Significant change

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.

1,060 thoughts on “Significant change

    1. 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.

  1. 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

  2. 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.

    1. 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.

        1. 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.

          1. 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.

          2. 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.”


          3. 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.

          4. 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.”

          5. 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.


          6. 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. 🙂

          7. P.S. She herself has said that she still has things to learn in the MEST universe, and of course is still auditing too.

          8. Vinaire: “I hope she is learning from this exchange.”

            Not just trying to be “tit for tat” but I hope you have too.

  3. Biggest congratulations and compliments to you! Do you have any immediate plans for your new “self”?

  4. 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.”


      1. 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.


        1. I would say that assumption of self will bring about a disturbance in the basic equilibrium, especially when that self persists.

    1. 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.

      1. 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.


        1. 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

    2. 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.

        1. 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….

          1. 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.”


        2. 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. 🙂

          1. 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?

  5. 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?

  6. It’s encouraging to hear this.

    Please share more as you continue to have cognitions.

    Thanks Geir,

  7. Excellent! It’s like when I came to Ron’s Org for my first service. The change for better was just unbelievable.

  8. 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”.

  9. (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.


    1. 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).

    2. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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.

    1. 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.

    2. 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. 🙂

      1. 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…

      2. 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.

        1. 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?

          1. 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.

          2. 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).

          3. 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! 🙂

          4. 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? :-))

          5. 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.”

          6. 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.

          7. 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. 🙂

          8. 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.


        2. 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.


          1. 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.

          2. 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.


          3. 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.

          4. 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?


          5. 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.”

        1. 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?

          1. 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).


          2. 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?

          3. 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.


          4. 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.

          5. What has that to do with anything? If you have a question on the datum I have put forth then let’s discuss it.


          6. 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…

          7. 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.


        2. “Genetic programming”? Are we now revealed as a biological determinist?

          Are we all victims of our genetics?

        3. 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`


            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.

    3. 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?

      1. “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.

    4. 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.


        1. Of course! 🙂

          Are you pretending to be something else?

          Are body and spirit two different systems? Take a good look.


          1. 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??

      1. I’m wondering what is that thing that looked at your body/mind/genetic programming to come to this conclusion?


    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.


      1. 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.


  13. 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


    Self is very important. It is extremely painful to let it go. One must protect self at any cost.


    1. 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.

      1. 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.


        1. 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?

            1. Sure – but the inconsistency is in people’s behavior, not in Hubbard’s description of how people behave.

        2. 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?

          1. 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.


  14. 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.


    1. 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”.


  15. 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.




  16. 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… 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!

    1. 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?


      1. 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.


        1. 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.


          1. 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. 🙂

          2. 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.


          3. 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:


            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.


            The very definition and concept of what is an overt act differs in the two types of cultures.

          4. 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.


          5. “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.

  17. 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.

    1. 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.


      1. 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.

        1. 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.


          1. 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.


        2. How is that an exception? The overt was committed by your buddy and not by you. He is withholding it to save his ass.


      2. 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!

    2. 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


      1. 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.

      2. 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.

          1. 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. 🙂

            1. 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.

    3. 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.


      1. 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.

      2. 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…

          1. 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 😀

            1. I asked because you seemed to invalidate training. Thanks for sharing your background.

        1. 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.


      3. I’d be curious to know what you consider that helpful ‘stuff’ LRH came up with?

        1. 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.


          1. Hmm … Marketing, organizing data & motivation …. nothing in the technology, I guess.

            Too bad.

          2. What are these pieces of technology that you find helpful?

            Which ones?

            How did they help you?

          3. 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.


  18. 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.

    1. 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!

    2. “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”.

      The best basic purpose one could ever have, a completely free one!


    3. 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? 🙂

    4. 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.

      1. 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,


        To tell you to sing

        is silly,

        you have never stopped


        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.

        1. 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.

          1. 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.


        2. 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.

    5. 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.

      1. 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.

    6. 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!


  19. 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.


  20. 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.

      1. Geir, great win! Are you doing L10, thought that came before L12?

        And how does one go about getting auditing from Pierre?

    1. 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.

  21. Marildi said at

    “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..


    1. Okay, fair enough. At least we have in that “leeway” a Cause point.

      We have a meeting of minds here… 😀

  22. Valkov said at

    “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.


    1. 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?

      1. 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.


      2. 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


          1. 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.

          2. 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. 😉

    2. 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.

    3. Also, ‘regurgitating’ assumes I have not digested it, understood it, duplicated it.

      That could be a false assumption, ya know?

      1. Sure Vin. Take another good ‘look’ then. Where was I born? What is my mother’s name?


  23. 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.

    1. 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.

      “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.”

      1. 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.”

    2. 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 !

        1. Spoken like a true scientist (sigh). Nevertheless, I heartily say – go forth! 🙂

  24. 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.



    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.


    1. 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.

      1. 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.


        1. 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. 😉

    2. 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

        1. 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.


          1. 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.

          2. 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.


          3. 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

          4. 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.


    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.


    1. “….sacrificed themselves in providing insights for others.”

      That seems pretty un-selfish, doesn’t it?

    2. 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.

  27. 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.

  28. Valkov said at


    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.


    1. 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….

  29. Wins are probably the biggest stop to one’s spiritual progress if one gets stuck in a win, or gets addicted to wins.



    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.


    1. 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!

      1. 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.


  31. 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.

    1. “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!

      1. 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?

        1. Tell us more about your “radical change!” You’ve stumbled into a pretty good place – lots of soul searchers here! hahaha


    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.


      1. 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.


        1. Is the consideration of Static finite, and does that consideration make Static finite?

          1. I’m probably not following you, but tell me this – what does the consideration of zero do to zero?



            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.

          3. 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!

          4. 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:

          5. 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?

          6. 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…

    1. 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.

      1. 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).


            1. 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?

        1. 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.

          1. 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.


          2. 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…. ? 🙂


          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.

          1. Why should one look ‘thetan’ as ‘Static’ and ‘Static’ as ‘thetan’? That would be enough to introduce a lot of confusion.


          2. 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.

  33. 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.


  34. 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.

      1. “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.

        1. 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.

          1. 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.

          2. 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.

          3. Oops, forgot to put what you said in quotes (there at the beginning of my last comment).

          4. 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 😉 ).

            1. 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)

          5. 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!)

            1. 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.

          6. 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.


            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…..:-)

            1. 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.”

          7. 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.

          8. 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. 🙂

            1. Good clarification of points.

              Also, “MEST” is created by “Theta” just as much as any “theta universe”.

          9. 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.

          10. 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?

            1. 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.

          11. “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”?

            1. 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.

          12. 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)
            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.

          13. 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!

          14. 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…

            1. 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).

          15. 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.

          16. 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! 🙂

          17. Aw, ya lost me again. (Don’t shoot yourself.) Are you alluding to the clock tower game?

          18. 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.” 🙂

          19. 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. 🙂

            1. One time down the road, we should get together over a coffee and just string it out.

              I’m in.

          20. 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 🙂

          21. 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… 🙂


            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.

          23. 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.

          24. 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!


            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…


            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! 🙂

            1. You seem to hold te view that a MEST object actually exists and is shared among many. Am I right?

          26. 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…

          27. OK here is the beginning of this string, for future reference….

            And here is Geir’s post that I am replying to….

            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?

            1. 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?


            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?)

            1. 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.

          29. 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.


          30. 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?

            1. You seem to believe in a RWOT (Real World Out There). I don’t. I will blog on this later.

          31. 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.

          32. 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.



            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.

          34. 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.

  35. 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.”

    1. 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).

      1. 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.

    2. 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. 🙂

      1. 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. 🙂

      2. 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.

        1. 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. 🙂

  36. 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:

    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.

    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.

    1. OOOPs I meant the philosophers who arrive here about 2,500 years ago, not 2,500 BC.

      1. 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.

        1. “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. 🙂

      1. 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.

  37. and so to exist in the physical universe one must be both a congenital and pathological liar.

      1. .
        “”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

        1. 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.

          1. “”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”.

          2. Elizabeth, this was a great post. I really got it, I really did. You are for real in my book. 🙂 🙂 🙂

        2. 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.


  38. 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.

    1. 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! 🙂

  39. 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.

  40. 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.

    1. 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!

  41. 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).


    1. 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.

      1. 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?


        1. 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.

      2. 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.


  42. I wont be writing comments here in the future. If any one has question please ask in my blog. thank you.

    1. You don’t have to explain or defend yourself if you are so sure of yourself. Let others find it out for themselves.


        1. 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.


          1. 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.”

            1. 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.

          2. 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.


          3. 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.

            1. I asked what I asked because I didn’t understand. If that is all it takes, she will have a bumpy road ahead.

          4. 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.

          5. 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…

          6. 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.


        2. 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.

          1. 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. 😉

          2. 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.

          3. 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.

    1. 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!

      1. 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?


  43. 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.


    1. 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.

      1. 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.


        1. 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’ ?

          1. Geir is probably readying the popcorn for this replay. 😀 (Sorry Vin, couldn’t resist.)

          2. Chris, I stole that hilarious popcorn line from Geir. He used it a couple of earlier-similar threads back. 😉

          3. 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?

        2. 😀

          Maybe we won’t need as big a bowl this time. Others before him have more or less forged the way for Dennis.

          1. 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 🙂

    2. 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.

      1. 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)

  44. 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.



    1. 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.

  45. 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.


  46. I am looking at my concepts of an expanding universe and a condensing mind – can’t reconcile these.

    1. I think that universe is a part of the mind. It is the sum total of

      Sensory input


  47. 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!

    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… 😀

    1. 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…

    2. 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.


      1. Wow, what do you “print”?

        And did that contraption inpsire some of your ideas about the nature of existence? (Only half kidding. 🙂 )

        1. 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.


    3. 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 🙂

      1. 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). 🙂

          1. 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. 🙂

          2. 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.

          3. 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.

          4. 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.


          5. 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 ;-)).

    4. 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.
      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…

      1. 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.

          1. 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!

          2. 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. 😀

    5. 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)

      1. 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.

        1. 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.

          1. 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.

          2. 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?

    6. 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?

      1. 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!)

  48. 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…”

      1. It seems that such recalls are fantasies designed to express certain opinions. The element of rationality is twisted here.


          1. 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.

          2. 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 🙂

          3. 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.


        1. “…I shall do my best to locate my filters and as-is them.”

          Good post, Vinaire. What it’s all about.

  49. 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.


    1. 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.


      1. 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.

  50. 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.


    1. 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”?

        1. I think your mixing up “re-invented” definition with coming up with a different construct. You must have an MU on “re-invented definition.”

      1. 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.




        1. 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.

          1. 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.


            1. I think Buddhism and Scientology both are lacking in depth.

              And so I keep looking rather than defend any one of them.

          2. 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?

            1. 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.

          3. 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?

          4. 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?

          5. 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.

          6. 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….. 🙂

        2. 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?

          1. 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.

          2. 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.


          3. 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.

          4. 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.


            “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!

          6. 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.

            1. 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.

        3. 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.

  51. 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.


    1. Geir posted:

      And Vinnie posted:

      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.

      1. 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.

        1. 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.

          1. 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.

          2. 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?

            1. 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.

          3. 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:


            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.

            1. 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).

          4. 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?

            1. 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.

          5. 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.

            1. 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.

          6. 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.


            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.

      2. 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.



    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.


    1. 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?

      1. 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.


        1. 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….

          1. 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.


          2. Now, THAT is granting beingness. I’m just not sure it works in comm cycles, but let’s see.

          3. 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.)

          4. Samsara = the apparency of existence. Itsa. How it seems to you now. It is ever changing.

          5. 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.

          6. 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…

          7. 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.


  53. 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.


    1. 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!

    2. 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.



    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.


    1. 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.

      1. 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.

        1. 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.


          1. 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.

          2. 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.


      2. 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. 🙂

          1. 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.

          2. 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.


          3. Well as long as everyone is being just, there is no problem, right?

            Word Origin & History

            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.

          4. 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.

        1. ” 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.

          1. 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.

      3. 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.

    2. 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. 🙂

    3. 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.


    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.


    1. 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.

  56. 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. 🙂


    1. 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.



    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.


  58. 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.


    1. 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.

    2. 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…….

      1. 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.