybe you have in mind more than just the upper Bridge – the lower too, and/or some of the many extant rundowns and correction lists or whichever other major actions – and possibly even certain basics of auditing as to how any of it is applied. It’s a pretty vast tech to “greatly improve”! And that’s just the auditing tech – there’s also training. (I already have a general idea how you feel about admin tech.) Also, can you briefly narrow down something more specific regarding “in the times that he envisioned.”
As you see – even with the qualifiers, what you say implies to me a scope that doesn’t fit readily with my own reality. I’m actually not just being contentious with you and this wouldn’t be the first time I’ve had my reality about Scn greatly adjusted, including by you! So a little more TR 4, please? (I’m trying to apply my latest, innovative [ha!] idea of using TRs as a stable datum in the comm cycles here.:-))
🙂
I would like to see the upper bridge reformed to actually deliver on LRH’s original intentions. As for the lower bridge – I think that seems quite solid and good. Research would improve even that, but I see no need for a dramatic reform there. And much of the data should be structured, simplified, deepened at many points, and the admin tech should be completely transformed into something useful, the ethics tech needs a solid revamp.
Pretty good TR 4!. But…a little more, please, on “much of the data should be structured, simplified, deepened at many points” (again, too broad and general for me) Also, what’s the revamp in ethics tech you envision – briefly, I’m not asking for a full blog post (just anything and everything you are willing to go into :-)) and I do have a fair grasp of the ethics tech, so I’m intrigued.
For Ethics, start with this: More on SPs and declares.
Also, the policy Rewards and Penalties is plainly wrong in light of this:
Then there is the application of ethics in an overstructured, robotic organizing system that squeezes the last bit of creativity and responsibility out of every employee.
Then there is the numerous lectures, books, policies, bulletins, articles etc. containing much needed wisdom – but strewn all over the place. It should be Much Better organized.
As for deepening – I want to really understand how this agreement, how this game we play is created, perpetuated and synchronized. LRH does not answer that. Or how the mind is really structured – how memory is factually stored. And I want a simpler route to full OT. Scientology is complex.
Geir is right.
Hubbard seem to have introduced confusion by using the same term “SP” for two different purposes. Looking at the outpoints that Geir has pointed out in his essay, “More on SPs and declares,” it is likely that LRH designed the term for anybody he wanted off his lines, and not have to deal with right away. The current Church is using “SP” for the purposes of black mail. As Geir has pointed out LRH justice system have a lot of flaws. Just auditing them out may bring a lot of case gain.
With Reward and Punishment it appears that Hubbard wanted to create people who followed his tech and policy mindlessly, exactly as he stated, without questioning it. For reward he used key outs, validation, and status.
I really don’t think that most of case gain from Scientology auditing is permanent. People, who seem to have done “well” because of Scientology auditing, could have done well without Scientology auditing too. I find understanding of the basics of life in Scientology to be more effective in bringing about a permanent case gain than most Scientology auditing. Scientology auditing is effective only when it makes one understand the fundamentals of life.
.
Thanks so much for this – I always appreciate getting your viewpoints and insights.
That youtube video has some really important findings, to say the least, (You might consider a blog post…) I’ve seen one or two videos of that type, by the way, and the teaching method alone that it uses is fascinating, with the key phrases of the speaker being written out and little illustrative pictures drawn as it goes along – very effective teaching method. Actually, I’ve always had a high interest in better educational methods and any ideas about better organization brings in my indicators too. So no wonder I really like your idea about organizing the Scn materials – it would obviously improve Scn education/training, or any use of the Scn materials actually. Good points you’ve made. Better get crackin’! 🙂
Oh, and didn’t you read my post about a theory I came up regarding mind structure and memory – the one right in this thread all about significances and “substrates”? I kinda liked it but it seemed to go over like a lead balloon – no response whatsoever, not even by Vinaire. 😉
I need to revisit those…
Trying to have a vacation here 😉
Hard with you guys & gals going at it like this 🙂
Love ya’
Geir,
I read over your Ethics article – well done. You know, I look at the purpose of ethics – reason & contemplation of OPTIMUM survival (my caps).
To me, this is where much of the BIs concerning ethics/justice actions stem from. Justice has been twisted to mean getting hit, being made to agree, compromising – again agreeing, and the overall suppression of one’s self determinism.
Personally, I have always looked at Ethics/justice as a help flow – taking someone and helping him move up and out of a troubled time. Hell, the last thing the guy needs is someone telling him how wrong he is.
As for the true blue suppressive – different story. Hell, I remember a time where most new people reading the PTS/SP tech were ‘realizing’ that their parents were SPs … man, it seemed like every Tom, Dick & Harry suppressive was in my hometown.
To me, a lot of this was basic misunderstanding of the tech & characteristics, and, this viewpoint started to change when some of these guys got on to Grade 2 – they realized that just maybe, they had a bit of responsibility in creating this ‘suppressive’ scene in the 1st place. 🙂
But, within the church, and it has been this way for many years, the culture surrounding ethics & justice is much different than what LRH envisioned it would be. Basic Ethics policies have been changed, almost everything aside from sneezing is now considered a High Crime or a Suppressive Act, and the churchies walk around cowed and in fear. It is amazing how this has turned 180 degrees.
I do believe that many of the existing policies can be used to help or harm. Much of this has to do with the intention of the person applying it.
As for your last paragraph above, yes, I would love o know the mechanics & considerations on this game – fascinating to me.
As for a shorter route to OT – I’m in agreement with you there. It seems to me that there must be a way … maybe looking at a base consideration and them comparing it to current considerations. This may be a quick way of knocking out 2nd postulates. Hey, I’m just shooting my mouth off here, but what the heck – I’m hoping someone will get that ‘bright idea’ 🙂
I read a bit of the info on TROM … quite interesting – here’s a short bit
start quote “The key to the resolution of the mind, then, lies in exercising the being in the discovery and creation of complementary postulates; and, transiently, in unraveling the tangled mass of conflicting postulates that his mind has become. The mind, being a repository of old games, which are postulates in conflict, has no defense against the application and re-injection of complementary postulates regarding the effects it contains. In short, we vanish the mind by progressively getting the being to create, and do exercises in, complementary and conflicting postulates; to create and experience overt and motivator overwhelms, play games, and generally bring back under his own determinism …” end quote
Whether we are mocking up identities (beingnesses), or considering/counter considering within our own universes or that of others, it makes for an interesting game.
My 2 cents for now 🙂
Ahh … I forgot – regarding the data being organized.
There was (maybe still is) SIRS 0 Scientology Information Retrieval System.
Had this been widely distributed and contained every bit of data unaltered, it would have gone a long way in having a quick easy standard method for references.
That is a small step toward what I would like to see. I want a rewrite of major parts of the data to condense, to bring all relevant references into compact references, to ensure no more “reference hunting”.
Ahh … I forgot – regarding the data being organized.
There was (maybe still is) SIRS – Scientology Information Retrieval System.
Had this been widely distributed and contained every bit of data unaltered, it would have gone a long way in having a quick easy standard method for references.
The feeling is mutual! 😀 Even just considering the fact that you “take us with you” on vacation!
And BTW “going at it” is very humorously descriptive of many of our recent posts. LOL!
As for that post of mine that I mentioned, no biggie (both the post and your not getting to it. :-))
🙂
Geir any change to Scientology to the degree you are discussing would create another subject in the eyes of fundamentalists.
Managing conflict will be an important.
To deal with this conflict assertively with compassion and integrity, I strongly suggest the members of this blog read the following book. It appears in print, Kindle or iTunes Audio. It is absolutely brilliant, deeply detailed, realistic and has absolute confront of this difficult subject.
My recent posts on other blogs already reflect the point of view I have learned from this deeply wise book.
“Toward a True Kinship of Faiths – How the World Religions Can Come Together”
-HH The Dalai Lama.
_/!\_
oops. “Managing conflict will be an important issue.”
Thanks for the pointer.
OK, so there’s the definition of ‘granting beingness’ But, having granted beingness, what then of the right to comment, utter upon, or counter the opinions of others.
That is part of the Creed of Scientology…….
“-That all men have inalienable rights to think freely, to talk freely, to write freely their own opinions and to counter or utter or write upon the opinions of others;”
And about ‘adhom’ – is there positive as well as negative ‘address to the person’? Do you complain about positive personal remarks or comments made about you or your posts?
If someone likes one of your posts and says you’re a smart and perceptive guy to have thought of that, isn’t that a form of adhom? Isn’t flattery also adhom? Is it better or more allowable to say your post is intelligent and perceptive, than to say it is stupid and misguided?
Elizabeth actually did a whole blog post about how the ‘pleasure moments’ and positive experiences are as bad or worse in trapping one…
When Geir likes a post, he sometimes posts a +1 or +2. Those are actually evaluations, judgements. Perhaps we should adopt that system – posting +1s and -1s and then just addressing the argument instead of the person….. ?
In my opinion the subject under discussion should be discussed; and any opinions about people participating in that discussion, whether validative or invalidative, should be kept out as they are nothing more than distractions.
.
One thing that I’ve learned from this wrestling is that there truly is an exact truth of a thing which is its exact consideration.
Symbols surely are a difficult means of communicating “exact considerations.”
But there is a benefit and I see the logic of it as well. Symbols hold still. When they are well defined and put in a book, they provide a snapshot of that (sometimes old) consideration. Later, when the exact consideration has been forgotten; dissolved; or altered, etc.; The definitions – the symbols of the consideration – can help resurrect a consideration which has been somehow lost. They “point the way.” Underlying static, theta, thetan, unknowable, undefinable, unspeakable, etc., truly are exact considerations. One problem in communicating with symbols is matching duplications.
For instance, I get what Vinaire means by “free will constrained by sensory input.” And in that there is necessarily a particular definition of free will. I worked it out by working backwards from his statement.
Another kind of Free Will could be defined as the pure potential for making choices by the pure Potential. I use the name of Static. Some use Unknowable. In some disciplines it is said that one must not “say it” out of the knowledge that saying it or giving it a name will thusly pollute it. Granted, we can’t say what that is because we have previously defined and consider that it is undefinable. In this type of free will there is no constraint due to considerations because I am defining it as a potential which lies outside the “Constraint of Considerations.” I like this definition because of the word “free.” Free should not be constrained, otherwise how is it free? “Will” means the power of choice. We have another synonym for this – intention. Intention is the will we bring to bear which acts on the physical universe. Is intention physical? I think is must be but then it comes from the non-physical potential. But I am quite sure intention is the “muscle” behind the muscle!
When a person experiences Significant Change, they naturally want to communicate about it. This is where the stickiness begins. If that change is “too” significant, then communicating about it to the “wrong” person can bring about an ARC break in reality. Therefore it behooves me and the rest of us to practice “being able to experience anything” so as to not become ARC broken when receiving possibly unreal communications about “significant change.”
(This post sucks as I have 10 good things on my mind this morning and I am just all over the place with it. I’m pushing post and going to work! See ya.)
Free will may work only once, because after that first choice, it would be subject to that choice. Of course, it may as-is that choice, before making another choice.
.
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/06/26/significant-change/#comment-6069
P.S. to Chris: I’m thinking the “little bit of mass” a thetan (or viewpoint) is in, could be a special kind of anchor point which itself is (as per The Factors) a special kind of dimension point. Over to you…
Marildi,
If the first action is to be and we call this the viewpoint, then from my point of view:
1. Yes, to me it has mass. It is has space. It’s wavelength is Tone.
2. It is the Viewpoint. We call it a thetan.
3. Theta is trickier. There is this blending portion which I don’t seem to know shit about. Theta for me seems to be potential. But when there is activity that we call theta then it is “actual.” Its “potential” squats on Static – which by definition must be impossible. It also gets mixed up with intention which I don’t know shit about.
4. Then there is this conundrum where I am continually using to good result the intention which I just said I don’t know shit about.
5. “Granting of Beingness” is the assumption of a viewpoint. The granting is done somehow by the Static which through the use of intention – “comes forth” and materializes.
6. The first granting of beingness is coming forth and assuming a viewpoint.
7. The second granting of beingness is extending points to view. This can be giving the other guy a nod and so forth.
8. ARC (we all know what that shit is) is “bigness.” Like what Rafael said about “frame of reference.” If you want to know something, then you’ve got to wrap your theta arms around it and if you can’t? Well you’ve got to expand your frame of reference. Anchor points? I think so.
9. Then there is experience. WTF? What the hell is experience? Is it knowledge? Is it manual dexterity? Is it an intimacy with MEST? For me the answer is yes, yes, yes, and yes.
back to you…
Chris, this is such an interesting post but I’m like you and don’t have the time I’d really like to spend! In fact, I’d like to respond to several of yours and others’ posts of today alone that I’m probably not gonna get to. (Geez, I already spend way more time on the computer than I possibly can – how’s that for a conundrum?) But for now let me just offer one thing as regards your comment on intention – check out this definition from Axiom 57 of control: “Positive postulating, which is intention and the execution thereof.”
Well, just one more thing. I’m right with you on 1 and 2 of your post. But I don’t even mess with “theta”, for the reason I stated in my last post as regards its history as a term, and also the conflicting or confusing definitions and data. For example, from AP&A – “by theta is meant the static itself,” and yet (same book) “by facsimile is meant theta which contains impressions by perception,” which for me is a mock-up OF theta.
Another interesting consideration is something I remember LRH saying (don’t recall where) about not knowing yet whether a single being/thetan (not sure which word was used) controlled a whole groups of insects. See what I mean? The “theta” in life forms is, to me, simply referring to thetans (the term he later came up with, after further research) – or the mock-ups of (e.g. the GE is a “theta entity” per HOM).
So I don’t see why we shouldn’t just leave “theta” out and carry on from there…
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/06/26/significant-change/#comment-6068
“And Geir has already put out the idea of Static substrates. Per The Factors this would be Cause and then viewpoints, viewpoints being later referred to as theta (as I see it) and after that called thetans, to my understanding.- Thetan being much more clearly defined than theta was when the original Theta-MEST Theory was developed.,,” That is to say, Thetan seems uniformly to be described as static, specifically so or in so many words. (See Tech Dict.)
If you want to call a Thetan a Static – ok but I don’t much like it. The reason is that I just got done sorting these into their own cubbies.
Axioms says the life Static isn’t anything but it has capabilities. Presumably capabilities outside the realm of physical. We placehold with “potential.” This isn’t much of a stretch for me because unless one believes in a deterministic universe then one has to hold a place for something more. You don’t have to say what – just hold a spot.
Substrates? I missed that one. WTF? I don’t understand and can’t say the word “static” without offending a muslim and you want substrates? Are you crazy? hahaha!
Hey, I love your humor but I wasn’t the one who came up with “substrates,” it was Valkov or maybe Geir. (Did you not read all those brilliant posts?) But I looked it up and I think it’s a fitting term for the relevant lines of thought in this overall thread.
Okay, I think we’ve already worked out that a thetan is in a little bit of mass but we seem to have two or more threads going that are overlapping and/or duplicative. Let’s continue with just your post right above and my answer there, and figure out how thetan relates to static. And whatever other substrates we can work out… D-)
I almost never type that emoticon right. I’ll try again – I meant to end off with 😀 .
No, somehow those posts got by me. But I would like to review them, is it easy to link me?
Chris, I don’t know how to link a comment the way you guys do and I would try figuring it out or ask somebody but foresee that there would be a huge comm lag in doing that on this thread and then getting back to where I was (with my computer, at least). The comm lags are already cramping my style and slowing my production. 🙂 But tell me how to do it sometime for future reference.
What I do is to use “Find on this page” under Edit at the top. You could type in “substrate” and it should work fine. I hope you’ll find it worth your while after all this!
Some people seem to be unhappy with me because I have not answered their questions. But I always answer question when they are kept to the subject of discussion, and asked politely without HE&R. This is what any decent and civilized person would do,
When not understood properly, Scientology seems to make people unnecessarily judgmental. It seems to provide them with “judgmental tools” to invalidate other people.
.
Specifically in my case, I would like to know why you haven’t answered a couple of my questions. On our last comm cycle thread, it seemed to be going along fine and then you just didn’t respond and I asked again (the last post) but you still haven’t responded. I was asking why you don’t consider that you are anti-Scientology when in fact you are highly critical of both the philsophy and the tech.
Earlier on that same thread you had said something about someone getting personal and I asked what you were referring to but you didn’t answer that either. So if you felt that way or now do, let me know what you mean exactly.
The other question I was asking, on a separate thread, was what auditor training you’ve had – which Class or whatever. You seemed to have dropped that comm cycle too but I still have the qeustion.
Please respond to the question in each of the above paragraphs, three in all.
Here are the answers to your questions:
(1) I do not equate being critical (using critical thinking) to being anti.
(2) There have been so many instances of people getting personal with me on this blog that I don’t remember which instance you are referring to.
(3) You need to refer to the subject matter that requires you to know about my training level in Scientolgy. Are you implying that I have misunderstood something. If so, then please be specific about that. I do not answer personal questions without there being a good reason.
.
In answer to each of your points (1) to (3) above:
(1) Obviously, “using critical thinking” wasn’t the definition of “critical” that I was using. It was “inclined to find fault or to judge severely.” That was perfectly clear from the context of the very post you are replying to, where I said, “I was asking why you don’t consider that you are anti-Scientology when in fact you are highly critical of both the philosophy and the tech.”
(2) How could it be that you don’t remember which instance it was where you were accusing me of getting personal, when you referred to it in your post of just yesterday, in the other current thread between us.
(3) I’m asking what auditor training you’ve had because you comment extensively and critically (finding fault, judging severely) on the technicalities of auditing. That makes it an entirely relevant question, just based on the simple principle of “consider the source.” And although you ask, you apparently already know what my question related to or you wouldn’t have said, “Are you implying that I have misunderstood something.”
Once again, Vinaire, you have evaded answering my questions and are not engaging in a sincere exchange. To be blunt, I don’t for a minute think you are so dense as to not already know every bit of what I just wrote above. It seems clear that you’re not interested in a fair and reasonable discussion and that I should probably put little to nothing, in time and effort, into your posts. Sorry to have to say that.
You and Valkov are writing and writing and writing to a “100% Straw Man Machine” and that doesn’t look very fun to me. As Valkov recently told me, you get what you validate.
I have tried to answer your questions elsewhere. But again, you are not being specific.
(1) Let’s take up the point where YOU think I am “inclined to find fault or to judge severely.”
(2) I took up you personal evaluation of “bitter” and “anti-scn” in another post. I am sure you have seen it by now.
(3) Let’s discuss the tech points one at a time.
You are being judgmental and personal if you do not want to take up the specific points.
.
.
Chris: “…you get what you validate.”
I saw that post of Valkov’s and agree with it. In fact, I had in mind and noted something similar in a comment to you elsewhere, when I mentioned that he’s “getting a lot of attention”- which in essence is validation. However, Valkov and I haven’t quite given up yet and are still doing the same kind of thing you spent your last weekend doing – trying to get better discussion going.
As a note, the fact that you would spend so much time (the weekend and more, for a good while now), as well as exertion of wits (some of your recent posts especially, were piercingly insightful and articulate) is actually proof in itself that – you grant a lot of beingness to Vinaire! You must in fact consider that he actually has a good capability and in the end will not be “impossible”and that real comm with him would be worthwhile. The ultimate non-granting of beingness (and invalidation) would be to ignore – not even grant existence to. And I think l can also speak for Valkov when I say – it’s the same for us. Or Valkov might simply be taking offense to what’s being said and isn’t willing to let it stand unchallenged, especially in this “public place” – which is perfectly valid too. Even if he’s just being amusing, it’s still valid and up to readers to decide how much truth is there – and Vinaire should consider whether the shoe fits and respond accordingly.
Nonetheless, you are right about the comm so far not being very fun. It seems you’ve decided that you’ve given it your best shot and a fair trial, and I may soon come to that too. As I said at the end of my above post to Vinaire, “I should probably put little to nothing, in time and effort, into your posts.” Because – when efforts at communication are met with flagrant and repeated violations of the comm formula they are not only fruitless but are llikely to result in enturbulation as well – such violations being the sole reason for any and all enturbulation! (Dn 55) So it might be a matter here of that Code of Honor point, “Do not give or receive communication that you yourself do not desire.”
Vinaire, I’ve already addressed each of your points (1) to (3) above – in my long post giving definitions of “bitter,” “anti-” (as in anti-Scientology) and “critical.” But your only “reply” there was to change the subject! You now bring it up here totally out of “context” and with the missing data your post is just specious.
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/06/26/significant-change/#comment-6079
What do you mean by “HE&R”? What is your definition?
I ask because I have seen it misunderstood. It has a precise defintion in Scientology.
You may use the definition from Tech / Admin dictionaries.
.
It is not defined in the Tech Dictionary.
But I believe there is at least one HCOB on the subject.
Anyway, I asked you what YOUR definition is….
Here is LRH’s definition from ADMIN DICTIONARY:
HUMAN EMOTION AND REACTION,
the counter emotions and reactions which aberrated human beings express when they are guided toward survival objectives. They are usually below 2.0 on the Tone Scale. (LRH Def. Notes) Abbr. HE & R.
.
vinaire, you have really good thoughts. I appreciate.
And I also impressed by the wisdom of Geir.
Lately I did not have much time to follow the conversation, just read a bit from here and there from this thread. I hope, soon I can be back. Have a nice time.
Thank you. I really appreciate you writing about it. Not everybody here thinks so, however.
.
The “Tree of Knowledge” in the Garden of Eden (see Genesis) is misnamed. It should be called the “Tree of Judgmental Nature.” By eating the fruit from that tree, Adam and Eve became judgmental. They started to look at things in terms of good and evil.
God doesn’t care about good or evil. God simply deals with is-ness without being judgmental. This seems to answer the question, “Did God create evil?” God created neither good nor evil. God simply created. It is those with judgmental nature who go around calling things good and evil.
.
Well, it is actually called “the tree of knowledge of good and evil”, which is pretty much what you’re saying it should be called.
That is correct. It is also equivalent to thinking with two-valued logic.
.
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/06/26/significant-change/#comment-6148
It is equivalent to two-valued logic only to those who think that way.
Try thinking of it not as a dichotomy of absolutes, but as a wide-spanning continuum incorporating many many shades of grey. In other words, try thinking of it on the basis of multi-valued or infinity-valued logic.
“Absolutes are unobtainable in this universe.”
On the money. Seems to be a pattern of altering quotations of others concepts in order to degrade them. Am I wrong?
The sensory input is “decoded” as perception. This sensory (or perceptual) memory corresponds approximately to the initial 200–500 milliseconds after an item is perceived. After that it is no longer available as distinct impressions. It gets absorbed either as experience or converts into “conditioning”. Sensory input gets converted into “conditioning” to the degree it is resisted.
.
Hey, you guys here may like this stuff. “The Mathematics of the Soul.”
Click to access mathematics-of-the-soul.pdf
Click to access mathematics-of-the-soul.pdf
“The departed souls, in other words, rely upon a random process of ordering, i.e., on mathematics, to help determine the nature of their immortality.”
I would question the nature of the soul. I would question that a departed soul is a well-defined personality. It could be a bunched together group of considerations that may be breaking apart. There have been lots of conjectures throughout the history about the nature of soul. So far, there has been nothing definitive that I know of.
“…to a surprising number of individuals throughout history, mathematics has been a way of defining and understanding the soul.”
That may be quite interesting to find out.
.
”The Pythagoreans believed that everything is number and that one of the manifestations of number is the soul.”
“Soul Urge, the soul being that part of you that saw the whole picture when you were between lives. The Soul Urge is what that all-knowing part of you wants you to do, be or attain in this life.”
I am reading one paragraph at a time. The above stands out in the second paragraph.
To me a number is multiple of a unit, and a unit is just an arbitrary quantity regarded as one. What makes a soul to be an integrated whole? It has to be the consistency among the considerations that make up the soul.
.
Para 3:
“I am being asked, by that all-knowing part of myself, to rise above my own personal needs and work for the improvement of society.”
Maybe I am one of the few who thinks the above to be inverted. To me, I am a part of the “all-knowing.” It is not the other way around. I don’t know what that “all-knowing” is. but I seem to have precipitated out of it as an entity. That entity seems to be a composite of considerations. “To rise above” would mean not to identify myself with the interests of that entity.
Para 4:
This paragraph simply talks about skepticism with respect to mathematics of the soul.
Para 5:
This paragraph seems to say that some people do look at the subject of the soul more precisely in way of mathematics. For example, soul could be analogous to core of mathematics; or that mind evolves from the branching out of soul; or that brain is a computer and soul is the program that is running on it.
.
Para 6:
For Plato, says one scholar, “the study of mathematics becomes not merely an indispensable intellectual discipline for the philosopher, but also a practice of imitating God.”
This seems to be the most interesting paragraph for me. The truth of mathematical reality may be expressed in one word: CONSISTENCY. Mathematics and mathematical proofs are always consistent with the starting mathematical postulates and other mathematical proofs.
Mathematics starts out with a minimum number of postulates or axioms and builds up such a consistent structure that it mimics space itself.
It is consistency that seems to mathematics appear “immortal.”
.
It is consistency that seems to make mathematics appear “certain” containing a sense of “immortality.”
.
Para 7:
To “know,” for Descartes, meant to “use the long concatenations of simple and easy reasoning which geometricians use in achieving their most difficult demonstrations.”
According the author, Descartes was mathematically precise in describing the self, or soul, which was a trait that made him a mathematician too. I also looked at Descartes treatment of the soul here:
Comments on Descartes’ Works
.
Here is a summary of my understanding of High and Low TA:
General resistance in a person’s body is a reflection of mental resistance.
So, high TA is a reflection of resistance to what one is perceiving or experiencing. High TA would be accompanied by feelings of “I don’t like it,” “I don’t want to be here,” “Let me get out of here,” etc. It may build up to a panic of not being able to get away. Low TA would be a reflection of feelings, such as, “I can’t get away,” “It is no use trying to get away,” “It is hopeless,” “I am doomed to this fate.” It is the outcome of long protests when one has finally given up and has gone into apathy. A person with high TA is not happy. I person with low TA is unhappier.
In a generally happy person, TA is in the normal range. It may go up when there is a confusion. It may blow down when that confusion blows off. When confusion does not blow off and keeps building up then protest starts to enter in. The person starts to feel unhappy. The TA stays high. When the situation continues and starts to become unbearable, there comes a point when a person is so unhappy that he simply gives up. You now have a low TA case. In some of these middle Eastern countries you will find a large number of high and low TA cases, compared to Western countries.
On ESMB you will find mostly high TA cases. They are trying to get some relief by joking and degrading indiscriminately. You can really shoot their TA up by not being an effect of their joking and degrading.
.
The grandson about Hubbard:
Interesting…
Check out the tone level. Now that’s what I call bitter, really bitter. Makes you wonder what earlier lifetime connection he may have had to Scn and the associated overts.
(Sorry to say,Geir, but ya better ready another bowl. :-))
hehe
Yes – bitter, or feigning it to make self interesting. I wonder what he would be without his great grandfather.
Yeah, I considered the possibility of feigning. But that would take a pretty good actor – his face was really infused with spite. And talk about “carping” criticism…
But you made the best observation – “I wonder what he would be without his great grandfather.”
Interesting indeed!
.
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/06/26/significant-change/#comment-6136
”Vinaire, most of your posts that relate to Scn are pretty anti-Scn.
…it’s your bitterness in so doing, since those who are pro-Scn usually have enough appreciation of the subject itself that they don’t feel and talk so bitterly about LRH.
That response from you, does not discuss the contents of my comments. It discusses how I delivered my comments. The word “bitter” and “anti-Scn” evaluate my delivery of data rather than the data.
I can’t see how these words are not judgmental of the intentions behind my comments. They certainly do not address the contents of my comments. You may say that you were evaluating my comments and not me. That is just semantics. The point is that you were not discussing the subject of what I said. You got hung up on how I said it and then defined that as “bitter” and “anti-Scn.”
Sorry, but your argument that you were not being personal just doesn’t pan out.
.
1. You said, “The point is that you were not discussing the subject of what I said. ”
The subject under discussion between you and me never had anything to do with the subject of what you said in your comments. (I never bothered to get involved in those discussionst, but many others did, I noticed.) You and I were first discussing how or why someone might conclude from the overall VIEWPOINT you expressed in those comments that you were not a Scientologist. Here’s one of my first posts on the thread: “Vinaire, most of your posts that relate to Scn are pretty anti-Scn. So anyone who hasn’t read the rare few here and there where you say something that indicates you have been a Scn might conclude you haven’t [been]…”
2. You said, “The word ‘bitter’ and ‘anti-Scn’ evaluate my delivery of data rather than the data…You got hung up on how I said it and then defined that as ‘bitter’ and ‘anti-Scn.’
I’m sorry but you are the one who remains hung up on the point of “how” you said it. I dropped that early on and the bulk of the discussion came afterwards on the point of whether or not you were anti-Scn, and was based on what I said here: “…the more telling comments of yours are all the many, many criticisms and rejection of not only Scn philosophy but of Scn tech – and that’s the whole of Scn, nothing left. So the fact that you are critical and disagree with so much of that whole, well…of course you appear to be anti-Scn! What would be the basis for anyone to think otherwise?”
I did use the word “bitter,” which means: “characterized by showing intense hostility.” Hostility means “marked by overt antagonism.” And antagonism is defined as “an active OPPOSITION.” That’s brings us to anti – which is defined as “against or OPPOSED to.” Your comments clearly show a lot of opposition and thus that you are anti-Scientology. As for the word critical, it means “inclined to find fault or judge severely.” So with all these meanings in mind, it seems preposterous that you would deny being anti-Scientology. But you do.
3. You say, “I can’t see how these words are not judgmental of the intentions behind my comments.”
Judgmental means “tending to make moral judgments” or (from a second dictionary) “tending to criticize the conduct of an individual.” I never said anything about your morals or your conduct or your intentions (“the intentions behind my comments”). Neither was I getting personal, which is defined as “referring to the character, conduct or motives of an individual.” I was always talking about your comments and what those comments indicated about your viewpoints of Scientology, as based on all the related definitions.
OK. Let’s get back to the subject of Elizabeth then. Elizabeth claimed to know everything about Geir and myself. How could she have missed if I have been a Scientologist or not? You seem to be providing an excuse for her lapse.
That is your own excuse and it is based on a judgmental two-valued logic.
.
Vinaire, it’s amazing to me that your only “reply” to a long, thorough post I write, directly addressing a number of your complaints, is to veer off onto an old discussion – drudging up something already thoroughly addressed. Do you actually read my posts to you?
But to repeat, in a nutshell, she never claimed to know “everything about you and Geir.” She said she already had “your data” and you didn’t duplicate that she was referring to the data you have as regards the principles of Buddhism. But, as I say, I’ve already stated all that. And I’m getting pretty discouraged trying to have a comm cycle with you, to be honest.
And again, my mouth is really open on that last reply above – where you so blatantly drop the subject in progress and all the points involved and don’t respond to any bit of it. It’s not the first time, either.
This whole discussion is getting very confusing for me. Let’s go back to the Scientology Forum where different subjects can be put under their own threads.
Let’s start again on TSF, one thread per each disagreement.
.
Vinaire: “Let’s start again on TSF, one thread per each disagreement.”
Ya wanna take it out back? LOL!
This is yet another attempt to get out of responding to several posts to you. It’s simple – just go back to each of my posts where you gave an evasive answer and then no answer after my TR3 in response to your evasive answer.
Never mind pleading confusion (again). It’s that simple – just answer the posts you haven’t and skip the new threads you started (the ones where YOU started making things confusing by taking them away from the posts that had already spoken to those new thread comments of yours (to which you never responded) – and where (on your new threads) I then directed you back to the relevant posts dropped by you). Again, just answer the posts you haven’t.
You can start by giving a direct response to my post above!
Here is my direct answer to your post:
(1) Living in the past is a waste of time.
(2) Please restate your first issue with me in the present time.
(3) I shall try to answer the best way I can.
.
.
Okay, Vinaire, here’s my reply to the points you list.
(1) I agree! But also, don’t forget what actually keeps one “living in the past” – an incomplete comm cycle that “floats” in present time (and maybe even “forever,” if not answered one way or another). (Dn 55)
(2) My only significant issue or request is – to get answers to questions (that otherwise would float in time). Here are two different definitions for “answer” – (a) a response to something somebody said; and (b) the information requested by a question. (Encarta dictionary) So when a *question* is asked, one should get an answer as defined in (b), because a response as in (a) doesn’t answer the *question* (this is for the majority of the time, just to keep it simple).
Similarly, when making a statement (as opposed to asking a question), one would like to get an ack that shows it has been heard and understood. And, in the case of some ongoing dispute or discussion, one wants to know whether the matter is now seen differently at all. As you can see in your post above, although you did give a “direct answer” to the things I said in the above thread – it was only in the sense of (a) and there was no ack letting me know how you now see those things that I had commented on and that you are responding to.
(3) I do get that you are trying to be sincere about answering the best you can! Please let me know if you understand and agree with the above, especially the points in (2). (This is a test… ;-))
No, let’s not.
I thought you were the one admonishing US about taking swipes at YOU.
When one of us points out the inaccuracies of YOUR statements to YOU, you get very defensive and whine,
Yet, you feel totally okay with admonishing or trying to point out shortcomings of other.
Ya can’t have it both ways.
As for Elizabeth, I have met her and spent the day with her.
She is exactly as she says she is.
Her viewpoint is exactly as she says it is.
Her experiences are exactly as she says they are.
Is there something wrong with that, Vinaire?
Dennis, what can I say. Are you the cavalry? Knight in shining armor? Prince on a white horse?
Thanks for sticking your neck out. 🙂
There is a difference between pointing out an outpoint, and HE&R.
You may definitely point out the outpoints in what I say. It may take only a few sentences.
.
P.S. If that didn’t read right, I meant I was trying to pick which of the three to call you. 😉
Good of you to say so, we did have a grand time.
Vinaire I am sorry that I am the nightmare in your life, i never believed I hold that much power. Before I go I would like to thank you for the experiences by reading your comments.
(1) No you are not a nightmare in my life but Marildi is (joke). She makes my wife appear like a saint in comparison (another joke).
(2) You are most welcome… and I love your spirit.
.
Vinaire:
(1) No you are not a nightmare in my life but Marildi is (joke). She makes my wife appear like a saint in comparison (another joke).
(2) You are most welcome… and I love your spirit.
Marildi (your nightmare):
(1) LOL! (no joke) However, YOUR wife MUST be a saint. (joke) One last thing, did you mean your nightmare – or your muse? (another joke)
(2) Hey, you tryin’ to melt us girls’ cold, cold hearts? Well if you are, it just might work… 🙂
Of course, Marildi, you are my muse too.
.
The following is now making more sense to me.
The “Tree of Knowledge” in the Garden of Eden (see Genesis) is misnamed. It should have been named the “Tree of Judgmental Nature.” By eating the fruit from that tree, Adam and Eve became judgmental. They started to look at things in terms of good and evil.
God doesn’t care about good or evil. God simply deals with is-ness without being judgmental. This seems to answer the question, “Did God create evil?” God created neither good nor evil. God simply created. It is those with judgmental nature who go around calling things good and evil.
Bible has wonderful wisdom, but its English translation needs to revised and simplified to be more useful.
Being judgmental is not the same as being able to evaluate rationally per Data Series tech. The latter is totally fine. LRH did a brilliant work with Data Series. It the former that is irrational, and that is what I am pointing out.
I see Chris and Valkov using Scientology Tech to be judgmental. That is the wrong use of the Tech. Their purpose is not to help the other person. Their purpose is to down grade the other person. I see the same thing on ESMB but to much greater extent. Here it is not as bad, but it is there.
Why can’t we just discuss the subject rather than worry about the intentions of the other person? It is the discussion of the subject that will clear up misunderstandings, and may even straighten out the intentions. So, worrying about intentions upfront is ALTERED SEQUENCE in my view.
The following things are what I loved in Scientology the most:
(a) The basics of TRs.
(b) The basics of Study tech.
(c) The Data Series.
.
Since these are a matter of public record, i do not see a problem posting them, although Vinnie appears to be shy of doing so himself:
Vinay Agarwala SCIENTOLOGY DRUG RUNDOWN Source 124 1999-05-01
Vinay Agarwala STATE OF CLEAR Source 124 1999-05-01
Vinay Agarwala SUNSHINE RUNDOWN Source 124 1999-05-01
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/06/26/significant-change/#comment-6136
” I’m not sure how to go about having a discussion in which nothing negative can be said about a STATEMENT. ~Marildi
Why do have to think in terms of positive and negative, or good and evil? That is black and white type of two-valued logic. LRH talks about it as a primitive mode of logic. Why don’t you use the infinity-valued logic of Data Series?
There can be plenty that can be said about a statement in a rational way if you move away from the two-valued primitive logic.
.
By negative is meant “expressing contradiction, refusal or rebuttal.” That would apply even where I say “I think it’s A” and you then tell me “I think it’s B,” which is minimumly a contradiction.
I should add that a third person might say, “I think it’s C.” Etc. In other words, “plenty can be said about a statement” each one differing from the original one of “A.” and thus implying (or directly stating) contradiction (in the broad sense of disagreement) or rufusal or rebuttal.
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/06/26/significant-change/#comment-6136
” Another question (elsewhere on this thread) that I haven’t been able to get an answer for yet is – what auditor training have you had. ~Marildi
That is again a personal question. That is not discussing a subject that may lead to increase in knowledge. Again, it is focusing on self. I don’t see any relevance to that question except it may be used to evaluate what Vinaire is saying.
You cannot judge what a person is saying by his or her training level. You evaluate what a person is saying simply by evaluating what the person is saying. Why go about in a round about away to judge from some arbitrary standard. Why not grab the bull by his horns!
.
I think Marildi is trying to understand where you are coming from as some of your comments regarding tech & auditing would be considered out-tech by any auditor who has some experience.
It would simply help in having your auditor training and case level … one’s viewpoint changes as one goes up the bridge.
If you still feel you must keep this private, I hope you welcome correction when offered.
As I said elsewhere, if we are discussing the subject of OVERRUN then it would be appropriate to ask me what has been my exposure to the subject of overrun. But asking for one’s official training level is inviting prejudice.
Of course, I wouldn’t mind being corrected for errors in my understanding of overrun. That is what a discussion is all about. The purpose of an honest discussion is to increase the overall understanding for everybody.
By the way, the word OUT-TECH is a thought stopper, and it does not belong in an honest, open and sincere discussion. Those who think with that word should review it carefully.
.
I was talking about auditing in generally, not overrun specifically.
The 2 hats of auditor and PC are different and to be kept separate.. An auditor would have a much greater grasp of the tech and its precise procedure than an untrained PC.
Even if the PC is trained, these 2 hats are quite separate. A PC who is looking at his case technically whilst being a PC is out of session – he has dropped his PC hat, he is evaluating his case or the running of it from a technical (auditor/CS) viewpoint.
As for Overrun itself – it can be easily rehabbed if it occurs – generally seconds.
As for out-tech. Whether it be operating within a medical procedure, tool & die, being a butcher, etc – each has an exact tech. When tech is IN one is following the procedure; when OUT, one is not.
It’s a simple definition – it does not say the tech could not be improved, the tech is bad, the tech is good, or 100% all of the time. It simply says that one is following or not following the existing procedure.
In the case of Scientology, there are exact technical rundowns & procedures laid out such as Listing & Nulling, NOTs Procedure, Wordclearing, Data Series, Survey tech, etc. Following these procedures would be IN Tech. Not following would be OUT Tech.
Doing something different creates, and would be, a different subject, or altered.
The use of out-tech does make sense when applied to a standard procedure. But its use in a discussion on a standard procedure, whether that procedure can be improved, is a thought-stopper as I indicated before. In Scientology, there is lot of pain and punishment attached to out-tech. Similar case exists with verbal tech. No discussion on tech is allowed. This mind set still exists among many Scientologists who have left the Church.
As far as OVERRUN is concerned, I am not discussing the procedure but the reason underlying it. All I am saying is that overrun can be avoided in the first place by accepting that the pc’s mind has offered no answer, and that there is something else to be unstacked. You may call it Q & A, but I believe that a person wants to get better and would go along with the unstacking of the mind. Resistance of reactive mind is created when unstacking is bypassed.
.
Vin says:
“By the way, the word OUT-TECH is a thought stopper, ….”
This is itself an attempt at ‘thought-stopping’, in my view. OUT-TECH can and does have a legitimate agreed-upon meaning. It’s use can be an attempt to convey meaning, not just an attempt to prevent others from thinking.
To classify it SOLELY as a ‘thought-stopper’ is nothing more than an attempt to invalidate the term itself AS WELL AS the person who uses it.
It’s a cheap shot at best, that has no place in what is supposed to be rational intellectual discussion for the purpose of ‘increasing knowledge’.
If you’re not sure what Dennis means by OUT-TECH, you should ask him, if you’re actually interested in an ‘honest, open, and sincere discussion’.
Authoritarian censorship and banning, by your arbitrary whim, of words used by others in their attempts to communicate does not lead to ‘honest, open, and sincere discussion’. It is in fact a suppression of free speech and discussion, as for example portrayed in the novel”1984″.
There, one of the tactics used by the dictatorship, to reduce the ability of the people to think “forbidden thoughts” was to eliminate various words from the language completely, thus eliminating the concepts from the minds of the people. The ultimate in ‘thought-stopping tech’.
Perhaps you’d be so kind as to provide us with a list of what you consider to be other terms, in addition to OUT-TECH, you feel we should eliminate from our vocabularies?
Let’s vote – all in favor of appointing Vinnie as our Minister of Free Speech, raise their hands….
Out-tech is like any industry’s breaking of standards. Nothing to see here, folks. Move along.
Dennis has been gentle and polite, and I really appreciate that. I have responded to him on the subject of out-tech. Please see above.
.
The relevance to the question is explained in another post, which you must have seen before writing this one. By continuing that thread here, no one can see that you already got an answer.
In any case, it has to do with the principle that one should “consider the source” and the fact that you have commented profusely on the intricacies of the tech.
P.S. I meant that “no one can READILY see that you already got an answer.” (Just to forestall any quibble about that.)
When you discussing OVERRUN, you should discuss everything about overrun. The “training level” of the person discussing it is irrelevant. If you want to know what exposure that person has had to overrun then that is different.
.
We were never discussing overrun or any other tech point, and I’ve already gone over in another post what we were actually discussing.
As well, I’ve already stated in another post why training level is relevant in relation your many comments analysing the tech.
Let’s keep comments on individual subjects in one thread each, so as not to confuse the issue.
Speaking of grabbing the bull by the horns, few could do it as well as Jerry Lee Lewis, but I personally like the way Little Richard did…. Here’s Jerry Lee:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yRdDnrB5kM
Geir, I am sorry to hear about the bombing in Oslo, and the shooting at the Youth Camp just outside Oslo. The news said that a Nordic looking man was taken into custody. Apparently, it was an instance of home-grown terrorism.
Terrorism seems to be the extreme form of fanaticism where a person has to make himself right through extreme measures.
.
Yes, it is a right-wing extremist.
I am sure a lot of people are looking at the psychology of an extremist. Do you know of any Scientology principles that explain this phenomenon explicitly?
.
The main problem I see in the near horizon is that psychologists will try to explain how he was not responsible for his actions.
In Scientology one is at least seen as responsible. Explanation in Scientology; Engrams, the SP case (stuck in an incident on the track)…
This problem really concerns me. I wrote the following on The Scientology Forum:
The world is becoming a smaller place because of internet. Communications have skyrocketed. It is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain privacy.
Because of such an increase in exposure, it is becoming increasingly urgent and necessary that we find solutions to things, such as, fanaticism, terrorism, etc.
Brilliant minds should join together to accomplish this.
(1) The most serious threat would be threat to personal identity.
(2) The Oslo terrorist definitely took open policy of immigration to Norway, the support to Palestenian cause, and the peculiarities of the Arabic/Muslim culture now entering Norway to be a threat to his Norweigian identity.
(3) It is mo longer possible to isolate cultures from each other, or to live in isolation.
(4) The only way to make the interaction of cultures smooth is to help people become good at observing and handling situations keeping aside any prejudice.
(5) More mature and workable solutions will come about when pre-conceived notions and prejudice are kept aside.
(6) Education, direct observation, evaluating situations properly, and acting on workable solutions are the keys.
The worse and the most dangerous kind of fanaticism comes about when the person believes that what he is doing is for the ultimate good of everyone in the long run.
This is a very slippery slope. He believes that he is helping others through his act of terrorism.
.
A terrorist is so thoroughly convinced of his rightness that he lets go of all his restraints.
.
From EOS (Dianetics, the evolution of a science)
“And it should be able to recall any perception, even the trivial, asleep and awake from the beginning of life to death. That is the optimum brain, that and much, much more.”
From Wikipedia:
“Sensory memory corresponds approximately to the initial 200–500 milliseconds after an item is perceived. The ability to look at an item, and remember what it looked like with just a second of observation, or memorisation, is an example of sensory memory. With very short presentations, participants often report that they seem to “see” more than they can actually report. The first experiments exploring this form of sensory memory were conducted by George Sperling (1960) using the “partial report paradigm”. Subjects were presented with a grid of 12 letters, arranged into three rows of four. After a brief presentation, subjects were then played either a high, medium or low tone, cuing them which of the rows to report. Based on these partial report experiments, Sperling was able to show that the capacity of sensory memory was approximately 12 items, but that it degraded very quickly (within a few hundred milliseconds). Because this form of memory degrades so quickly, participants would see the display, but be unable to report all of the items (12 in the “whole report” procedure) before they decayed. This type of memory cannot be prolonged via rehearsal.”
In actuality, it appears that perceptions very soon become experience, and are not recallable as discrete impressions for more than half a second. Experience is a general idea of what happened. It is not made up of discrete impressions. This makes me question the LRH datum quoted above. I understand that this may not invalidate the overall Dianetic Theory. But the above LRH datum is questionable. I have not met anybody who could recall any and every perception received over a lifetime. Am I being overly critical when I make this observation?
Comments please.
.
Congrats! Glad to see you expanding your insights.
Mark, good to see you here.
.
Geir, condolences for your countrymen. I trust it didn’t come too “close to home” in any way, but even so…
Wow – in Norway, no less. That makes it seem even worse.
We are OK – and all our family and friends as far as we know.
I figured that, but glad to hear it. 🙂
I would like to address the issue of whether or not personal information is relevant in “evaluating” (that is what a person uses the Data Series for, isn’t it? Evaluating something?)
The explanations of “ad hominem” that I have read, say specifically that inquiring into or questioning a person about personal matters possibly relating to the issue being discussed, is not in itself “ad Hominem”. Insulting a person is not necessarily “ad hominem””, either.
So here’s a pithy page worth reading:
http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html
Following is an excerpt from it; the full page itself continues with many gradient examples from “not-adhom” to “full adhom”.
“THE AD HOMINEM FALLACY FALLACY
One of the most widely misused terms on the Net is “ad hominem”. It is most often introduced into a discussion by certain delicate types, delicate
of personality and mind, whenever their opponents resort to a bit of sarcasm. As soon as the suspicion of an insult appears, they summon the angels
of ad hominem to smite down their foes, before ascending to argument heaven in a blaze of sanctimonious glory. They may not have much up top, but
by God, they don’t need it when they’ve got ad hominem on their side. It’s the secret weapon that delivers them from any argument unscathed.
In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal abuse. Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a
speaker’s argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate
ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn’t there. It is not a logical
fallacy to attack someone; the fallacy comes from assuming that a personal attack is also necessarily an attack on that person’s arguments.
Therefore, if you can’t demonstrate that your opponent is trying to counter your argument by attacking you, you can’t demonstrate that he is
resorting to ad hominem. If your opponent’s sarcasm is not an attempt to counter your argument, but merely an attempt to insult you (or amuse the
bystanders), then it is not part of an ad hominem argument.
Actual instances of argumentum ad hominem are relatively rare. Ironically, the fallacy is most often committed by those who accuse their opponents
of ad hominem, since they try to dismiss the opposition not by engaging with their arguments, but by claiming that they resort to personal attacks.
Those who are quick to squeal “ad hominem” are often guilty of several other logical fallacies, including one of the worst of all: the fallacious
belief that introducing an impressive-sounding Latin term somehow gives one the decisive edge in an argument………..”
http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html
The main point is relevance. Dragging in any irrelevant points into the debate is… yeah, you guessed it; irrelevant.
Awesome! And precisely relevant!
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/06/26/significant-change/#comment-6158
Chris: ”You and Valkov are writing and writing and writing to a “100% Straw Man Machine” and that doesn’t look very fun to me. As Valkov recently told me, you get what you validate.”
This is a perfect example of being personal and judgmental that does not help anybody or any discussion.
.
Vinaire, the attempt on the part of several of us has been to do just what you say – help the discussion! Chris is actually referring to your POSTS – many of which don’t help discussion and which you should “look” at to see how straw man applies. Also see Valkov’s post with a quote on what ad hom is and what it isn’t. It could help you and us a lot.
Please give a specific example of how I am avoiding discussion. I just don’t see it. All I see is distraction to something personal.
.
(Sorry, this was mistakenly posted at the end of the thread but was meant to go here in reply to Vinaire)
I’ve already given several examples of how you are avoiding discussion, specifying the posts that you haven’t replied to except with an evasive answer, to which I TR 3’d but since then you haven’t replied at all! Those are two concrete ways you are avoiding discussion – evasion and overtly dropping the cycle.
Why don’t you want to confront the incomplete comm cycles? You can’t plead (truthfully) confusion because I’ve redirected you to them in reply to your posts that tried taking them off onto a new thread that didn’t show what had already been said. In any case, they’re not hard to find and if I can find them, a computer whiz like yourself surely can.
Please calm down, and give me the first issue that you have. Summarize it if you can. That will help. I have been doing my best to answer you.
.
What??? Are you trying to say I’m not CALM!!! 😀
Actually, Vinaire, the main “issue” that matters much to me is that we (you and I and all of us) do what you’ve already stated, “our best.” And I think we’ve all learned some things about that, from all this going “at it” lately. Maybe even had some sort of Significant Change (in which case we could even claim that we’ve stayed on topic – ha ha!).
But let me ask you which issue you would still like to resolve and I’ll do my best too. Or, if you’re sick of these old ones and you’d rather we move on, I’m sure any remaining “bones” we have to pick will re-surface soon enough. (And you know how like a dog with a bone I can be… ;-))
I don’t have any issue with you. I just have a comment to make.
I do know how like a dog with a bone you can be… so much so that if there is no bone, you’ll visualize one.
.
What, Vinaire, no “joke” in parentheses? Not even a smile face? And here I thought I had let you off the hook and we were going to ease up on the jabs and swipes. Well okay then, here’s my retort:
Maybe my visualization – maybe your blind spot?
That’ll teach you to throw me a bone, eh? Unless you care to state some specifics to that generality you threw out… 🙂
Why can’t a woman see a joke for itself?
Why can’t a woman be like man?
.
Of course I saw your joke. Didn’t you see mine?
Typical man. Venus and Mars all over again. 🙂
Nice find. Relevant.
1. On the person’s comment – right click their name.
2. The ensuing pull-down menu has “copy link address” as a choice.
3. Left click this.
4. Go to where you want to paste it as a reference and paste it.
I hope I duplicated your question.
Great, thanks.
BTW, on a few of your replies today it wasn’t clear who they were meant for as they weren’t placed under the relevant comment and neither were they linked. 😦
🙂
Chris, I tried it but no joy. On the date and time (but not the name) a right click gets a menu that pops up but there’s no “copy link address” option.
Marildi,
On my computer, which is running Vista, it is the last link on the bottom of the menu, and is called “copy link LOCATION”. So it may have a different name in your system….
Valkov, nothing like that either and nothing that looks similar. I have Windows XP but am not very computer literate at all. But I know people who are and maybe they know. Thanks for trying!
(red faced because I told you completely wrong)
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/06/26/significant-change/#comment-6200
1. NOT the person’s name – rightclick on the date in the header of the post.
2. The ensuing pull-down menu has “copy link address” as a choice — I am using Vista.
3. Left click “copy link address”
4. Now the reference is copied and held in memory for you to paste where you want as I did at the top of this reply.
5. If the pull down menu doesn’t look as I have said, you can also right-click on the date in the header of the post. From that pull-down menu choose “open link in new tab.”
6. Go to that newly opened tab and find the address that points directly to the post that you want to reference is in the “address window” at the top of the browser.
7. Cut or Copy the entire contents of the address bar window. Once again, you are holding the address in memory and can go and paste the referenced address where-ever you want.
Chris, you told me right, it’s just that I have Windows, not Vista. But I did get the right idea from what you said and figured you meant click on the date and then guessed that the “open link in new tab” should work fine. But I tested it out on another blog (this one takes so long every time you go in and out or do practically anything!) and on that one there weren’t comment #’s with acutal number figures (just “comment #”) and the tab itself only brought me back to the same blog page, not the specific post. (If you didn’t get all that – not to fear, it’s all good.)
Anyway, you had me totally on the right track and now I know how to do it. Here’s the link to one of my posts to you that quotes some parts of my substrates idea (but you still might want to use the Find-on-this-page function to look at the “substrates posts” of others too).
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/06/26/significant-change/#comment-6068
P.S. Btw, this is one of a few posts I wrote or replied to you recently that you never answered. 😦 But now I”ve forgotten even what they were so I guess it’s stale data anyway. 🙂 Just don’t do it again! Ha ha ha!
Thorough — as usual!
The “insanity defense” is an odd take on the reason for thus the responsibility for insane behavior.
I meant: The “insanity defense” is an odd take on the reason for thus the LACK of responsibility for insane behavior.
That’s what I understood 🙂
From the Tech Dictionary:
“Glee of insanity”: 1) A specialized case of irresponsibility. A thetan who cannot be killed and yet can be punished has only one answer to those
punishing him and that is to demonstrate to them that he is no longer responsible. He therefore states that he is INSANE and demonstrates that he
cannot possibly harm them as he lacks any further responsibility. This is the root of INSANITY. (Snc 8-8008)
Another Look at Scientology:
http://www.scnforum.org/index.php?t=msg&goto=18538&S=a399196627112889e5be836b1ace65e6#msg_18538
.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2011-07-24-norway-explosion_n.htm?csp=24&kjnd=YrewlVmAQCRXom0czy5eNESg%2FzhHumGF8As2vPybCNoG%2BKHl0CYqafKw5ycwA%2B5e-e274e9f1-b5e2-483f-b6c4-f0596d3e5eb8_YoqULhJvfsSzgI3GYO823t3dFsqjruJeloIcHqJzkMDUCUZrIDUj5BVjP%2FVzb2xi
Fascinating news story about the Norway terrorist attacker. He calls his attacks as “marketing” for a 1,500 page “manifesto” he has spent several years writing.
Breivik is thoroughly convinced that he is right. And there are going to be people who will support him. What does that tell you?
.
Breivik may in fact be right about many things. His ‘manifesto’ is possibly a well thought-out and well-researched document.
Yet what he DID is a horror of wrongness.
It is that which interests me – how could an apparently fairly able and intelligent man come to the conclusion that what he did would actually serve some useful purpose?
There are a many examples of this throughout the history. And many, many much smaller examples – like how come so many intelligent people follow a cult leader to their own detriment.
Such people identify self with a belief. And, of course, self is the core of everything else.
.
I think this is a complex question with no easy answers. One common denominator may be that the cult leader always does misrepresent what he is basically doing on the one hand, and also appeals to the ego on the other.
In the example of the CoS, there is a little more, because the pervasion of “cultishness” has been more gradual. What I see is the people who have been leaving are the older people who knew it as it was”back then”, in like the 1970s, and who now cannot escape facing the ways the CoS has been changed overall.
It is noteworthy that Flag recruits young people, who have no reason to believe the misrepresentation that is happening, and can easily be manipulated by appeals to their egos. They wouldn’t recognize “out-tech” because they have no knowledge of “in-tech”. If things don’t go well, they are made to feel it is their fault, that they didn’t perform correctly. They don’t realize that they were not only not taught to perform correctly, they were actually taught to do things wrong.
It’s scary to think that if you had come along 10 years later, it is possible you might today be one of those “zombie”-like individuated and out-of-valence OT VIIIs like John Allender, going on ‘missions’ to Texas to harrass Marty and his wife…..
Or maybe not 😉
Anyway – Breivik was influenced by cult leader of his own – someone in charge of The Knights Templar.
There are gradients.
Who is the cult leader influenced by?
Maybe God! 🙂
.
I have returned from my first trip for Scientology services outside the church and I have also made SIGNIFICANT change. More so than ever before. I realized that I had substituted some destructive valences for myself to deal with situations which I could not confront. It made others wrong and me SO right. I have banished these “superior” valences. People around me appear different because I am no longer playing the other side of the aberrated game, so they don’t have to either. I also found that I was punishing myself for something that I did (actually didn’t do). I did not even have to discover what the exact incident was as I was able to blow it by realizing the mechanism being used – another make-right of myself to feel so bad because “I care so much”. GAG! I am having so much more fun. And I have given myself permission to be great!
After looking at myself in this way, I had a thought about Ron and the church. It makes sense to me that at the point where Ron deviated from helping individuals and decided to “clear the planet” (or this sector) he took on a superior valence where “we are better than you.” Hence, we have wogs and DBs and the rest. Then the group (certainly the Sea Org, and to a lesser degree, all of Scientology), as well as many individuals in the group took on this valence and so we have all the arrogance and superiority things – I am better than you because I am in the Sea Org, I am better than you because I am Clear; I am better than you beacuse I am OT and you are only Clear; I am better than you because I gave more money. And when people give up their own cause point over the subject of Scientology and believe that if Ron said it, it has to be true, they have gone into a personal self-denial which is treasonous on the first dynamic. I believe that almost all Scientologists have done this to a greater or lesser degree and, for me, this completely explains how Scientology became a cult. How we let it become a cult.
+10
great win, simply fantastic to find self that is power.Thank you.
Wow, Grateful, this is a superb success story! A key part for me was where you said,
“People around me appear different because I am no longer playing the other side of the aberrated game, so they don’t have to either.” That gave me more “mass” on how much we influence each others’ universes and how so much comes down to what we ourselves are “putting out.” Lots to think about there – and “take home.”
And similar to Geir’s win you gave me more reality on why ser-fac type aberration LRH called the difference between Homo sapiens and Homo novis. There must be harmonics of this across the spectrum of case state and case gain. Thank you for sharing!
🙂
And I just remembered… then there’s the other flow – the self-abasing victim. “You are so great because you are (fill in the blank) and I am nothing. I feel so bad that I will empty my bank account for you, donate my firstborn son for a billion years, etc., etc. And when I become (fill in the blank) I will suddenly arrive and be great like you.
Yes, that one too.
Good post Grateful. I enjoyed reading your wins. What type of service were you doing?
Agree that violating one’s own integrity is a rocky shoal. It surely was for me!
I let go of the gains that I had made before coming to Scientology – at the insistence of the Ethics Officer – in favor of the gains I was being promised within Scientology.
Today – outside the Church – I feel that I have regained a degree of integrity that I had when I came into Scientology, plus the experience and growth of being in Scientology, plus the increased integrity since being out of Scientology… “it’s all good” when we mean for it to turn-out that way.
We really are going to be alright as this era of Scientology is sorting itself out nicely for me. It is the reformation – both of ourselves and of Scientology!
Hi Chris,
Thanks. I did a little bit of auditing/life repair and then I did a 1D ethics and integrity program. I had a personal situation, a viewpoint, that had bothered me for a long time. I went to Flag three years ago in the hopes of handling it and that is when I saw what Scientology had become.
I agree with you. It is all good. My experiences in the church have helped me grow strong and wise.
I thought I’d add my voice to the discussion and offer some of my own discoveries along the way. I hope you will not mind that it is fairly long – I can’t find a way to cut it down much and still be coherent.
But first, thanks Geir and Vin for welcoming me back! You have my love and are often in my thoughts, especially as I explore my worlds of possibility. I treasure my many discussions with you. And Valkov – hello! Thank yous to every here. I surely appreciate your insights!
I have been operating from a point of view that has been very insightful for me. And that is that the entire universe is a process, not a finished object. Pretty dry, let me elaborate.
As I see it, the idea that the universe is this separate, self-contained, self-perpetuating object (with a googleplex googleplex squared number of moving parts/particles, etc.) that is already created is a perfectly good reality.
My human body is one such world, living in just such a world, and it filters and focuses on a very narrow field of perception. And it is very, very real. Relying only on that narrow field of perception/awareness, I find myself in a clockwork universe so intricate as to be overwhelming. Even so, it is still real, real to me that is and so I can have this adventure of wending my way through a garden of life, with lots of surprises.
But this is not all there is for me. As I extend my field of awareness and perception and allow that that isn’t all there is, I find that there is so much more. There is experience that doesn’t filter at all well through my human existence. It is additional and “non-human” in the sense that it falls outside the range of human experience/filters.
In lock step with the filtered existence of the body, relying only on that set of perceptions and responses and focus, its sphere of influence, cause and effect, the world as we agree/share is the only reality possible. My journey began with realizing that there is more possible, a greater/different level/state of experience, a different range/quality of perceptions, a pervading sense of participation, a knowing “Way” of “operating”, a way to “create” “worlds”, emotions and awarenesses that are not “earth or body bound,” and with that my entire operating basis changed and changes and it is no longer possible to utilize the body and its reality to confirm what is or is not. And this is how I have come to experience the state I call “operating” thetan. And I am such a baby, timid and not very confident as I step my toe into waters I only imagined!!
And what of this “me,” this baby “me,” this “me” labeled “thetan?” What currently makes sense to “me” is that While it is true that Buddha said there was no immortality of “self,” it is true in the sense that self is a construct existing/morphing/processing/evolving/changing for the purposes of participation in a particular reality. But as I pick “my” way among experiences “I” find a thread of continuity of awareness that I find / hope / believe to be unique, not confined to a particular body of existence, and this “I” experience as a thread that has expanded to awareness and continuity as the woof and warp, and the loom itself, and the “hands” that work the loom and the very space in which the loom takes form. I found that this has been identified in Buddhism as the “clear light continuum” or “clear light body” of the Buddha state and it is said to be imperishable, for it is the light of all life and creation, the source and wellspring of a googleplex of worlds. And as I am the woof and warp and the hands and the loom my concept of “self” has expanded well beyond the simple, yet complex filters of my wonderful human body, who is as much a participant as I am, just operating in a particular way. As I explore, and extend, and allow this freedom of existence, I find the awareness of continuity encompasses the threads, the loom, the hands, the full range of “expression” and of “being.” And it is amazingly joyful. Amazingly freeing. Amazingly real. Simply amazing. This is a creative way and I believe we are creators, all of us. ALL, right down to that single celled amoeba, that vast sea of zero point energy, that void of no-creation, the underlying canvas.
But I digress, as I currently “see” it, the task is to BE the full range of the 8 dynamics. Fully, freely, completely cognizant, utterly present, creator of worlds, and the worlds themselves, not just a single focal point, filtering out 99.9999999999999999% of all that is, could be and will be, able to experience only that limited awareness and understanding. Willingly, knowingly and with all the range of reality of all creation and no-creation. Operating. Thetan.
Am I right? I don’t know. It doesn’t really matter for what is real is what is real and in the end that’s what is real for me at this juncture. Every bit as real as the beautiful sunny morning and my face deriving a truly sensual pleasure from the warm caress of the sun. Simultaneously real. And that I love. And so I love. And this is my joy these days.
Is this the be all, end all? I hope not. I am having TOO MUCH FUN!!!!!
FUN… 😀
Maria,
Nicely said!!
Thanks for all you wrote – and NO, it wasn’t too lengthy at all.
Now, who’s making the popcorn?? 🙂
Love to have you here Maria. I seem to understand what you have written. I am just going to write some of the thoughts that appeared to me while reading your post.
(1) I am not separate from this universe. I am integrated into it.
(2) As part of this universe I am a process too.
(3) All these googleplex googleplex squared number of moving parts/particles are just me extrapolated.
(4) I am intimately integrated with this body.
(5) Discovering this universe is discovering myself.
(6) You describe a baby OT really well.
(7) Self is the reality, but when it has shrunk into itself it sees the reality separate from it and around it.
(8) …
.
Good post, Vinare. Very well said. And I don’t think I can disagree with any part of it (how about that!) 🙂
Obviously, there is something wrong here!
.
I know. I’ll try and watch it.
Hi Vin,
As always, I am thrilled when something I offer inspires. Thank you for that! I don’t think I ever told you that I went and read your entire blog on KHTK. Admirable work, and I am delighted that you see it a process rather than absolute. For me absolute is on my knees, stunned by the sudden brilliance that flashes across my universe. And I cry, and I laugh, and I dance the earth and sing the heavens and in the utter “silence” I find myself and I find all. And I just keep rolling forward, not resisting, eager to see what next unfolds in this amazing journey!
Maria
I love you, Maria.
.
Maria, the concepts in your post and the beautiful writing itself are truly exalting. No exaggeration. And it’s amazing how brilliantly you wove together each of the various views of the “elephant” that we’ve all been describing to one another. (You duplicated this blog thread very well, I would say.)
For me, here’s the heart of your post and worth repeating:
“But as I pick “my” way among experiences “I” find a thread of continuity of awareness that I find / hope / believe to be unique, not confined to a particular body of existence, and this “I” experience as a thread that has expanded to awareness and continuity as the woof and warp, and the loom itself, and the “hands” that work the loom and the very space in which the loom takes form…creator of worlds, and the worlds themselves.”
And the post as a whole encompasses, I do believe, everybody’s views from Elizabeth’s to Vinaire’s – possibly the two ends of the spectrum here (and I appreciate and love them both :-)).
But the “construct” I quoted above is one I myself have been reaching and straining toward, and it gave my heart a leap to read it expressed so eloquently. I think it’s true that “What you see, you can be,” and you sure painted an exquisite picture. Thank you, thank you!
Hi Miraldi,
I am so happy to hear your thougnts on my post. I have found your posts to be so evocative and so very insightful as I read through this incredible collection of blog comments.
What I wrote is straight from the heart, and I have come to “feel” all heart and more so with each passing day. As I learn more of who I really am and walk forward into this “ocean” of life, it is so awesome to have a heartfelt response and recognition from someone as compassionate and creative as you so clearly are. It has given my heart a leap to hear your words in return.
Thank you too!
Maria
Wow, Maria, after savoring your words for a while first (smiling), I thought I’d see if I can express how well I received them.
First let me say, I’ve been trying lately to get a better grasp on the exact and full meaning of “grant beingness” – and then you appear on the scene and demonstrate it so very well. In actual fact, I already had seen glimpses of truth in that magic called granting beingness – of any kind, mind you, good, bad or indifferent – and I’ve observed here and there what can happen by so doing. It’s very much like a good fairy (or a bad one) has touched someone with a magic wand and they “become.” They become what has been “seen” in them. (Wow, just think of it, people!)
My personal favorite instance, right now 😉 is the example of how your words have somehow “put me there” and made me see that I am able to be everything you say. Oh my god. (Big smile here.)
Maybe this phenomenon is even a parallel of “What you can see, you can be” – the counterpart being, “What you can see in another, that other can be.” And that is an amazing thought. When done by a “good fairy” it’s probably the highest harmonic there is of granting beingness. Such power for good! Not to mention – for shaping the world to our own vision.
Looking at it from that broader angle, ability to grant beingness is a perfect example of the ability to “put something there that then manifests in the physical universe” or, simply put – “make a postulate.” In the end, that seems to be the totality of existence and beingness – postulates. And with all this in mind, it’s no wonder you’re having so much fun!
Great having this “heart” to “heart” with you. 🙂
I’ve already given several examples of how you are avoiding discussion, specifying the posts that you haven’t replied to except with an evasive answer, to which I TR 3’d but since then you haven’t replied at all! Those are two concrete ways you are avoiding discussion – evasion and overtly dropping the cycle.
Why don’t you want to confront the incomplete comm cycles? You can’t plead (truthfully) confusion because I’ve redirected you to them in reply to your posts that tried taking them off onto a new thread that didn’t show what had already been said. In any case, they’re not hard to find and if I can find them, a computer whiz like yourself surely can.
P.S. Vinaire, this was in reply to your post in a different place, and I re-posted it there. Please reply on that thread. and disregard this.
On Significant Change:
Elizabeth: Sounds good, . . . How are you doing? have you come back, You have had a huge cog. The energy you must have blown was incredible. tell me how you feel? I want to know. One do not see such a cognition too often.
Chris: I’m doing good. As you say – and in my own word: “whiplash” can occur when blowing mass and going in and out of the body. In Scientology, this is addressed as “out-int” or the reaction to what you described as going in and out. I have had processing for this a few times it is called “the end of endless interiorization rundown.” Because of this and my familiarity with it – I am trying to say this does not restimulate me so much anymore and I feel comfortable with the phenomena.
Through your example and encouragement, you have shown me and I have come to expect my questions about life and livingness to be answered. Now when I ask myself questions and I get answers, I am not surprised. It is so very causative. To “Walk the Walk of the Solo Auditor” is the “Warrior’s Way.” I have thought that I did not live my life in very much “fear.” However, solo auditing has shown me that I have indeed lived in fear of many types and from many things. The Reactive Mind is the source of fear. Through solo auditing, I am confronting these fears and they are diminishing.
I have a new question based on my latest cognition. I know and can observe that all around me are “false conclusions” based on “false data.” Do you have any experience with a “false cognition.” I do have some feelings about this and have an idea what your answer will be, however, I am “afraid” of sticking my neck out and saying something idiotic. hahaha!
And while I am working my ass off trying to have a vacation here in Greece, you guys manage to rack up another 1000 comments to a blog post. You’re amazing. I love you all.
May this be the new generation of Scientology inspired thinkers?
“Working your ass off”???
Man, I’d love to have your job 🙂
Next time; Come with us on the boat 🙂
The l,000 comments goes mainly to your credit, as we all know. You hold the reins to this sprawling platform of free expression and you’re the thetan over it. Very well done again!
Wonderful question you ask – “May this be the new generation of Scientology inspired thinkers?” Just to be sure I understood your meaning, would it also be correct to use a hyphen in “Scientology-inspired”? If so, then the question itself is inspiring. 🙂
“The new generation of Scientology-inspired thinkers” A great epithet! I accept on behalf of everybody. (Well, maybe not quite everybody. 😉 )
“If so, then the question itself is inspiring” should read –
“If so and I got it right, then the question itself is inspiring.”
I can’t believe there are are 1000 posts on this blog.
On the blog there is more than 6000. On this post alone there is more than 1000 🙂
Thats what I meant. LOL 🙂
PS- On 7. 🙂
Are we ready to rock n roll or what?
Congratulations!
And yes; We will rock 😀
The cognitions are like pearls.
Each one is born out of pain and suffering.
Out of mystery, secrets, and the great depth of 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!!!
Their value buys your freedom out of the MEST Universe.
Solo Auditors, and all who walks the Path of Light,
You all have my postulate, my Best
Endless String of Pearls of great Beauty.”
PS: you know the answer to your question.
Elizabeth Hamre
endleasstringofpearls@gmail.com
hahaha! Yes, you are right again!
Then the Cognition, when it is a cognition, is not false because it has come as the result of the blowing of considerations which obscured the truth.
A cognition comes from recognizing what is there without any additives.
Pain and suffering comes to the degree one bypasses the unstacking of the mind.
.
thank you Elizabeth!
I love your garden of life! thank you for creating with such energy, such fierce passion, such beauty. I too am growing my garden, full of light and life. You have been a tremendous inspiration to me as I once again take up my paints and brushes and my dreams and love. Yes, cognitions are like pearls, and for me, I would add that they are pearls of truth and life, released energy, released creativity, and the freedom to be and be and be…
Maria
The cognitions are like pearls.
Each one is born out of pain and suffering.
Out of mystMaria, thank You.
I do have a garden in reality, it is a beautiful place. When I lived in the State and had a rose garden with 300 roses and everything else, other flowers I could plant. I never gardened before or planned how it should look like the lay out of the beds etc. But it become on award winning garden and I was awarded title, top ten amateur gardener in Washington State. Now for the person who just went for it, that was something. I have known that I simply recalled how too.
I become a passionate gardener so I have decided to look and have a session on such a passion. A pleasure moment. Well, I did not like what I found in session connected to gardening.
I have found on implant in which I was to do just that, Garden. The reason the cognition was, I was given that implant that passion, because being occupied with gardening than all my power, self was there in the garden and I would not be someplace else. In different place was my power, self-held importance. With gardening I was eliminated: out of the picture.
You see Marie, prisons are not necessarily behind bars, It can be a beautiful garden too.
Now I tend the garden not because I must do but because I truly understand its energy flows the beauty of each flower, to look as each bud as it’s opens that is magic. This planet if made out of magic, but the purest form it has retained is in nature. Being here on this planet I identified my energy flows as same as natures.
I am grateful knowing, being here I help.
As my other friend said, “I dare to look now differently at this Universe because you have opened the door and now I too can see and dream and believe.”
endlesstringofpearls@gmail.com
ery, secrets, and the great depth of 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!!!
Their value buys your freedom out of the MEST Universe.
Solo Auditors, and all who walks the Path of Light,
You all have my postulate, my Best
Endless String of Pearls of great Beauty.”
PS: you know the answer to your question.
Elizabeth Hamre
endleasstringofpearls@gmail.com
Maria, My comment to you went into the Pearl posting. You can email me any time. You communication is most welcome. E
Marildi:“(1) I agree! But also, don’t forget what actually keeps one “living in the past” – an incomplete comm cycle that “floats” in present time (and maybe even “forever,” if not answered one way or another). (Dn 55)”
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/06/26/significant-change/#comment-6297
I am going to take your first point only in this post because a correct understanding of it may sort out the next 2 points.
What you wrote does not make complete sense to me. Suppose my grandmother died without answering my last question to her, am I doomed to live with a floating comm cycle for ever? Now combine this with the LRH datum that the answer to a question is the qustion itself.
In short, I don’t think one is a victim to a floating comm cycle if the other person does not answer the question. It is up to the person whether he wants to keep that comm cycle floating or not.
.
And again I agree, Vinaire. That’s why I said, “if not answered [or handled] one way or another.” However, in a discussion it does have that “floating” effect, at least temporarily. It’s simply not very satisfying not to get answers to sincere and relevant questions and, for that matter, the “discussion” to that degree is effectively curtailed. THAT’s the problem.
But before we veer off discussing this particular point and neglect completing the comm cycle, I’ll qualify what I said and say that for ME (and apparently for others posting here) this is a necessary rule of the game that I would like to have an agreement about from you.
If you do agree to such, can we please move on to the other points? But respond right on that thread, not here, so that the whole train of thought is there and neither of us gets confused.
Geir something has happened the copies got mixed up and while posting cant see the writting.
I don’t know…
Maria, My comment to you went into the Pearl posting. You can email meI know what has happened, I must have despaired, my writing become invisible, I go look in the mirror and see, if I don’t see an image of the old lady bit than I am gone. But I promise I will haunt your blog time to time. any time. You communication is most welcome. E
With reference to Significant Change and posts about terrorism and other negative stuff…
There seems to be a scale or a beam which must tilt in my universe and until it does, I only love the “good stuff.” The positive thinkers want to see the “good in everything.” The curmudgeons say “bah!”
After they “tilt” they become more pan-determined and love both the good and the bad stuff – embrace everything and stop trying to bend things to match their opinion and make them altered – power of positive thinking people – I find that seductive but not so much as I used to.
Better to embrace the searing center of the sun as it is than to say “well, that sun, it’s not so bad!”
Regarding basic OT ability:
I’ve done a bit of looking into my own mind and why I think the way I do. it’s very interesting. I have even patted myself on the back a couple times for being oh so very smart . . .
But this week, I would like to make a million dollars in the stock market. No shortage of stock in the stock market. No shortage of trading. No shortage of money flowing. No shortage of movement of prices and trends. And the stock market and commodities markets are absolutely huge as compared with the little tiny life that I’ve carved out. Buying and selling in the stock market takes only what is offered and sells only what someone desires to purchase. For the individual, the activity is quite clean and I don’t see anything unethical about it.
So with all this motion of all this mass, out of all these billions of billions of dollars of money that daily ebb to and fro – why, I ask myself, can’t I see and predict what is happening even a few minutes into the future?
I know what has happened, I must have despaired, my writing become invisible, I go look in the mirror and see, if I don’t see an image of the old lady bit than I am gone. But I promise I will haunt your blog time to time.
Geir, in case you’re taking any kind of “poll” on this new black background for your blog, my vote is a thumbs down. 😦 Sorry, but too hard to read. And doesn’t have that light, bright, cheery look like you had – and which befits you. 🙂
Maybe there’s some practical reason for it I wouldn’t know?
It’s a significant change 😉
Ok, I will change it.
Ha! Good one.
And thanks, I brightened up along with the page.
I hope you decide to keep it light for future blog posts too. You just don’t have that “man in black” image – you’re the Norwegian on the white horse, championing freedom of information. 🙂
What?? I’m not a Man in Black. Darn. My image is ruined 😦
Ok, I guess I will have to settle with the White Horse image, then.
Ha ha! I should have known, men seem to love that image of black. And I’m sure you carry it off as well as the next guy, so why not – okay, you can have both images, just stick with the White Horse on your blog pages. 🙂
Ok, cool enough.
That could be simply an experimentation. That is what artists and scientists like to do.
.
Vinaire, I guess I misspoke a bit. It’s readable enough, at least on one portion of the screen. Just kind of hard on the eyes. But mainly, artistically speaking now, doesn’t quite evoke the right appeal.
Anyway, experiment over. Thanks to nice Geir. You, on the other hand, should be glad you were at least smart enough to put in a wink this time. [rrrrrfff!!]
Marildi, you need a different monitor, or a different computer, or, maybe, a different brain. 😉
.
rrrrffff!!!
Marildi go to the head of the class. You get on apple from the teacher. Very-very good for pointing out that my knowledge which I gained through solo auditing is aligned with LRH’s writing.
As he said someplace the basic cognition are the same for everybody who reaches a certain level. Am I correct on that? Yes?
As I have demonstrated that is the fact by posting my cognitions here and in my Blog also.
NOW I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT A FEW THINGS: it is easy to understand why LRH had the same knowledge as I have now. This knowledge we share pertaining only the believes on spiritual matters. That is all. Our experiences in earlier lives have given us different reality, viewpoints on everything else. But the basic knowledge was not altered by different experiences.
The knowledge is not originates from here, on the contrarily it sort of dyeing here. That knowledge about the so called spirituality is the way of life in other places outside of Earth.
Here it is forgotten buried under immense different thoughts , agreements. Now because of elimination of the confused thought, believes one can regain that knowledge.
News Flash if you don’t know this already.
WE ALL HAVE THAT KNOWLEDGE IT WAS NOT PRIVLIDGED IMFORMATION WE ALL KNOW THE SAME, IT’s ONLY NEED TO BE RE-DESCOVERED THROUGH SESSIONS, THE COGNITIONS WILL UN-EARTH THE SAME KNOWLEDGE. WE ALL HAVE IT.
That is the reason we are not better or worse than our neighbor, that is the reason we walk side by side, that is the reason we should not judge, evaluate or invalidate others or admire that they are better know more. We are equal were it comes to know and understand the MEST Universe.
Some of us believes in this and works on rediscovering self and while doing that one educates the Free Soul too.
We are powerful, incredible beings, who have the opportunity because of the TECH to achieve and understand how incredible self is. To finally understand the depth of our knowledge and the power because of that each of us are truly superior in comparison of what we were before. Before the TECH, we only could DO, after the TECH. and audition we can do with knowledge, educated OT’s we become, now that is the power. Good day in Paradise. I will post this in Geirs Blog too.
Elizabeth
endlesstringofpearls@gmail.com
Thanks, apple humbly accepted. And well said on the above. I’m tracking with you all lthe way. 🙂
The origin of power.
This cognition has come about because writing to Peter who is also on Solo Auditor. Few days back I had a realization that there is a concept “old energy”. We both have had sessions running “old energy” different ways. Example: how old energy affects one’s body etc. He informed me he had very good wins running this item but wanted to know if I still had any more different viewpoints on the matter.
As I was writing new a list for him I had the cognition which once more realigned how I see, perceive my surrounding the Universe and our abilities to create is do and have be.
Before I have written in different postings: once more the cognition has realigned my universe.
Now I write, the cognition brings new reality how I perceive the Universe. How I perceive is from on outside, the view=reality=experience=thought=consideration itself is NOT I AM, but only a view which I perceive. The view points are not my anchor points.
[Part of the email I have written] You can see if as an old powerful being what you could do accomplish or not old energy can hold things in place old energy have great value, old energy is like a wall keep one safe or keep others out, keep one separate.
Old energy has enough power to destroy others, old energy is like a bubble can surround a being and the being can hide inside, becoming invisible, just had a COG: we are mocked up from old energy Our first energy we experienced, moved into in order to experience, FANTASTIC!!!! that is the reason one know how powerful one is because the item the creation we experience in the past [[ I have wondered about how do we know what is our power where our power is originated from]] a birth of a huge star when used as an anchor point we are that power and later on we can use the same power to create= destroy. This power is or course is MEST already has quality and quantity. Theta is different theta can as-is the ‘Old Power”.
This experience of course when we experience the death of the star, we too can experience that nonexistence, that nothingness, that lack of energy, that great emptiness of space.
And the greatest suppressive act we commit is against self by going into agreement when the body no longer function, since there is no energy we can experience, we no longer exists and these dear friends who morn= agree too that you no longer are.
So here comes the acknowledgement the need for one and what it is good for. To be acknowledged that we exist regardless we feel like nothing, and no one.
By experiencing such we know what is feeling the power or being that nothing no one.
But we are still holding those mock-ups [ old power] in our space therefore the power still exists.
As later on when the bodies were created and smaller objects, we experienced of course these smaller objects and used them as anchor points with that naturally we too felt smaller since the objects were smaller had less volume=size: Hold less power, therefore the being too believes he has less power.
Now since this planet is small and there are only small creations: small bodies, houses, rooms, shoes, small computer face, tiny telephones and all these item around us has expiring date, exists only in small amount of time [calendar: years, days, hours, minutes, ]we too experience only the small-ness and the vulnerability the time existence.
Since humans associate self with their creations, the creations have indeed become small on this Earth.
We Theta, we lost our greatness out grandeur, our creative ability and we have become small as our daily creation. Like making and drinking a cup of coffee, tossing a salad, having a shower.
We live in small crowded world our creations our experiences have become small.
”We can create within in our walls of agreement, nothing more.”
But the technology the auditing questions do work by having sessions we can eliminate the small, the puny and only to dream and experience of small, to create only small, be only small.
Once more we can regain our creative ability and using that ability we can create a greater game and once more we can be Giants, Titans of the Universe.
The Universe holds only the magic which self can create like a magical moment in my lost blog entry where the laughter echoed among the stars.