a Theory of Everything & the Synchronization Problem

If there is no Real World Out There, and all of the perceived existence is created by each viewpoint simply by the act of observation – as is one of the interpretations of Quantum Mechanics – then there follows a Synchronization Problem.

A subjective reality theory would form a basis for a Theory of Everything where every viewpoint creates what that viewpoint sees. There is no spoon. The spoon is created by me as I see it, the spoon is created by you as you see it. There is no spoon existing on its own – there is just each and every one’s image of that spoon that each and every one experiences.

And reality seems to be discrete and thus the images of reality is created every Planck second like frames in a motion picture.

Now how comes any changes that I make in my view is immediately reflected in every other’s view of reality? This is the problem of synchronization. Why do we see the same?

One answer could be that the premise is wrong and that there is a Real World Out There, that matter exists independent of viewpoints, will or observation. If so, it would give rise to the task of accounting for free will if such in fact exists. But if the premise is right, then there is a deeper understanding needed in order to solve the Synchronization Problem.

This enigma is one of my main philosophical conundrums at the moment.

Care to pitch in with viewpoints?

random event?

803 thoughts on “a Theory of Everything & the Synchronization Problem

    1. The Single-Point-of-View world view:
      1. Helps resolve some things having to do with why we experience Reality, but also
      2. Throws curves at my concept of myself and how free will fits – if at all.
      Maybe you could elaborate?

  1. “One answer could be that the premise is wrong and that there is a Real World Out There, that matter exists independent of viewpoints, will or observation.”

    My assessment of the matter as a result of considerable research of other viewpoints and my own contemplation, causes me to think that the above is more likely correct.

    Kind of similar to the question:

    If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a noise if there is no one around to hear it?

    Off course it makes a noise, because the sound is created due to a law of physics, not by someone’s presence.

    Another similar mindless question, would be , does a tree exist in the forest if there is no one around to see it?

    I think the conundrum of the question that you post for comment, is not really a conundrum, just a situation that requires more honest thought, honest perception, apply the study tech of evaluating all other subjects of comparable magnitude and evaluation of the accumulated data, then take your own independent evaluation.

    Which leads into this:

    I think Hubbard’s theory that we all are co-creators of this universe and then forgot that we were , etc., and come here for experience, is wrong.

    While I am here contradicting Hubbard, I will add:

    I also think that the idea of reincarnation is wrong. I think the phenomena of reincarnation or what is regarded as reincarnation is actually the voice and thoughts of disembodied spirits who graft themselves on to us and in some manner share our mind and body, of which these are usually liars and deceivers who mislead us into thinking that we are reincarnated, to gain more earth experience.

    I think a new being is created at each conception.

    This viewpoint on the idea of reincarnation is from Oahspe.

    We must remember that one of Hubbard’s more correct statements was:

    The truth is not dependent upon authority. The truth existed before authority existed and will exist after authority is gone.

    He also said something to the effect of:

    I am not an authority on anything. I am just presenting what I discovered in my research. Don’t believe it. Take and evaluate it for yourself.

    The value of any datum is determined by the number of problems it solves and to the degree that it solves problems.

    Diogenese

    1. I was sort of hoping this would not turn into a discussion where either scientology or Hubbard was dragged in.

      I would refer you to this for reference and food for thought:

        1. It doesn’t. And that is the point. When I collapse the wave function, why does it collapse for everyone? Or does it?

  2. You see even the Single Viewpoint World-View is limited in scope to the physical universe to name only one universe.

    Starting with a supposed big bang, little whimper, or other initial moment of creation, one looks for the Cause. Then before this is the earlier fractal creation ad infinitum.

  3. “Now how comes any changes that I make in my view is immediately reflected in every other’s view of reality?”

    What makes you think this is the case?

      1. Well, does that which logically follows always actually happen?

        I have never thought so, but then I am no logician.

  4. 1. Free will can be imbued into a “fractal point of view?”
    2. Then the link separated?
    3. . . . and if the link is separated then once again, how does synching occur?
    4. or the “link of synchronization” can be preserved throughout the fractal thread but regardless, there can be free will independent of the synchronizing thread?
    5. or free will is another illusion in this vast house of mirrors?

    It is easy to conceive of each concept but less easy to reconcile each with the other.

  5. QM teaches that it is because the observer can choose when and where to collapse the wave function that we have free will. This might or might not be the case:

  6. Entanglement, double slit experiment, etc., make a logical leaps by assuming that very fast objects and incidents of very short duration can and have been measured, ignoring the reality that 10^-18 second is currently the shortest measurable length of time while the calculated shortest length of time is 10^-43 or a difference of 10^25. There is no way to wrap one’s mind around these numbers, values, or differences.

    To compare this measured value to the calculated value one might say that the shortest “calculated” length of time is 1 second long while the shortest “measured” length of time is 32 quadrillion years.

    Another way of stating this difference is using the the current astrophysics of a universe which is “15 billion years old,” then compare the length of the usual 1 second of time to 21 billion universe lengths from now — Incomprehensible! Language has no word and humans have no concept to allow us to understand this vast difference in orders of magnitude.

    We are a very long way from understanding any part of this physics. And you know what else? Within the framework which I’ve described, we remain within the physics of the extant universe and have not yet needed to go into “meta-physics.”

    This is something to consider.

    PS: If anyone wants to do the math and find that I’m off by a few quadtrillions of years, well okay, but that’s not the point of my post. I think you get the idea. Things can easily be happening around us which still have physical explanations without resorting to the mystic.

    1. I´ve just checked very carefully my whole track, and I never,…. ever,… saw a man, alien, God or beast who could stand peacefully while making a statement which allows an error in the order of magnitude of quadrillions of years………

      Now, THAT is greatness!

  7. Let’s start with the premise:

    I think that there is a real world out there. We may not be seeing it in its totally consistent form.

    So I question the premise.

    .

    1. Given that you say everything is consideration, I cannot reconcile the two. A Real World Out There is the antithesis of “everything is consideration”.

      1. I would say that is exactly what makes it a good starting point.

        If there is a real world out there not everything is a consideration, and we are being effect of something not created by us.

        Real testing needs to be done here:

        How deep can we go by geting rid of all fixed considerations?

        How real can we make a consideration by group agreement?

        How exactly goes the process of agreement?

        This also involves a fluctuation between cause (creation of a consideration) and effect (perception of a consideration), and awareness of the origin of a consideration.

        1. Hey Rafael,

          These are great questions you pose:

          “How deep can we go by geting rid of all fixed considerations?”

          My thinking is that this is what we are striving for. To be rid or should I say Cause over one’s considerations and being able to create or dispense with them at will would be a real relief. It seems to me that it would really quiet down my universe.

          Also, what lies beyond getting rid of all considerations? I find it fascinating to look at it.

          “How real can we make a consideration by group agreement?”

          Well, if we go by looking at the MEST universe as exactly that, then I guess that’s pretty real. Whether it be a result of implanted circuits/automaticities that we were subjected to or agreed to eons ago, or something we got together on and decided to create a game and forget it’s origin as part of that game – like a mystery, or a combination of both which is what I lean towards.

          I would hate to think that what we perceive at the level we are at is the real thing. That would be a loss for me. I would dislike finding out that all the realizations I have had about my relationship with MEST (bodies included) are fantasy.

          To me we are continually evolving towards greater simplicity and more basic truths. The realizations we have are but small steps towards achieving greater potential and the ability to have/not have, be/not be, do/not do as we choose.

          I remember in a number of sessions reaching out to find something to run. I reached about 4 feet back of my head and felt a solid wall. I could not move thru it and the more I felt it, the more solid it became. I traced this wall & found it surrounded my body – a sphere of sorts.

          I found an area of it to run and as it blew, I poked thru the ‘hole’ it left. The space beyond was cool and refreshing like a cool summer breeze and need I say expansive. It would be like popping out of a bottle top. The edges around this hole were still solid as could be. So I addressed the balance of the sphere and the whole thing evaporated and as I expanded outward, not only did it take a few minutes to adjust to the expansiveness, but it actually took my breath away. My body was like a speck held onto by a thread.

          Over the next few sessions, I ‘felt’ further & further out, each time finding a new wall – solid as ever.

          So, I look at phenomena like this and think on what else lies ahead, or what amount of space could I actually permeate thru, or for that matter, do I even need space to start with.

          Granted these perceptions are only perceivable by me, but it definitely points to another universe other than MEST.

          Can we achieve total awareness and duplication of our own universe, the MEST universe and the universe of others?

          I think so.

          As for some other posts professing that there is no ‘self’ and no immortal ‘self’ – well, I think it is very evident that we are all ‘selves’ as in created identities or beingnesses.

          My only question would be to those with a one life all-meat existence, ‘If self is totally false and doesn’t really exist, who the hell created it, or better still, ‘Who are you?’

          Anyway, love your posts – food for thought.

          Do well!

          Dennis

          1. There is self, just like there is table. Both are result of considerations.

            I don’t think I ever said that there is no self, because I talk about self and fixation on self.

            And where or from who those considerations come from, I can only think of DEPENDENT ORIGINATION.

            .

          2. Hi Dennis

            I was intrigued by your comment about the barriers you were handling, being solid and spherical, . At this time,my barriers tend to be the opposite, you know? like invisible, and causing dispersal of attention; but still maybe both have in common our feeling that there is something they are preventing us to know, at least that has been my case. And that relates to my basic quest for knowledge……………. Uffffff !…… I´m geting dispersed!!

            I think both cases refer to fixed considerations we are handling, and although that opens doors to knowledge, what is really important is that we are freeing our attention.
            (The problem I now have with knowledge is that it turns into a new fixed consideration as we become attached to it.)

            A fixed consideration is some sort of an static, as it doesn´t change and falls below our level of awareness.

            The thought of getting rid of all considerations is fascinating for me too. A theoretical clear, with the computer back to zeroes, would have as-issed all fixed considerations in his universe.

            I guess the synchronization problem over the MEST universe got solved when we all became part of a fixed agreement on all the fixed considerations which give form to it. And turned into a trap when that agreement became our supreme reality.

            Free creativity falls in love with its own creations and becomes their slave.

            Another dispersed thought comes to mind:
            When Scientology became The Science of Certainty it started to enforce its own fixed considerations on its followers, and that became their universe which they now are trying to make more and more real to the rest of the people, and enforce it as soon as you start agreeing with it.
            Their goal seems to be to enforce their new fixed knowledge instead of releasing ability.
            In the CoS the functionality of Scientology has been reduced to a method of entrapment, I guess a clear inside the CoS would be someone who has reached a fixed agreement with all their fixed considerations, even after he got rid of all his earlier fixed considerations.

            Oh, well, the humanity of it all…………………………………..he, he …

            Be well Dennis !!

          3. Hi Rafael,

            I, too, was intrigued by you comment :

            ” At this time,my barriers tend to be the opposite, you know? like invisible, and causing dispersal of attention; but still maybe both have in common our feeling that there is something they are preventing us to know, at least that has been my case. And that relates to my basic quest for knowledge……………. Uffffff !…… I´m geting dispersed!! ”

            I find this too. Invisible – yes. Preventing us from knowing – yes.

            The walls I was speaking if are invisible and most are unknown to me until I direct attention to them. Some are covered by other walls or barriers, and some do disperse me when contacted – like magnets when they repel.

            My intention is to pick these off one by one, or in groups when I can and blow them.

            I find certain words/phrases & concepts tend to bring these to view, or, if I get an odd or unusual thought, I find the line back to the source, get in comm and blow it. If there’s misemotion connected with it, again I get in comm and treat it as an ARCx.

            Oddly now that I look at it, most of these misemotional sources have unacknowledged communications similar to finding one’s BPC, then getting how the ‘pc’ actually words/thinks or computes it and indicating it. I’ve found tremendous relief & release from simply giving back the ‘pc’s’ own item to them. They feel duplicated … finally!

            What a game … lots of barriers, mockups, forgotten decisions & creations … on & on & on.

            Thanks for igniting the spark once again 🙂

        2. Yes, if there are inconsistencies here, then there must be things that are being taken for granted.

          ”If there is a real world out there not everything is a consideration, and we are being effect of something not created by us.”

          The joker here is that “not everything is a consideration” is itself a consideration. So, we can narrow the definition of a consideration or enlarge upon it as much as we want. It is quite flexible.

          When we look at ”We are being effect of something not created by us.” then we are looking at a possible inconsistency.

          “Are there considerations not created by us or by anybody else?” It seems so.

          “Is it possible to have considerations without anybody there to produce them?” It seems so.

          Is this testable?. A discussion such as this is the best way to test it.

          ” How deep can we go by getting rid of all fixed considerations?”

          One can get rid of all fixed considerations. One is then left with flexible considerations only. And that is perfectly okay. Aberration, in my opinion, is made up of fixations on inconsistencies, or aberration is all about taking inconsistencies for granted.

          ” How real can we make a consideration by group agreement?”

          To me reality is made up of consistency. The more inconsistent it is, the weaker it gets to be. Thus, solid reality can exist for an individual without agreement from anybody. This is quite commonplace. When there is group agreement over some reality, then that is what it is… a group agreement.

          ”How exactly goes the process of agreement?”

          The process of agreement is made up of a little bit of convincing, then a little bit more of convincing, then a lot more convincing in very small steps.

          .

          1. I don’t know if I have any negative emotions connected to the concept of “agreement”, but you may think that way.

            As I said it in another post, I find that the concept of agreement presupposes the concept of being, just like the concept of Rational Number presupposes the concept of unit.

            But we know there is something called Irrational Number, which does not presuppose the concept of unit. It stands on its own.

            Similarly, I find the concept of consistency stands on its own without having to have the concept of a being first.

            Consistency to Agreement is what Irrational Number is to Rational Number.

            .

            1. “I don’t know if I have any negative emotions connected to the concept of “agreement”, but you may think that way.”

              I don’t. I am asking. You seem to have a tendency to think you know what others feel or are thinking. I believe that is what leads others to say that you come off as a “know best” guy. I would advice you to stop doing that.

          2. Hi Vin:

            How do we know if something is a consideration?
            How do we know if something is not a consideration?
            How do we know when a consideration comes from us, and when a consideration comes from someone else?

            Just how do we know?

            My answer so far just to get started, (as it is completely pathetic , je, je): We just know.

            Maybe this a little bit better answer ?:

            Attention focuses on something
            (If attention is not unduly fixed or dispersed, as a radio tunner finds a station transmitting,
            it finds certain combination of wavelenghts to which it can adjudicate a meaning?)

            Attention should be free of fixed considerations to focus with complete clarity…..

            So what is attention? what is awareness?

            I´m back to the basic questions, like newborn je je!
            I mean I´m not satisfied with the answers I had for all these things before, I´ll look into them as deep as I possibly can…..hoping I don´t fall back into the squirrel cage!

            Some ideas? If I´m just being plain stupid just let me know please!!! he, he!

        1. It’s in the OP – existing on it’s own – i.e. has it’s own existence outside of any considerations or viewpoints. I mean Stephen Hawking-real.

  8. It is INTENTION that makes a difference. If a person has a BIG INTENTION to change the universe and goes through the action(s) of making this change real, then the universe changes with that person’s INTENTION and everybody’s viewpoint falls in line with this.

  9. I guess the problem could be restated as “Are all beings connected?” If they are connected, HOW are they connected?

    In other words, are all beings in communication with each other, even if only below their levels of awareness?

    As I said in an earlier discussion a few months ago, at the level of Static the question is moot as to whether there is one being or many. At the level of Static either or both can apply.

    Additional related questions seem to me to be along the lines of – Are there distinct groups of beings, with all the beings within a distinct group being connected to each other, while beings in another group are not connected to the beings in the first group?

    I am thinking of universes here. If there are other universes than the one we are experiencing, are the beings in the other universe, who have never “been in” or experienced “ours”, connected to us?

    I tend to think not, but I’m not sure. I tend to think it is a matter of agreement, as to being “in synch” or not.

    This does not preclude all beings being somehow connected or in communication, even if they are in different universes.

    I think the problem might be one of what Hubbard dubbed the First, Second, Third and Fourth Postulates.

    Sorry about bringing in the Old Man, but since I am trying to learn to think with his terminology, and I don’t think with the terminology of physics, I have not much choice….

    I believe that if the truth, whatever it is, can’t be expressed in relatively common language that most people can understand, that’s our failing.

  10. Scientology aside, why can’t you have a universe that is co-created by the viewers of it? Why would they only create the side they see? If there were overlaping visions, that would give it the illusion of solidity and three dimensions. Movement within it would give you time. The co-creation solves the issue of syncronicity. However, there is another thing that needs consideration – pre-knowledge. To some extent it paralles the problem -the idea of putting it there to see. Here is a post I did about it on ESMB – what do you think?

    Tonight I was watching part of the Morgan Freeman Worm hole series – the one on the 6th sense, where it discusses two tests of preknowledge.

    One, the researcher had a laptop that had the screen divided into two parts the test subject would pick one or the other, a split second later the computer would randomly put a picture in one of the two parts of the screen. The computer did not base it’s selection on which screen the subject chose. They got a 50% response. But – if it was a picture involving sexual (or romantic if I recall correctly) content, they got 53%

    Another researcher found that when a subject, wearing an electrode, was showed random pictures displayed on a laptop, there was a 5 second anticipation of a charged photo that the electrode picked up. This can be repeated with any subject.

    Then they ran off into anti matter and quantum mechanics to try and maybe explain it. They also mentioned how a certain # of people stop a car just prior to an accident, thus saving themselves, (as well as documented unversal anticipation of 9/11 – I missed most of that part)

    I have experianced that myself, running down a flight of stairs in college, I suddenly reached out and caught my camera – the strap had snapped and it flew into my waiting hand. My wife countered with perhaps you were aware of the change of weight as the leather stap broke. It didn’t seem that way at all. I just suddenly put out my hand and caught it.

    Which brings me to my cognition – perhaps we are not 100% in present time. Perhaps conciousness is a bit like the old bell curve – a part of it is in the future (possibly creating it), most is in the present (or what we think is the present) and some in the past. That would explain this phenomena, yes? What say you? What do you think of that idea – have you experienced it your self?

    Mimsey, channeling Slaughter House 5 – unstuck in time

    1. “why can’t you have a universe that is co-created by the viewers of it? Why would they only create the side they see?”

      I will answer with a couple of questions back:

      What part did you create?
      How come you can see another’s creations?

  11. If the concept of the generation of reality in the Planck second were found to be valid; then we would find a tremendously deep-thick and heretofore “invisible” layer of space-time between what is “observable-and-known-reality” and the shortest length of time which we call the Planck second. In this place is a tremendously large possibly infinite volume of space-time in which many worlds could co-exist unseen in the gaps of the generation cycle our own physical universe. Because of the fractal nature of known creation, there is a good reason to believe that we would see this reiteration again at the quantum level.

  12. To me, neither of the two options presented in the OP are consistent. But there is a third option considered in KHTK.

    (1) All humans share similar physical characteristics, and some very basic characteristics in terms of DNA.

    (2) It should not come as a surprise that humans can also share mental characteristics, especially the programming that interprets the sensory input into perception.

    (3) It is the assessment of the sensory input that produces perception, and then it is the assessment of the perception that produces experience, and so on down the line.

    (4) Per my observation, the sensory input goes through the stages of (a) Perception (b) Experience (c) Information (d) Hypothesis (e) Theory (f) Principles (g) Axioms and (h) self. These stages may be identified better in the future.

    (5) The SENSORY INPUT ultimately reduces to SELF,

    (6) SELF appears to have the ability to visualize. This visualization may substitute for the sensory input in the form of speculation, dub-in, guess work, evaluation, analysis, etc.

    (7) Thus, there seem to be a loop from SENSORY INPUT to SELF, and from SELF back to SENSORY INPUT. The details of this loop are sketchy at the moment and needs to be worked out.

    This theory is consistent with Buddha/Nagarjuna theory of DEPENDENT ORIGINATION. Please see

    Nagarjuna’s Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way

    .

    1. (1) Considerations come about in response to something that already exists. This is obvious from the very definition of the word “consideration.”

      (2) What already exists seems to be some form of inherent conjecture. It is just there. One doesn’t have to think about it.

      (3) That seems to be the nature of sensory input, a kind of a seed of self.

      (4) Thus, comes about a system that depends on itself for its existence. This is the theory of DEPENDENT ORIGINATION.

      (5) The essence of Quantum mechanics is that any observation is affected by the very act of observing it. Thus, there is a loop here. This is consistent with the theory of DEPENDENT ORIGINATION.

      .

    2. Comment on (4):

      “(4) Per my observation, the sensory input goes through the stages of (a) Perception (b) Experience (c) Information (d) Hypothesis (e) Theory (f) Principles (g) Axioms and (h) self. These stages may be identified better in the future.”

      The vector seems to reverse itself between (c) Information and (d) Hypothesis. What is there to be looked at, now seems to be looking. This seems to be the point where the “sensory input” seems to start transitioning into “self”. And later “self” seems to start transitioning into “sensory input” through visualization.

      This is not totally neat and clean yet, but there seems to be a loop where “sensory input” and “self” seems to be the two poles.

      There is DEPENDENT ORIGINATION.

      .

  13. If our considerations are the source of the material universe, its creation has been achieved by a process of collective agreement which has rendered us all at complete effect in that regard. (Or at least, at a level of unwilling and unknowing cause).

    Also, as Chris mentions, processes at sub-atomic level are completely disconnected from our actual ability to perceive. I´m starting to study QM in all my free time, but it will take me a while and I´m not sure I will find many answers there.

    When I create something in my mind, the process does not go all the way starting from sub-atomic particles. It is logical to assume the reason for it is efficiency, but then we should also have the ability to focus spiritual awareness at the levels of plank units of time and space.

    Spiritual awareness is another subject of relevance here. I say creativity and free will would be direct proof of its existence. Are they also illusions?

    The only real proof I can think of would be to rehabilitate our creativity to a level where others could perceive clearly our creations without starting another spiral of agreements………

    Sorry, but I feel like I´m back on my squirrel cage, seems like I skiped a gradient, the only real way I can see now is to keep following the long road of discovering and geting rid of all my fixed considerations.

    1. Good post Rafael. “10-4” on the squirrel cage but there should be glimmers of a breakout as we go along. I study the same as you.

      To be clear my point wasn’t that we can’t observe tiny stuff but that there is yet lots and lots of room left over in the physical universe for more stuff to exist that is too small and too large of quantity of space-time for us to observe or work with. We are living within a tiny little sliver of physics. Not even a big sliver. The very smallest “piece of the sandwich.” It is meant to be a positive statement toward the idea that there is still plenty of universe left over to explore. So much so that we aren’t making much of a dent yet. I mean for us to take heart because we are not exhausting what there is to look at for what we want to look for.

    2. I don’t believe in the theory of collective agreement anymore. This is a proposition by Hubbard. I don’t think that works.

      The universe exists because of the consistency of considerations within oneself and not necessarily due to agreement with others.

      This consistency of considerations may be referred to as an inherent programming. This inherent programming may be replicated from person to person, just as genomic structure is replicated from person to person.

      Thus, it is replication of the same structure that brings about synchronization and not some conscious agreement.

      .

        1. This is just my guess, but Internet may provide a good analogy.

          Whenever a link is updated on Internet, the update is available to everybody plugged into the internet. It is a shared software that makes it possible.

          Internet is a very crude example of the “matrix” that this universe might be. We seem to share a programming just like we share the space.

          .

          1. It is not a good example – because the Internet relies on basics such as physics. What I am trying to solve here is the basics of all basics. The really basic reason we all see the same.

      1. I must say I don’t particularly believe that the idea of collective agreement explains the MEST universe. It may be one piece of the puzzle at best.

        The OldMan once stated that the MEST universe we collectively inhabit is “the inevitable average of illusion.”

        We may be beating a dead horse with this “collective agreement”notion, hoping the horse will get up again and go.

        What is solid? A ridge ,for example, is solid.

        It may be truer to speculate that the MEST universe is the result of our collective DISAGREEMENTS.

        We may be beating a dead horse with this “collective agreement” notion, hoping the horse will get up again and go.

        How did we get on this “collective agreement” track which may actually be a dead end?

          1. The focus should be on consistency rather than on agreement.

            A natural consistency already exists like space exists. Beings come later.

            .

          2. Consistency comes about when inconsistencies are removed. That’s all I know.

            In real life, my effort is to spot and remove inconsistencies. I just hope that, as a result, I shall arrive at some sort of consistency.

            .

      2. ” This consistency of considerations may be referred to as an inherent programming. This inherent programming may be replicated from person to person, just as genomic structure is replicated from person to person.”

        This seems to be a ‘why is God’ statement.

        Who created or did this inherent programming?

        How is it replicated? Agreement? Adopting or creating like considerations?

        Who is creating? Considering?

        Is every single one of us agreeing to this ‘inherent programming’ ? Robots? Doll bodies? Are we all effect? Will we be this way forever? One life to live?

        Please, specifics.

        1. “Who” is the basic fixation. Does there have to be a who?

          Again “self” as a fixation is present in your argument.

          .

          1. Your ‘know best’ attitude is hilarious at times Vin.

            You might have a look at your own fixations first … be it your fixations of certain Buddhist principals that parallel your own thought, or Identics which you were fixed on for a number of months, or KTH and the current buzzwords you consistently use, or? or? I wonder what the next flavour will be?

            I don’t make anyone wrong for looking to discover truths for himself, but for you to try to consistently cram your philosophy down other’s throats whilst making them wrong for their own ponderings, seems to me to be a shortfall in your current studies.

            You might try simply looking & duplicating another’s viewpoint instead of thinking we are all trying ‘to convince’ you.

            1. I tend to agree to this.

              Vinaire has some very good points at time, but for a person fixated on that “self is a fixation”, he sure come across as full of himself at times.

              I know I can come across in a similar manner and I apologize for that.

          2. Yes, I can be a horse’s ass sometimes and I apologize for that.

            I do find this blog and all of the various viewpoints enlightening – we are all evolving & seeking answers – great fun.

            If posing certain questions gets answers for me, or I spark some cognition in another, I am thankful. I am here to learn and hopefully contribute something to the well-being & expansion of others.

            I also enjoy the ‘deep’ discussions and looking into basics – unfortunately Quantum Mechanics appears far above my head. 🙂

          3. Just because a person presents as a “self”, does not necessarily mean he is “fixated” on that self.

    1. “by intention” is at the line between physics and consciousness and “asserts the fact” of free will.

      Asking how points to the desire to see a mechanical link. I look for this link – not in grand things — but in simple everyday things like typing on my keypad and this link is invisible to me.

      I call it intention. It seems to well up out of nothing to tell my brain what to do with my body. But the mechanical link, I am not seeing.

      Am I not seeing the link because there is not one?
      or
      Am I not seeing the link because the universe is deterministic and I have no free will?
      or
      other?

      1. Hi Chris. I see the mechanical link as related to the ability to postulate particles into space and those postulated particles, mechanics themselves, affect the mechanics of the physical universe and thus intention becomes action. This is the inherent ability of a thetan defined as “a space-energy production machine. And the function of the mind defined as “a communication and control system between the thetan and his environment.”

      2. Interesting Chris,

        I took a look at how I actually move a body part.

        Normally, I don’t feel much of my body … when I have attention and doing something with my right hand; my left is ‘invisible unless I want to perceive it.

        If I want to then use the left, I have to move over to that body part and ‘feel’ it and then I send out a beam that contracts the muscles, then it moves.

        I do not feel the shape of the body as in the structure that it appears in a mirror unless I choose to – and most of the times I feel like jelly or bubbles permeating all space around this chunk o’ meat, and the meat itself if I need to.

        It is an odd sensation to operate this way and has been so for a long time.

        I remember one session on ARC S/W where I could not feel the body at all. I had to (with great effort) find the legs so I could walk out of the room, and even then I hit walls, ducked doorways, and generally did a very sloppy job of handling this meat.

        I got to my car and had to sit and feel the steering wheel, the key, gas pedal, brake etc before I could even start the car. And this was after struggling to hold a key to unlock the car in the 1st place.

        I realized later that all automaticities I had with walking, or associating with MEST objects had drastically changed – and in a good way. Most were gone. It was I who was now controlling these bits of MEST.

        So, that’s how I currently perceive or operate the mechanics of this body.

        1. Actually, I just looked at this again, it is not like bubbles, it is more like I create an energy field with which I permeate MEST.

          There still seems to be a couple of lines or anchors to the body which I have yet to address. I have also tried to ‘move’ and face the body … this really pushes & pulls in the upper spine area, but once I blow those little babys, there will be some exceptional freedom. 🙂

        2. Yes Dennis, exactly so.

          Years of practice make the initiation of movement seamless. You used the word “beam” as the linking mechanism. I understand the sense of it and I use the word intention. But as I look for it, I don’t see it.

          For instance, when I type as I am now, I am thinking thoughts in one area and linking then to language in another area and then through a type of muscle-memory (whatever that is) I simply type these words by words (not letters by now but words and sometimes whole sentences) as I think them.

          I play music this way. Especially as I follow along with another musician, I listen to the notes they are playing, recognize the tune and anticipate the next appropriate note and timing and my hands just go right where they should and out comes the melody. It seems to come straight from my thoughts directly into my fingers.

          It is intriguing and mysterious to me “how” I do this. Maybe I should “take a bath” and give this some more thought.

          It is beautiful and magnificent — the harmony which can exist between so very many “moving” parts.

          1. “It is beautiful and magnificent — the harmony which can exist between so very many “moving” parts.”

            Nicely said Chris!

            “Years of practice make the initiation of movement seamless“

            Yes, it is that way … very automatic and fast.

            I slowed everything down and watched what exactly occurred step by step as I initiated a thought or intention to say move a hand, and then what occurs at that point – that I found was the tough part – how did that intention move or communicate to the arm itself.

            The way I control my body is a pretty base method – I think so. It would be even better to have a task in mind, have the body completing that task with some imbued knowledge or intention of how the task is to be done, meanwhile I am off having coffee at some thetan cafe 🙂

          2. Just to add …

            I am still looking at this exact sequence … I may be missing something.

            I also just thought of a possible variable in that there is also the Genetic Entity – what part does this actually play … Are my intentions altered by this, or is it simply aniother mass of considerations with some sort of imbued life of it’s own or something I put there.

            The whole thing is quite remarkable and put together like a symphony.

            And I haven’t even got to relationships with inanimate objects … 🙂

      3. I look at the idea of intention translating into action in a mechanical way, but always bearing in mind the triggering of those mechanics as being done by the thetan – the Cause point. Here are some quotes that I think apply (all caps emphasis is mine).

        From FOT, The Parts of Man chapter, “The Mind” section: “A thetan establishes various systems of control so that he can continue to operate a body and, through the body, operate things in the physical universe.”

        From “The SOMATIC MIND” subsection: “The IMPULSES placed against the body by the thetan, through various mental machinery, arrive at the voluntary, involuntary and glandular levels. These have set methods of analysis for any given situation and so respond directly to commands given.”

        Also – definition of Training Pattern: that stimulus-response mechanism resolved by the analytical mind to care for routine activity or emergency activity. It is held in the SOMATIC MIND [as in paragraph above] and can be changed at will by the analytical mind.”

        Also from “The Mind” section in FOT: “The keynote of the entirety of the system called the mind is POSTULATE and perception.”

        Definition of Postulate: that self-determined THOUGHT which starts, stops or changes past, present or future EFFORTS.

        For me, the above explains the mechanical link between the intention (thought/postulate) and the action of moving the hand or typing on the keypad. But is something still missing for you?

        1. Good morning Marildi,

          Ahh .. the somatic mind … I forgot about that one. Sheesh … too many minds – I need to get rid of some 🙂

          I do agree on the postulate & perception part you laid out above. I postulate and something occurs (or doesn’t).

          This to me at this time seems the way it is and should be.

          When I was yapping with Chris on this thread, I was trying to look at the systems I have that are on automatic, and my little story of trying to frive my car after session was one of those example.

          Your reference from FOT Hit the spot

          “From FOT, The Parts of Man chapter, “The Mind” section: “A thetan establishes various systems of control so that he can continue to operate a body and, through the body, operate things in the physical universe.”

          I remember at the time I read this I wondered how this was so? When did I create these systems?

          I can understand systems like blood flow, breathing, etc and I’m glad they are on automatic at this time – who knows what mess I’d make of those 🙂 , but I also wondered what systems/actions I had or do that were on auto which I SHOULD have under control – from an abberative sense. Were these implanted automaticities? Ones I created? Am I really controlling the body, or car or? … or are these automaticities so real that they make me believe I am controlling when I am not.

          I found the last to be true for me – I had a whack of automaticities/circuits running to perform various functions. Once gone, as in the case of the car driving, I knew what the objects were but now was feeling them and using them newly.

          A quick example: I walked to the car, my usual auto action was see car, hand in pocket, grab key, pull it out, insert in keyhole – all seamlessly as Chris put it. But, when I came out the one time, I knew I had to go someplace … then I remembered ‘I had a car’ . It took me a minute to remember what kind of car and find it.

          So, I walked over and stood there like a goof … I didn’t know what to do – I ‘forgot’. “Normally I would have had that key in hand or already racing down the street. It was quite surreal – MEST seemed to have a fluidity to it … not at all solid – almost translucent. When I finally realized I had a key and opened the door, the car and my body were not solid feeling – was like a thick syrup – I had to make it solid so I could feel it. I was scared to drive but laughing my arse off. What could I say to a cop if pulled over.

          But what this says to me is that these circuits were gone. ‘I’ had control now and could mock up new circuits if I needed to.

          So then I wondered, if something as simple as getting in & driving the car is SO occluded from me, what else am I looking at and believing to be true when in reality, it’s a pile of BS?

          It seems one helluva lot 🙂

          And so I seek & explore

          1. Good afternoon,Dennis,

            Funny story! I can really get into how you would feel and be laughing your arse off. This “circuits thing” and training patterns too (Vin said it’s called “training circuits” in DMSMH) – these are what stroke victims have to redevelop when they have to learn to walk and talk etc all over again, right? I guess they too will forget when and how they did it. I imagine it starts with postulates which become “entangled” with the “programming” (Vin’s word again) already in place.

            By the way, you were the one who reminded ME of the somatic mind when you mentioned “genetic entity” in that earlier post of yours. As for that FOT quote that you re-quoted, I had already proposed it in my first comment to Chris on this thread but nobody seemed to buy it – TR 3 can be very workable!

            Anyway, helluva lot of occlusions to explore is right, enough to make me spin just thinking about it. Gradients please! 🙂

        2. yes.

          You almost addressed the OP with, “. . . but always bearing in mind the triggering of those mechanics as being done by the thetan – the Cause point.”

          1. Hey Chris,

            What did you think of the idea that the triggering of mechanics is done by the inherent ability of a thetan to put out an “impulse” (as in the somatic mind quote)? Or maybe you prefer it described as directing energy to specific “systems of control.” Does either of these expressions of it, or the other quotes in my post, indicate to you according to your own “sense” of what intention is?

            Hey, I did address the OP and tried to show the connection or link between such impulses or energy flows and the physical universe. I re-stated it again in a comment today to Geirge (just a joke, that spelling, but you can type that into “Find on this page”) Would love to know what you think!

  14. Probably none of these ideas are particularly new to anyone here, and without some kind of studies on this its all just ideas but perhaps a review of this information might lead to something fruitful.

    It seems clear to me that when an individual person dies, reality continues without the living state contribution of the now dead person’s considerations.

    It also seems clear to me that life forms, from bacteria and virus through to the most complex aggregates continue to pursue their purposes in a fully functioning world in the absence of any human presence. One could argue that other life forms may or may not perceive as we do. Yet, if I put up something solid to barrier the activity of a mosquito, like a window, then the mosquito is unable to pass through the barrier. I am not there to witness this, yet the mosquito can’t get into my room. Things that I did not put in place can also act as effective barriers to insects and such. Things no human ever knew were there are equally effective. In that scenario there still could be life capable of consideration in the form of single cell amoebas, viruses, bacteria, etc. remaining in areas where there are no aggregate life forms present.

    Returning to thoughts, which are not normally thought of as being reality, neurological studies indicate that thoughts actually can be detected and measured via EEG type detection. The US army is sufficiently convinced that thoughts are “real” that they are spending 4 million dollars on helmets that will do exactly that. Here’s the article on what the army is doing: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1841108,00.html

    From another perspective entirely, neurologist Jill Bolte Taylor suffered a stroke which wiped out all of her left brain function and was able to report the state of mind she found herself in with only right brain function remaining. Her reality of the world was vastly different:

    We are not alone.

    Perhaps the answer does lie within the emission of wavelengths that result from emotion and thought activity, however minute. And perhaps rather like sound waves, which resonate together and can be reinforced, predominance amplifies and coalesces, reaching a tipping point where it is possible to perceive them and they actually produce persistent matter. And perhaps the incarnate are very powerful transmitters, and the disincarnate (if they exist) function on these levels only, relying on incarnate interaction.

    1. That was a powerful presentation at TED TALK by Jill Bolte Taylor. Now I understand that Valkov lives in his left hemisphere, and that his right hemisphere might be relatively non-functional.

      Kidding aside, I loved your post. It seems to be consistent with the idea that there is something that acts as a sensory input to humans. In humans, it gets converted to perception, experience, information, etc., and finally reduces to a “self”.

      That something, which acts as a sensory input, could be that expansive consciousness, which Jill was talking about as connected to the right hemisphere. There is no concept of “self” there. The “self” seems to come about after processing of consciousness through the left hemisphere.

      Even if we drop the association with the left and right hemispheres of the brain, there seem to be two conditions:

      (1) Expansive consciousness without any definite idea of self.
      (2) Consciousness reduced to a constricted and definite idea of self.

      Thus, “self” is an option and not a must. There is no permanent and immortal soul.

      .

      1. Vin,

        Assuming you have your hemispheres straight, you may be right, as I am quite sure I had a mini-stroke in the right side of my brain several years ago. I never had it medically confirmed as it was very small.

        I haven’t watched the video of Jill Taylor, but from the posts here, it appears it was her left hemisphere that was impaired. What would be the effect of having the right hemisphere be impaired, as Vin thinks is the case with me?

        I have in the course of my life had much opportunity to observe people with closed-head injuries. Most were the result of auto accidents, but some were the result of ECT. The “therapeutic” effects of ECT appear identical to the effects of other closed-head injuries.

        The problem is that depending on which part(s) of the brain are injured, one can lose some pretty essential abilities,

        I guess I ought to review some of the brain-function studies available today. Perhaps the problem is that Vinnie and I have opposite sides of our brains impaired?

        If Vinnie would donate the functioning side of his brain to me, to be transplanted into my skull, we could make medical history! (And I would then be REALLY DANGEROUS, no?

        How about it, Vin?

      2. Vin sez:

        “(1) Expansive consciousness without any definite idea of self.
        (2) Consciousness reduced to a constricted and definite idea of self.

        Thus, “self” is an option and not a must. There is no permanent and immortal soul.”

        Do you think #s 1. and 2. are mutually exclusive? Is it really an either/or situation?

        And do you think “expansive consciousness” is permanent and immortal? And in fact,does it really matter?

        Perhaps the issue itself is irrelevant, whether they are permanent and immortal.

        Is it really necessary to cling to either one or the other? Clinging is, after all, clinging.

        These debates about “mind only” “matter only”.”both mind and matter” etcetc were refuted by Buddha 2,500 years ago. In fact they were debated long before Buddha in Vedic times. Why cling to them now?

        In1978, over 30 years ago, Ken Wilbur published a book titled “The Spectrum of Consciousness”, which even today seems like the last word on the subject.

        Wilbur studied both Eastern and Western ideas developmental psychology from the
        ground up, and identified10stages of human development. The first 7 are “personal”, then last 3 are “transpersonal” stages. The transpersonal stages are generally not recognized in Western thinking, but very much focused upon in some Eastern cultures.

        However they have been explored some in Western psychology by early giants in the field like William James, Carl Jung and Abraham Maslow.

        The main point is the stages are sequential and none can be omitted. And that a complete and enlightened human being comprises all the stages, not just some and
        not just the transpersonal ones.

        For all we know, people once known as “retarded” partake of “expansive consciousness”, while lacking in some of the development of “self” that society considers normal and desirable.

        Constantly flying the flag of “not-self” and opterming personal development and the healthy development of a personal self is, in my opinion, just plain lame.

        It is just another form of attachment, actually a form of clinging, to one’s own considerations as being some how better or more primary while positioning the considerations of another as being less enlightened. Buddha refuted this long ago as nothing more than ego.

    2. Maria,

      Thanks so much for the video of Jill Bolte Taylor – amazing stuff!

      I found a few things very interesting:

      We know that destruction or disabling part of the brain did affect her perception of what she was seeing & feeling, and she seems to be in a very different, quiet place and is thoroughly enjoying this new awareness.

      She seems to be free of the usual voices & other bric-a-brac that make up a human/composite being(or a good part of them).

      Being that she was in the field of the brain study, I would expect she had all manner of considerations, decisions, assumptions, etc connected with the subject and area.

      So, what has she realized? That the disabled side was actually hampering her living and she is now in a new realm of beingness. It reminds me of a program I saw about people who have anencephaly (no brain). Many who survived had incredible skills and intelligence, somewhat like a savant.

      While the brain, with all the considerations concerning it, does act as quite an electrical conduit, it is obvious that it does not have to be so and that some are able to survive quite well with some part of a brain or none.

      She seemed to be quite aware of what was happening and the ‘release’ she experienced was real to her.

      I think this firstly points to some-thing that is aware and able to continue without parts, or possibly the whole of a body.

      2nd-ly, what one perceives is simply what one perceives, and it is real at that moment in time. It is their universe whether created by them or others.

      If MEST and the universe we commonly agree we see is the real thing, this to me would invalidate the theory (or knowingness of some) that we are Cause and separate (although intertwined at this time) from this physical universe.

      Whether it be considerations that ‘blanket’ the true nature of this universe, or implants, or ? … I prefer to believe/postulate that awareness, truth and as-isness of this universe as we ‘see’ it is possible, whether it be the tiny mass contained in a mental image picture, or a 2 ton truck.

  15. also
    The Single-Point-of-View world view:
    Helps resolve some things having to do with why we experience Reality, but also
    Throws curves at my concept of myself and how free will fits – if at all.

  16. I’m going to avoid all the philosophical stuff and cut to the practical point for me.

    We really don’t fucking know.

    My personal guess is that real universes exist and created universes exist and they can only exist if they are mathematically possible. And if this pseudo-science is correct, I think they probably work in layers one atop another and sometimes not.

    For me, I see the journey ahead lies in training my body/self to release the bias unveiled to me by Science. I seek to be aware of how my mind is fooled and to acknowledge it honestly, I seek to see the Universe as it is as the very best that I am.

    But one important thing is missing for me.

    What about transcendence?

    I choose to transcend the universe through the stories and mythologies I love.

    The power of story allows me to touch my world through singular and collective imagination. Such stories won’t necessarily be true in this universe and will usually be by all counts nonsense. But I use them anyway to create my own meaning. Why?

    Cuz that’s what transcendence is all about.

  17. About all that I can say is to relate an experience my wife had – she (pre scientology) went exterior to the universe. A better way to describe it is she stepped off the time stream or she was no longer creating the universe, ie. she was no longer connected to it. Then she changed her mind and reconnected to it,

    I think the simplicity is just that – it is an agreement that is on going that you can participate in by co-creating it or not as you wish.

    It is this act of agreeing with an ongoing-agreement that keeps us at the same point of present time, seeing the universe simultaneously.

    I hope that helps.

    Mimsey

      1. There is currently a universe of agreement in this world that is layered upon our Universe: Second Life.

        It works when all protocols are agreed upon and certain rules are followed. People co-create all the time in it.

        The question is: “Can a universe exist that has no co-creation be either layered upon or along side a universe that is springs from Universal Darwinism where design occurs out of chaos without the aid of mind?”

        And can both create a me? And evolved me? A created me?

        … same … me both places.

        These universe discussions tend to get locked into the Universe we are in.

  18. Another run at this:

    The question is: “Can a co-created universe be either layered upon (or along side or before or after) a universe that springs forth from Universal Darwinism?

    UNIVERSAL DARWINISM: “Whenever you have variation, selection and heredity, then you MUST get evolution, or design out of chaos without the aid of mind.”

    One co-created Universe would make a Thetan Geir in a meat suit.
    One Universal Darwinist Universe would make meat-only Geir with no thetan.

    And both could feel and act exactly the same except one has free will and one BELIEVES he does but doesn’t?

    And how would one know? Meat? Thetan?

    1. So this puts us in two different classes: Universes from co-creation and universes from Universal Darwinism.

      THOUGHT EXPERIMENT:

      A Geir Isene appears in each universe. One is a creation from a being in another plane (like what happens in Second Life) and another is a product of Universal Darwinism and is unknown to the other Geir.

      Both Geir Isene’s try to figure out “What the FUCK is going on here?”

      Now. How does Geir know if he is Thetan Geir or Meat Geir?

      He can’t.

      He’s the same experience in two different fishbowls from two different creation systems. In one universe he is actually rehabbing a Thetan when he audits. And in another he is merely creating chemical reactions within a mass of potted beef we call a brain.

      So what’s a meat Geir to do? How would a meat Geir find meaning? How does a meat Geir transcend the universe with his Thetan in another universe forever ignorant of his existence?

    2. Katageek;
      Snapdragons view point on meat body.
      He set cross legged and contemplated on a single plant front of him a Snapdragon
      He noted her complex form, her coloring, the subtle green hue of the delicate leafs, the complex coloration of the flowers as the shades of pinks melted into oranges than yellows which disappeared into creamy white.
      He noted how the colors of the small tubular upside down cups and the lower lips of the flowers under the sun-ray it seem were lighten from within and each flower as they glowed were perfection of un-describable beauty
      He noted the formation of the flowers, were not petals and not open yet exuding fragrance which poured forth was the heaven itself, rapture in intangible.
      He, after long contemplation come to conclusion, yes this flower this Snapdragon, was not a simple form at all since it had extraordinary form-shape which was its very own uniqueness and she was part of her surroundings one of the ten thousand things grown in abundance.
      And he thought yes there is life as life of a plant such as and there is beauty but there is no intelligence within.
      The Snapdragon noted the bulky figure in a collapsed position front of her
      She noted the heavy shapes the complex form, pale lifeless pasty outer shell which rolled and had folds from which, thin growth sprouted [hair].
      She noted on this decaying organization there were many openings crevices and not much in coloring outside of the outer wrapping [robe] which was in use for covering to hide under. There was a heavy odor of decaying matter from within: oozing through the openings and through every part of this creatures body, undoubtedly a carnivore.
      The Snapdragon concluded that there was no life within; there was no life-force within the decaying bulk since she has not detected any connection to nature and this carnivore was not rooted into Earth and was not part of the ten thousands things.
      She though, there is no intelligence under the camouflage of the outer layer and no wonder there is a need to cover, to hide.
      She thought “I am not what you are”.
      Then she thought, what am I?
      PS: after all a what a Snapdragon knows, she is a very simple being, she knows not, the ways of man.

  19. It seems to me there is an assumption in these threads that we do all perceive the same universe at the same time.

    I doubt this notion.

      1. Since we don’t have those, WHAT IF this is the meat only Universe and not the co-created universe? What if our spiritual experiences are just dreams in potted beef?

        Would auditing still be useful? How would one view a Thetan if one’s nature truly was just a lump of meat that dreams IN THIS UNIVERSE?

        I suggest a frame of view of TWO UNRESOLVED POTENTIALS.

        If you look at the question of “Meat/Thetan” universes as an unknown answer:

        WHAT IS THE BEST RELIGIOUS CHOICE THAT SOLVES THE SUFFERING OF BOTH UNIVERSES AND THAT DOESN’T RELY ON FAITH?

        So …

        “What’s a meat Geir to do?”

        1. Meat only universe = thetanless universe = selfless universe = Buddhistic universe ?

          Thetan / soul / self is created out of consideration. So, in truth, we have a universe with no permanent, immortal, or fixed thetan. And, in truth, we do not have permanent, immortal, or fixed meat either.

          So, our spiritual experiences may be dreams in potted beed. Only that potted beaf is also part of the dream. What do you say Bunkai?

          Auditing shall be useful as long as there are considerations (dreams) to be addressed.

          What’s a meat Geir to do? Dream of a thetan Geir.

          What’s a thetan Geir to do? Nothing… He is already dreaming of a meat Geir.

          Kidding aside, both Thetan Geir and Meat Geir are equally substantial in the Universe of Consideration (Dreams).

          What we have here is a Universe of Considerations, in case you didn’t know it already.

          .

          1. “What’s a meat Geir to do? Dream of a thetan Geir.”

            EXACTLY.

            If a being is just meat with free will (or a false sense of free will) that wishes it had a spirit, than it’s only means of transcendence is through story and dream to create that spirit. It can use the power of story to create spirituality AS A CHOICE THAT FEELS REAL EVEN IF IT IS NOT. IMAGINATION IS NOT BOUND BY MEST.

            AKA: Functional Mythology.

            BUT …

            If a being is thetan manifesting a meat body with free will (or a false sense of free will) that correctly knows it is a spirit, than It can use the power of story to create spirituality AS A CHOICE THAT FEELS REAL BECAUSE IT IS REAL. IMAGINATION IS NOT BOUND BY MEST.

            Same feeling. Same experience.

            Spirituality and transcendence is imagination regardless of self type.

      2. OK. Take any number of people, hypnotize them, and tell them there are no such thing as “elephants”.

        Take them to the Elephant House at the zoo, and ask them what they think of the elephants right there in front of them. They will all say – What elephants? There is no such thing how can we think anything of them? And they will not see any elephants.

        However, their eyes are seeing the elephants, and their perceptions of the elephants can later be recovered.

        So, are there really any elephants out there?

        It is possible, for example, that there are flying saucer people observing the Earth, but we are not seeing them because we are hypnotically conditioned to not see them and to disbelieve in their existence. Every once in a while the conditioning fails in someone and they see a flying saucer.

        What is reality? Is there really such a thing? Do elephants stop existing just because you no longer believe in them? And if they do stop existing as fewer and fewer people believe in them (have any reality on them), how long does it take for elephants to entirely vanish from the Earth? Or might there be some right in your back yard,and you don’t see them?

          1. My point is how do you know we are all perceiving the same “realty” or the same universe?

            1. Would you contest that we are perceiving pretty much the same (as in 90%+ ?

              The fact that one scientist can replicate an experiment of another to the 10the decimal of accuracy should make my point quite succinctly, don’t you think? And so I find it remarkable that it could be so.

          2. “Reality is agreement”. The replication did not exist until it was created by the second scientist.

            To me the test is always does this have broad practical applications. In the case of atomic bombs or atomic reactors for making electricity, obviously it worked and so I consider it true.

            I am questioning what is the degree of agreement, what are the parameters of “the real”.

            How much agreement is there between the universe I see, and the universe you see?
            And is it that way because we agree, or because it is an automaticity we once agreed upon (the clock work universe idea), or do we collectively re-create it evey Planck second.

            In the realm of Planck second theories, there is another alternative – that the real world is out there continuously, but our consciousness and therefore our perception “blinks” in Planck seconds (pulses), thus creating the illusion that the universe blinks on and off. blinks on and off.

            Can you speed your perception up to the point where you can see the intervals of nothingness between the “freeze frames” that seem to comprise the universe?

            I’ve had the experience, but I can’t presently do it.

            1. So, on a practical level; How come, when I move the cup on the table in front of you, that you happen to see it move?

          3. Well, I have held off answering the main trust of this post as I didn’t have any real answer.

            Valkov’s analogy of the hypnotist and elephants got me thinking.

            If a simple action such as this resulted in a group of individuals ‘not seeing elephants’, while the audience could ‘still see elephants’, what could a good implant with lots of electronics, screens & pictures create for one, or a group.

            It may be that what we all see and seems to see at the same time could be such an implant, or an implanted sequence. I’m just tossing this out there as it seems to be what LRH was pointing to, aside from some colossal group agreement where we all decided the basic parameters of the game.

            I tend to lean with the above scenarios – what I believe is real (and it IS ‘real’ at this time), may not be real at all.

            If Gier moves his cup, why do I see it … maybe I see a yellowish cup while Gier sees it white – big deal, BUT the cup still moved.

            If we all looked up and agreed that that the sky was pink, would it be? What if one guy yelled out ‘It’s blue!’ No doubt he would be carted off to an asylum or at the very least looked upon as a nut by those who ‘knew’ the sky was pink.

            All I know is I feel like I’m running along side Rafael in the squirrel cage – not an circular hamster wheel as I do believe I’m getting ‘somewhere’ 🙂

          4. I see you move the cup because I have eyes to see with, or, more broadly, because I have the faculty of sight(vision, the ability to see).

            If I were blind or sightless, I might not see you move it.

            It seems to me the key has something to do with space.

            It’s probably in the Factors. Or maybe the Axioms.

            Sorry, I have my attention on other things.

  20. The answer to Katageek’s question is when you leave the meat suit you see you are not it.

    My guess at the answer to how can you agree to what others see is this.

    A) I do not know if there are specific mechanics in the construction of universes that allow this. Perhaps they are not perceveable with mest eyes or equipment. Perhaps they work on different wavelengths or vibration rates.

    Don’t the proponents of dark matter say there is more to this universe that is observable?

    B) Perhaps it is much like window shopping, you see something in the store you like or which interests you and you open the door and walk in. Perhaps you see this particular universe is here and you agree to be part of it. Who is to say this is the only universe?

    Mimsey

    1. “The answer to Katageek’s question is when you leave the meat suit you see you are not it.”

      That’s the answer in a Thetan created Universe Mimsey. What if it is a universe created ONLY by Universal Darwinism? And it creates a “Roy” meat being like in Blade Runner shown above. Everything feels like it’s a Thetan Created Universe, but it’s really just a mankind of meat.

      If there is a Roy in a Thetan Universe and a Roy in a Meat Universe and both Roys cannot tell which one he is in scienfitically….

      What’s a meat Roy to do? How does meat Roy transcend? What does he do that wins in BOTH universes?

        1. Such a universe may emerge among the vast cosmic cycles of cause and effect.

          “Whenever you have variation, selection and heredity, you MUST get evolution – or design out of chaos without the aid of mind.” – Dan Dennant

          Let’s presume all versions of Geir exist.

          Thetan/Meat Geir: He is Thetan! He is running meat! He is OT VIII and such the awesome! (And FYI, you are awesome by the way. This blog rocks. Thanks for not banning me like others.)

          Meat Geir: He is meat, just meat and nothing else BUT meat. He acts, feels and lives just like Geir and has passed OT VIII. But sadly, it was all a meat dream. Meat Geir is a delusional blob of meaty carbon. (Aftrican predators would chomp his body of meat and would gladly say “Meat-Geir is such the awesome!”)

          Thetan Geir: He’s a static. An irrational (mathematically irrational not mentally irrational) meme of existence that cannot be contained by any mathematical system but like a meme can cross various lives. He can postulate and do other cool stuff that is such the awesome.

          Each of these is in a separate universe that is making them think it is JUST like this one. Now, if you realize you could be a Meat-Geir only …

          “What is a meat-Geir to do to transcend this universe?”

          1. Cause and effect come in pairs. There is no independent cause.

            Buddha’s theory of DEPENDENT ORIGINATION rules in my consideration.

            .

          2. Correct. There exists neither an indpendent cause, nor an independent effect.

            Both cause and effect are dependent on each other.

            Similarly, the “sensory input” and “self” (which experiences it) are dependent on each other.

            .

          3. Well, I guess he could reference your article Geir,

            But it’s not “Free will verses no free will.”

            It’s “Free Will Thetan/meat-Geir verses Free Will Meat-Geir.”

            The Meat-Geir can have as much free will as it wants.

            Here it is again …

            Assuming you are meat for this example, what would a Meat-Gear do to transcend the universe while having no to a soul or Thetan/Geir to save him?

            Apologies BTW for using the word “Meat.” I picked it up from the novel Blackbeard. It sounds harsh and I probably should have picked a better name for it.

          4. Sigh … typos suck …

            Assuming you are FREE WILL meat for this example, what would a Meat-Gier do to transcend the universe while having no soul or Thetan/Geir to exist beyond it?

          5. Referenceing Geir’s Article:

            “The physical universe is composed of space, energy, matter and time. Everything within it is governed by its laws, whether the laws allow for random events or not. So in order to have free will, it must not be governed by those laws.”

            I don’t think think the jump to “So in order to have free will, it must not be governed by those laws” makes logical sense.

            I would say “in order for to have free will, the protocols of the universe must allow for ideas and physical patters to collect into a sentient self and that self be able to use ideas as it sees fit.”

            And I think that can be achieved in the principles of Universal Darwinism. I think we can have meat that thinks and makes choices on its own accord.

            Free will can be created with physical laws.

            1. You cannot have a closed system being changed in it’s course from within. Or in other words; Nothing can beget a potential greater than its own.

          6. I don’t see how an intangible concept like self has to emerge and be defined as a superior system from a lesser system.

            Universal Darwinism follows one rule: that which survives thrives.

            If free will offers a significant survival advantage (and I think it does) and can be shown to have variation, selection and heredity, then free will could emerge as a natural result of Universal Darwinism.

            Like with Roy shown above (in the video clip from) and his tears in the rain.

            We think self as “above” the universe. I personally think it sometimes emerges from meat and then transcends into “spirit” as information. I also think in some cases, it could create meat to house itself.

            And if the Pythagoreans are right and God/Self/Thetan is number (mathematical realism), then self could always exist within the emptiness of number.

            If so, then there are INFINITE ways to create the story of a self.

            Universal Darwinism + Mathematical Realism = Samsara

            And lots and LOTS of lost tears in the rain …

            Roy is very wise meat.

            1. I don’t think I can help you much here except to offer this; A system cannot break out of itself.

          7. Systems break out of themselves all the time. It’s called evolution.

            You are sounding like a Fundamentalist Christian. “There is no way a Turtle came into existence without God!”

            Humbug.

            I can’t help you Geir is you don’t accept evolution as fact and that free will is a definite survival advantage.

            1. We are not talking about evolution here, we are talking about a 2 dimensional system evolving into a 3 dimensional system, a 3 dimensional system evolving into a 4 dimensional system etc.

          8. One more time.

            “Whenever you have things that vary, and that have an intense struggle for existence and the ability to reproduce and pass on what helped those things survive YOU MUST GET EVOLUTION OR DESIGN OUT OF CHAOS WITHOUT THE AID OF MIND.”

            I would say “design out of chaos” pretty much is a system breaker.

          9. I would go with Katageek’s argument. It makes more sense.

            Physics may be a subsystem of a bigger system. If evolution occurs in Physics it may appear that a physical system is breaking out of itself, whereas it may simply be an in-system change from the viewpoint of the larger system.

            .

  21. Elizabeth, I think your comment is totally relevant to the new blog post, “A Theory of Everything & the Synchronization Problem.” Why don’t you post it there.
    Thanks My Dear, So here it is.
    Let’s get back to the spoon theory first before one can tackle the Synchronization Problem.
    When you close your eyes do you see the spoon front of you?
    If the other person closes the eyes can they see the same spoon?
    If the person blind that have never has seen spoon before can they see it? Is the spoon existing?
    Looking with eyes one only can see what the eyes pick up.
    When one closes the eyes one only can see what is front of the eyes in that case the inside of the lid and some light which seeps through the tissues.
    Can’t see anything more because the eye lid was created for that purpose to act as on barrier for the eyes not to see. Eyes are instrument, part of the machine, in this case the body, where created like a camera and the lid is the cover for the lenses. [Properly named both, lenses and lid]
    The eyes do only pick up energy more solid the sharper is the image. But we know by now because improvement with technology with cameras now can pick up much more than solid objects. Nerveless they are still energy no matter how flimsy; thin they are, they are part of the MEST
    The eyes, seeing with the eyes is the barrier “to see “360degree for the being=spiritual without the body. The Eyes are the instrument which introverts the being totally by only allowing the person to SEE very limited. Because of that the being has a huge hang-up and remains within the boundaries what the “eyes can see”. The being trust these images believes that they are real. No wonder one believes that one can’t see through the walls etc…eyes can’t see through the walls so the being believes in the image too …..Lies within the lies.
    So how many being see’s the same spoon even if you don’t see it?
    There is two answers for that. If that spoon viewed by those who has eyes or those who do not view with eyes but just simply know.
    PS: I have just posted on article in my blog about not view-ing, and the difference what is light and so called darkness. I have solo audited many hours in many sessions about viewing=see-ing about reality what we see and if it is still existing if we do not view it any longer. Interesting the sessions were

    1. Spoon exists only as a consideration whether you see it with your eyes, or see it with your mind.

      In the former case, the consideration is called a perception. In the latter case the consideration is called a visualization.

      Wheteher it is a perception or a visualization, it is a response to some sensory input.

      .

        1. No kidding Elizabeth. That’s because Vinnie has no reality for anyone to get. “Self”, according to him, is just an illusion, an apparency, therefore by Vinnie’s own logic, he does not really exist, so how could he have a ‘reality’ for anyone to ‘get’?

          1. If “self” is an illusion then chair is an illusion too.

            “Self” is simply the result of a consideration, just like a chair is a result of a consideration.

            .

          1. !00% right. The words” being, self, I’ are just considerations. The concepts are mock-ups for same as any word, as you said they are illusions agreed upon illusions by all means.
            For some times I have known the same as Dennis said. It startled me but I have accepted that the thoughts not knowing how many being claims this old body belongs to them too. It do not make any difference how many “beings” have the same thought, who writes this comment.
            But “I” can hang the label on it Elizabeth and the same moment how many others do the same??????.
            It does not matter because having the experience is enough and believing who is the originator do not make any difference. But if I insist I am than, I am the originator, while I am writing these last sentence………… there is laughter echoing across the Universe. The laughter was about the absurd of such a thought. Because there is no “I”.

      1. This seems like an inconsistency, a conflation of A and not-A.

        If all considerations are reactions to sensory input, where does the sensory input come from? (ie, Is there a ‘real world’ out there?)

        It sounds like you believe a person does not actually directly perceive the sensory input, but that considerations are mechanically formed on his part, and that those are what he perceives, except “he” does not really perceive them because “he” does no really exist,”he” is just an apparency.
        Ultimately this reduces to, the “person” does not perceive any sensory input because there is no such thing as a “person”, just stimulus-response chains of mechanical causation.

        Some interpreters of Buddhism believe this, I do not, and many Buddhists also do not believe this.

        1. “Self” and “sensory input” exist because of each other.

          “Cause” and “effect” exist because of each other.

          Buddha called this DEPENDENT ORIGINATION.

          .

          1. We have just demostrated how the ARC works, good for us Vinaire. When we experience a item on which we have reality on, that item is allowed in our space that is affinity, than we can say we love the sourse too. Vinaire, there is nothing like experiencing a good illusion. Nextp one please!

        2. Valkov, few days after the session I have in the dark, which I have written that up in my blog best to my ability. Suddenly something has stopped me on my track walking in my garden. It was very strong energy serge went through my universe than Cog: there is no such a thing as a being=person. Keep it in mind I experienced very different reality by having solo session in the “dark” therefore I view the light =daylight very differently since then. If one believes there is infinite why not believe that anything passible?

          1. “Cog: there is no such a thing as a being=person. “

            That is correct. There is no inherent beingness. A beingness is coalesced considerations.

            A being results from an identification with coalesced considerations. It is a construct.

            .

          2. Elizabeth and Vinaire,

            Elizabeth said, “There is no such a thing as a being=person.”

            If there is no such thing as a being what is there instead? Is it a single spiritual being, and when we reach the highest state there will be no awareness of the self that each of us now has?
            .

            Vin said, “A being results from an identification with coalesced considerations.”

            Who or what is doing the identifying? If the answer is “unknowable” does that mean you don’t know and no one can ever know? Or does it mean no one and no thing is identifying or considering? And if that’s the case, those two words have no meaning because implied in their definitions is the idea of their being DONE.

  22. I’ve read very little about quantum physics, but what I did read that intrigued me the most was the idea that “every particle knows what every other particle it has ever interacted with is doing.”

    If that’s the case, then it’s as if there were some sort of memory storage or automaticity within the particles, and therefore why couldn’t there also be stored a “command” to re-create every Planck second – which would make this a Real World objective universe after all. That seems like more of an Occam’s-razor explanation for Synchronization than re-creation of it in unison newly by every being in it.

    A paragraph in Maria’s post gave a very plausible description of the initial creation and continuing re-creation of a Real World: “Perhaps the answer does lie within the emission of wavelengths that result from emotion and thought activity, however minute. And perhaps rather like sound waves, which resonate together and can be reinforced, predominance amplifies and coalesces, reaching a tipping point where it is possible to perceive them and they actually produce persistent matter. And perhaps the incarnate are very powerful transmitters, and the disincarnate (if they exist) function on these levels only, relying on incarnate interaction.”

    All of the above would apply as well to the M-E-S-T universe of each individual that we call the mind – i.e., the energies and masses that are in the vicinity of a being. It would explain how those particular energies and masses react to each other and to other beings’ mental energies that come into their vicinity, and also to the energies of the physical universe that come into their vicinity.

    1. The problem is that if free will exists, then particles must be able to be affected by such a free will agent. If free will is exercised, even in the slightest, then all the deterministic course of action by those particles affected will be broken. This break is somehow viewable by other agents of free will. The question is how this could happen. And I think I have the answer. Stay tuned.

      1. I don’t think that free will exists in the absolute sense. One has the ability to consider or visualize, but that consideration or visualization must remain within the scope of what one has already postulated.

        Otherwise, one is violating one’s own postulates and that violation would be subject to all the effects of not-isness.

        .

    2. Marildi, you amaze me with your insight here..

      I do not subscribe to the idea either that this universe exists as a result of recreation in unison of it by every single being in it every “planck second.” Maria made a good point of a universe without human beings and consisting of lower life forms only. In that scenarion, the lower life forms could not be creating this universe in unison. So, the perception of this universe must come from some inherent property common to all life forms as pointed out by you. Just like genes that are common to life forms, this property of some kind of inherent programming could be common to all too. This programming is like having the same operating system and common software on all the computers in a network, so they can perceive a change anywhere in the network the same way.

      Anther analogy can be given in terms of radio waves that may be captured and expressed by any radio anywhere the same way.

      I am calling it programming for the lack of a better word. This is an area for further research.

      This scenarion brings into question the role of the being, and that there is some reality apart from the being. It also makes the concept of the being not the ultimate reality, but a construct from some ultimate reality.

      The most wonderful insight that came to me was from studying irrational numbers. I realized that the idea of a “unit” is really arbitrary. From matematics to real life, this translates as the idea of being as a single unit, being totally arbitrary too.

      Anyway, here is my admiration for both you and Maria.

      .

      1. Clirification:
        “This scenarion brings into question the role of the being, and it points out that there may be some reality more basic to the being.”

      2. Ugh! Typos:
        Further clarification:
        “This scenarion brings into question the role of the being, and it points out that there may be some reality more basic than the being.”

      3. Sorry! Another clarification:

        “This scenarion questions the being as a basic indivisible entity, and it points out that there may be some reality more basic than a being.”

        I hope you get what i am trying to say.

        .

      4. “the lower life forms could not be creating this universe in unison”

        Why not?

        And; Where does the programming come from?

        1. Well, all I am saying is that intelligence of higher forms in not a factor in the creation of this universe, and we do not have a good definition of a being or cause. Most people take being and cause for granted as axioms.

          All we have are some considerations, and we seem to be looking for better considerations. And that is all we are going to get.

          What we are not going to get is an as-isness of all considerations that may point to some higher state if there is one.

          .

      5. “…the idea of being as a single unit, being totally arbitrary too.”

        I think of what LRH said about the 8 dynamics – that they are arbitrary divisions.

        And thanks for the admiration (“the particle of admiration is best of all”). 🙂

  23. ENTANGLEMENT! (check Quantum Entanglement in WP)

    That would be the answer to the conundrum.

    Quantum entanglement could be seen as a mirror of the entanglement between agents of free will. As already covered, an agent of free will is out of necessity non-physical, the entanglement described as synchronization is non-physical. This may or may point to “We are all one” or just simply “We are all entangled”.

    (Thanks to marildi for inspiring this epiphany)

    1. This is good Gier,

      Well, ‘quantum entanglement’ (or anything with the word quantum 🙂 seems far above my pay-grade, but I look at the second wording “We are all entangled” as being the way I see it at this time.

      Who is to say ‘my’ thoughts or considerations or the ones that run thru my universe are always my own. From my experience in auditing, they aren’t.

      A simple example we have all experienced: Someone starts to speak and you can finish their sentence verbatim, or simply know before it is verbalized.

      Who’s thought was it … his? Your’s? Someone else in the vicinity? Someone unseen? Someone within your elbow? or someone clear across the galaxy?

      In auditing I am generally sorting out ownership(responsibility) for various things. Is it me that has that consideration or someone else? Can I be Cause or willing effect as I choose? Can I dispense with something that I have been dearly hanging on to for survival? Did I create that automaticity or someone else? Do I still agree with it or can I dispense of it? Is what I perceive really what I am perceiving or is it someone else’s perception. Does this same entanglement occur with MEST objects?

      Lots to ponder … but

      It seems to me that the tech addressed exactly that for me.

      As I weed out ‘me’ from the entanglement, things in general are much clearer – I feel I know myself better although that could change in an instant with a new thought. I am lighter and things flow through me rather than up against ridges or barriers set up long ago as I peel off the layers.

      Know thyself …

      1. Who is to say ‘my’ thoughts or considerations or the ones that run thru my universe are always my own. From my experience in auditing, they aren’t.

        A simple example we have all experienced: Someone starts to speak and you can finish their sentence verbatim, or simply know before it is verbalized.

        Who’s thought was it … his? Your’s? Someone else in the vicinity? Someone unseen? Someone within your elbow? or someone clear across the galaxy?
        I have found the same. There is no “MY” thoughts I have no idea just who has the same thoughts the same time and where and how far into distance and no idea how many elizabeths say this body is their body too.

        1. That is what I mean when I say, “Self is not the ultimate reality.”

          When one talks about God, one is basically talking about a self being the most basic datum.

          In my opinion that is not so.

          .

        1. I find the hypothesis that one viewpoint has broken down into many viewpoints, to be the same as saying that one universal self has broken into many smaller selves.

          I find this to be a materialistic viewpoint, as if ‘self’ is a piece of glass that fell and shattered into many more smaller pieces.

          Underlying this viewpoint is the stable datum of ‘self’ being the ultimate reality. The question then remains about the nature of this universal self. Does it create itself? Or, is it always there?

          This messes up the concept of Time.

          .

    2. Wow, inspiring such an epiphany couldn’t make me happier! 😀

      I checked out one of those Dr. Quantum cartoons (my speed) and this Entanglement idea is truly mind-blowing. Sends me in so many directions…

    3. Geir, you say that synchronization is non-physical and I take it you mean not part of the physical universe – which would not include the M-E-S-T in the mind. In the last paragraph of my post, I was looking at the fact that the energies and masses of any one of the “3 universes” are affected by those of any other universe when in the same vicinity. Now I’m wondering if it’s the same sort of entanglement as in QM, with the particles themselves becoming forever connected since they are actually created simultaneously.

      For example, a person duplicates the emotion particles of someone nearby at the same time that person is generating them and thus all these emotion particles in both minds are created at the same time. And, as regards physical universe particles – since they are re-created every Planck second, newly created energy particles in the mind will be synchronized with the creation of physical universe particles and will forever be connected to them. Not only emotion particles but thought particles as well (and, I guess, effort particles too).

      If it were something like this, then the synchronization of minds would actually be occurring via the physical universe. Tell me if this makes any sense to you (or anybody).

      1. p.s. I meant to include this quote from FOT:

        “Energy is energy. It has different wavelengths and different characteristics. The mental image pictures are capable of reacting upon the physical environment and the physical environment is capable of reacting upon mental image pictures.”

        1. A batcave??!!

          Wow! You’re miles ahead of me … I don’t even have a carport 🙂

          I await your emergence from the batcave.

        2. Ha ha! I have put 5 cents in the meter.

          You might be able solve not one but two conundrums for me. One has to do with the physical universe being on-again off-again every blankety-blank Planck second. There doesn’t seem to be any rhyme or reason for it – anything at all could have been set up for its “duration,” whether the most infinitesimal flash of time that it apparently is or quadrillions of years. Time is a consideration, time is relative. But if the purpose of built-in, constant re-creation is to keep all beings tied together, inextricably entangled and synchronized, that would give an explanation for it and a very good one.

          The other conundrum of mine is this notion that some people and some philosophies have – that everything each of us says and does and even thinks, affects the whole universe. I myself have at times had the strongest feeling that I personally do just that! It feels like pure truth when it happens, like pure intuition of truth.

          Ponder away, batman. 🙂

          1. On the first; I have problems seeing how anything could exist without creation. Creation does not persist, it happens. To make the illusion that something exists, it must be created at a very fast rate – think motion picture (great analogy). That would give us the illusion of time.

            On the second question – the answer I am leaning toward is Creation Entanglement 🙂

          2. Right, I think what you are saying is the same as LRH – there is only create-create-create. I just never could wrap my mind around the idea that a creation (an as-isness) can occur “just long enough” to be perceived if that doesn’t mean some tiny period of time. Any pointers for me on that or should I go back to FOT and ponder some more?

            But I’m not at all thinking that the universe wasn’t created, only the possibility of having “built into” the postulate of its existence the idea of “permanence” of perceptibility. If indeed that would be possible, then there must have been a reason to make it like a fast-rate motion picture, i.e. Entanglement.

            On the other – Creation Entanglement says it well!

            1. At this point I don’t believe in time. I don’t even think that moment of creation has ANY duration at all. It is created/perceived as one impression, then another impression one Planck second later, etc.

            1. Ah, I meant “no duration”, not “no time”. I see time only as the measurement of spacing between moments of no-duration creations.

          3. Oh, okay. It’s simply that idea of change of particles in space or change of location.

            Well then, what about this idea of alter-is that is supposed to bring about persistence? And if that is valid, it seems that alteration itself could be contained in the particles too.

            I’m not arguing for an “unbroken” universe, just the possibility that it could have been the one created, which would then beg the question of why it wasn’t and the answer would be – the plan for Entanglement.

            Hey, just tell me when you think I’m too far out of my depth and send me off to ponder or study whatever (just not a lot of quantum stuff – please!)

            1. I believe it is the underlying agreement on the rules that ring about persistence. In those rules would be the change/alter-is of the images/impressions.

          4. Holy atomic pie, Batman!! I suddenly have more space and things suddenly look brighter… Aw, it’s just your blog.

            Seriously, though – best yet because of the greater space alone! (Or is it optical illusion? All is illusion…)

            So I guess you mean the change/alter-is would be at the point of observation only? And it couldn’t (I mean, conceivably) be happening as intrinsic to the particles themselves, the alter-is being installed at the point of their creation – if the rules were set up that way? (mouthful – I seem to love long sentences sorta like free association or something :-))

            1. Yep. My thesis at this point is that nothing exists. Everything is simply created and therefore observed. You turn your back to it, then it is not created and hence it isn’t observed.

          5. type – atomic “pie” should be atomic “pile” (how to ruin a perfectly good joke in “no time”)

          6. Ah, so you are still thinking there’s no such thing as a Real World even if synchronization is explained by Entanglement or whatever? 😦 Hard for me to make that Real (he he).

            So why is it you are leaning that way?

          7. I don’t think it can either. Even with alter-is there is an introduction (creation) of “a change and therefore time and persistence in an as-is-ness to obtain persistency.” I was hypothesizing that the change or altered creation might be taking place within the particles themselves.

            But more importanly perhaps – on that comment where I indicated your problem with a Real World was synchronization, I got mixed up. I should have said the problem it gave you was with how Free Will could exist. And it seems that question would be solved by Entanglement. So with that in mind you might not have a problem with a Real World.

            (Is it time to tell me “Say good night, Gracie”? :-))

            1. A Real World means a world that exists independent of any creation, consideration or viewpoint. How would that come about? That is the main question in that arena. If the world is generated by consideration, then everything in it must be so created. And for change to occur, every single apparent change must also be created. And since everything in this universe is in change, then everything is created. Every Planck second. The alternative would have to be a real world independent of consideration. IMHO.

              Good night, Gracie 😉

          8. Good morning, Geirge (kidding, just wanted to give you a nicer blending of names – but no Gracie today!)

            I’d like to pick up a bit on just that one last, key point you made: “A Real World means a world that exists independent of any creation, consideration or viewpoint.” If I get your meaning there I agree – of course the universe was and still is “created” and wasn’t just a big bang out of nowhere. IMO too.

            But what about the possibility of there being something similar to a circuit or automaticity or machine in the mind – that is, a colossal universe-creating Machine set up to continue operating on its own with no further input or action on the part of the creator(s) necessary to keep it going, i.e. no continuous re-creation in a new unit of time needed by One and All as that is already being taken care of automatically by the Machine.

            In other words, if this is the case with the existing physical universe, then its repeated and continuous creation every Planck second has been set up ahead. And in that context it is an objective Real World – one that is created by a Machine which itself was created and set in motion by Beings and was their creation, and by extension still is their creation via the Machine (there being no such thing as time anyway).

            And of course the only thing that keeps this “basic universe” undergoing continuous little (or not so little, as the case may be) changes to it is the Free Will of individuals, which continues to evolve what is already there, via Postulates and the Entanglement of particles in all 3 universes.
            The above was the original idea I had (the one that inspired your epiphany) but I wanted to take another, hopefully better, run at explaining it.

            1. Is it important that it exists “on its own”?

              Thing is, if it exists on its own, then it is at that time independent of any consideration. How would that be?

          9. Not important, “on its own,” just better than trying to conceive of everyone re-creating it practically on a continuous basis (every Planck second).

            No! Not at all independent of considerations – continually and greatly being affected by them is more like it. In that last paragraph about Free Will I expressed this. Also in the first post that brought to your mind Entanglement. In that post I wrote that the flows and energies of each of the 3 universes react to each other, and quoted a paragraph of Maria’s where she expressed a similar idea more in detail. Also in the LRH quote about mental image pictures reacting upon the physical universe and visa versa – same thing with mock-ups or postulates, is what I’m imagining. Free will
            and considerations continually assert themselves into physical universe particles and thus through Entanglement into the perception of others.

            1. I cannot see how something can exist without being created. Can you? If so, please explain in detail how that could be.

          10. Do you agree with the definition of “circuit,” for example – that it exists as “a motivated mass” and is no longer being created (although that mass WAS originally created into existence)? LRH says it has “no livingness” in it. But if you are thinking there must be some sort of livingness there, keeping it created – I can see that viewpoint.

            However, the livingness in a circuit is not a part of the person’s awareness, by definition, and thus is effectively something else. And in that sense we could say it is no longer him doing the creating. But whatever we call it or however we fit any of this into constructs – in the end, there is still something occurring that is functioning as though it were separate and which affects the person exactly as if it were something separate.

            1. No, I believe everything is continually created (remember Create-Create-Create?). It is also backed up by the state of Clear and certain data on OT 6 (not that it much matters, but some are more prone to agree with certain data as long as LRH said so).

          11. My point was that it IS being continually created – but unknowingly, just like the livingness in a circuit is continually re-creating that circuit, unbeknownst to the creator whose own livingness that is.

          12. Yes, I realized after my last post that we are saying the same thing! So you must have asked the right question.

            Now, from there I would go on to say that the “automaticity” we all have in place is one that makes the physical universe persist as a Reality. And for that reason I see it as Real World that is objective – in that it’s what everyone perceives. Does that communicate?

            (Btw, I read your new post and if you feel that on this exchange I’m creating more friction than flow, due to my lack of knowledge or whatever, just let me know and I’ll hold off for now.)

            1. You are right. But I want to emphasize the actual Create-Create-Create. Almost all of my create is automatic/unconscious.

          13. Do you mean that you agree about it being an objective Real World (at least, looking at it from the angle that I believe makes the most sense)?

            Yes, its “scary” to consider how much creation is on automatic – and that probably sums up the basic situation and interest for all of us, and why we’re here hanging out together on your blog. 🙂

            1. I can’t really think with the word “objective” here as from what I see, everyone is creating what they see… if objectivity is defined as “coincidence”, then yes.

          14. Maybe there actually isn’t any other definition. Because I agree with your idea that nothing exists truly on its own, how would it? And here again it all comes down to considerations – that is to say: the basic truth of existence is the Being = ability to consider.

      2. Hi Marildi.

        It makes sense to me. And I love how clearly you outlined it. I was hopeful that someone could articulate what was forming as concept for me!!

        It seems to me that there is an enchantment with the mass and density of the physical universe as evidence of “real,” to the point of negation of all else. And yet, mass and density forms only a very minscule subset of even the physical universe – i.e. of the vast spectrum of wavelengths, only a miniscule subset have any negligable mass/density. Most pass right through denser forms. And yet they are real.

        The same is true of the myriad life forms. One day it occurred to me that I was being very human form “centric” and overlooking what a plankton (for example) “sees” of the world. Here they are trucking along and having a reality in which they can participate, busy grabbing photons and converting them, engaging in cell division, and generally going about their lives. It seems to me that their lives and their intention depend on and hold a “matrix” in place too. Clearly they are fully capable of duplicating themselves, fashioning new forms from photons or whatever their particular operating basis is. What do they perceive? Do they dream of photons? If we all go away, do they? And what is the impact of the combined intention of gazillions and gazillions of plants, animals, insects, bacteria, and so on? Pretty good foundation for the production and continuation of a persistent reality I would think.

        And what of mass/density itself? There is a reason why there is a word: mass. That’s because the sensation called “weight” is hooked to the phenomena called gravity. This phenonmena does not present outside of gravitic spheres. And yet the bodies of astronauts do not fly apart or disintegrate in space where weightlessness is reality. It seems that the microcosmic atomic worlds of particles swirling around a nucleous have life of their own too. So perhaps there does not need to be this sharp division between life and non-life. Perhaps the real division is between replicating and non-replicating life. In this instance I am considering a definition of life as “manifested existences.”

        Anyway, carry on, I am really enjoying your take on things!!!

        1. Maria, you are so inspiring that it makes me downright joyful to be able to be any sort of assistance to your fabulous mind! In return, I remind you that it was a paragraph of yours (which I quoted) that I “entangled with” 🙂 and which helped me articulate the idea that Geir tied in with quantum Entanglement.

          Wow, I considered the physical universe itself and explicitly people but forgot about all the other life forms and their corresponding impact on “production and continuation of a persistent reality.” And your theory about how the atomic world of particles with their cohesiveness indicates they must “have a life of their own” makes much sense (at least to my pretty much unschooled-in-science mind).

          Love your “manifested existences” definition of life – all of them being contributing factors of the Real World. What a concept! What a construct! I was already sitting with a notion that MEST is not dissimilar to Life. I mentioned that once in a comment and it reminded Rafael of an tape where LRH said something like, “MEST is alive.”

          Same to you – carry on!

    4. K. I’ll wax even more pseudo-scientific.

      Can we entangle from lower systems to higher or … Reverse?

      A 2D system with a 4D system?0

      What about numbers? Are the fingers of your left hand entangled with the number 5? Is 5 entangled with everything 5?

    5. Good job Marildi.

      Geir (I am just having time to look at this) You would propose:
      That there exists an unseen synchronization automatically creating the causally deterministic reality in which we live and breath;
      That this un-viewed mechanism may be quantum entanglement;
      That case-wise we exercise acquiescence to the rules of this quantum entanglement;
      That we have free will within the framework of living except that we may not tamper with the unseen quantum mechanics;
      and (I add) that it has been a violation of MEST for the great minds of physics and possibly solo auditors as well as other radical philosophers to pierce this veil of rules?

      1. Good summary – but I believe there are many opportunities within the framework that we are no longer conscious about – stuff that would by the ignorant be referred to as loopholes or even magic.

  24. Theory of Universal Darwinism and Memetics Explained:

    Perhaps one of the most important lectures that have been dissed by academia.

    1. Blackmore’s ideas are taking a beating. Personally, I think it’s Cognitive Dissonance Theory rearing its ugly head in the Scientific community. Her ideas are testable and observable.

      But the idea of an INTANGIBLE turning meat into men is troubling to some …

      “The memes took the gene machines and turned them into meme machines.” – Susan Blackmore

      Universal Darwinism is a “Theory of Everything” that I think will eventually get incorporated into cosmology.

      1. I doubt it will be a theory of everything. Because tho problem arises as to how come it is in the first place – and the problem of system breakout.

          1. Anything that varies, selects and has heredity.

            Now. Does math do this? Yes. It does. Which leads us to …

            Mathematical realism. Pythagoreanism.

          2. This is a fascinating new direction. I find it very interesting. It simply turns everything on its head.

            It puts abstract patterns in charge of concrete manifestations.

            It is like focusing on consistency to see what kind of considerations might emerge. in fact that is what seem to be happening with KHTK Looking.

            .

  25. Regarding free will and Roy from “Bladerunner” shown above.

    It’s the roof scene. Roy knows he is just meat and at the end of his life. He knows he is a product of human engineering.

    But since he KNOWS that and OPERATES from that reality, he becomes different. He TRANSCENDS meat. He exhibits free will as his first real creation.

    Meat creates spirit by recognizing the meat being as JUST a meat being. He knows his memories are implants. He knows his emotions are engineered.

    In seeing who he really is and his delusion of a free will, he effectively gets to divide his universe by zero and transcend to anything he wants in his imagination and ATTAIN FREE WILL.

    He saves Decker and enters into a state of bliss and dies enlightened meat.

    1. Any free will can be mimicked. Just as intelligence can be mimicked. What makes the difference is that you cannot have a system breakout where you will actually get free will – i.e. an agent that can freely create or change the system itself. Of course it can be mimicked – like Roy (one of my favorite actors btw; Rutger Hauer).

      1. So you are saying that Roy is just meat that thinks he has free will.

        For me, free will is tied to one thing: SELF GENERATED IMAGINATION THAT IS AWARE OF THE SYSTEM THAT PERMITS IT.

        1. That is not the definition I am using, ref. my article. Free will would be able to construct the system it operates in.

        2. So we are really just back to the Koan Mu.

          STUDENT: “Teacher, does a Roy Replicant have a Buddha nature?”
          TEACHER: “Mu.”

          They say enlightenment comes more from this Koan than from any other …

          And what happens when Roy realizes his perceived free will as mimicked? He looks at it and realizes that looking in the present moment mimicry and the ASCENDING SPIRAL BEGINS.

          Roy starts VARYING his ideas. He SELECTS ideas that support free will and he REPRODUCES them in his memory …

          And the three components of evolution EMERGE.

          Because …

          “Whenever you have variation, selection and heredity, evolution MUST occur or design out of chaos without the aid of mind.”

          Enlightenment = Actual Free Will

          1. “And what happens when Roy realizes his perceived free will as mimicked? He looks at it and realizes that looking in the present moment mimicry and the ASCENDING SPIRAL BEGINS. ”

            No matter how you look at it, you will not get a 2 dimensional system evolving into a 3 dimensional system all on its own.

          2. Two things here.

            1. You can never count to infinity (we can count).
            2. Infinity actually exists (we can perceive and feel infinity intuitively).

            Now to Transpose (Admittedly not logically consistent)

            1. You can never have free will – only ascending qualities of it in motion (like Roy’s ascending practice in meditation and descending practice in Second Life.)
            2. Infinite Free Will exists (we can perceive and feel free will intuitively).

            Roy can’t count to infinity.
            Roy can perceive infinity.

            Roy can’t attain free will.
            An infinite free will for Roy exists.

            Perhaps perception of free will is our best reality of it. And that leads us back to …

            dream and imagination.

          3. “Enlightenment = Actual Free Will”

            I like that definition. I see “free will” as the room to maneuver among the considerations one holds.

            As one is less and less fixated on any one consideration, this room to maneuver increases.

            When all the fixation is gone then the room to maneuver is infinite. In other words, “free will” is infinite. Therefore,

            Disappearance of fixation = infinite free will = Enlightenment.

            .

        3. When I look I see the ability to visualize or imagine. That is a given.

          How this ability cones about, I do not know. I only know that however you spell out “free will,” it does not alter the fact that the ability to visualize is there.

          .

    1. BTW: Your article on freewill has a typo “looses” instead of “loses.”

      And I find this statement incorrect from my viewpoint.

      “It also makes the science of physics the ultimate profound science able to explain it all.”

      I think physics is going to fall short. I think the Pythagoreans had it right. “God is number.” I think that if Free Will, if it exists, it can only be found if mathematical realism actually is the foundation of everything.

      I find an interesting understanding when I take the word “number” and replace it for God in this Joseph Campbell quote:

      “God is an intelligible sphere known to the mind and not to the senses. Whose center is everywhere and circumference is nowhere, and whose center exists right where you’re center and whose center exists right where I’ms sitting. And each of us is a manifestation of that mystery.”

      I think that only math and information can transcend the universe and that all maths do exist eternally and always in the emptiness.

      1. I think mathematics is a subset of physics and not the other way around 🙂

        You may ask me why if you are curious.

        1. Well if physics is the master set of math then Roy is hopeless mystery meat with no free will.

          If math is a master set of physics, Roy may be able to tap into number and create free will.

          So yeah. I would like your point of view.

          1. Course, depending on the configuration we may have these different universe sources:

            math > physics
            physics > math
            Math/Physics bundled like Space/TIme is bundled
            UNKNOWN > math/physics

          2. Firstly; I will consider a theory of emerging free will out of no will from the first person who can convincingly show how to create four dimensional space out of three dimensional objects. I believe that would be my final word in that realm.

            The basis for physics is agreement. Part of that agreement is what constitutes math.

          3. Geir, many fundie Creationists spout the laws of thermodynamics as proof that life couldn’t evolve.

            Break that, they say, and they will consider evolution.

            One thing they are overlooking.

            The universe isn’t a CLOSED system. Those laws work for closed systems. The same goes for taking a Platonic solid and making it into 4 dimensional space.

            IMPOSSIBLE if the system is closed.
            POSSIBLE if the system is not closed.

            Mathematics is never closed to any system. It can flip flop from subset to master or both instantaneously. Number is the only truly instant totally omniscient thing I know of.

            Therefore if emptiness/math is a subset of physics. Roy is hopeless meat.

            If emptiness/math is sometimes a master of physics and/or subset, Infinite number may appear in Roy’s awareness as a subset TO HIM as soon as he drops ego – free will then occurs out of infinite probability. He stops being a subset to probability and becomes the master set of it.

            Water above. Water below.
            Number above. Number below.

          4. Since I’m waxing psudo-scientific to the degree of “bad bullshit,” I feel some qualifiers are in order. Roy in an enlightened state where all number is under his domain, would NOT have superpowers.

            His awareness of now (infinite number) and loss of ego merely puts all of number under his awareness.

            So potential would create the world of Roy, and his enlightenment would put ALL of that same potential UNDER his consciousness.

            Infinite number above. Infinite number below.

            Only number can do this – be both master and servant at the same time.

        2. I think that Physics is a subset of the universe of considerations. Mathematics is a subset of the universe of considerations as well.

          So it is moot and irrelevant whether mathematics is a subset of physics or not.

          .

    2. That is an excellent reference, Katageek.

      http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/Chapters/Brockman2005.htm

      “When the feeling is gone, decisions just happen with no sense of anyone making them, but then a new question arises—will the decisions be morally acceptable? Here I have made a great leap of faith. It seems that when people discard the illusion of an inner self who acts, as many mystics and Buddhist practitioners have done, they generally do behave in ways that we think of as moral or good. So perhaps giving up free will is not as dangerous as it sounds—but this too I cannot prove.”

      I think that nothing changes here except for one’s belief; and one may believe anything one wants.

      To me Susan’s viewpoint is more consistent. Actually, it fits right in line with KHTK Looking, which is based on Buddhism.

      .

  26. “What we call “I” is the thetan. What we call SELF is the personal universe. “I” and SELF are one and the same. They are not two things that can be separated.”
    I take it as is.Right in my alley. Since we both agree that those words are considerations we know where we are. poof gone.

    1. Not at all, my friend. Why would you think I am pissed about something? Just because I asked if consistency was a fixation of yours?

      Nope, I was curious whether you would see it as a fixation. And I am curious whether you would see any fixation you have. The reason I am curious about that is because you have a tendency to claim other people have various fixations. So, I wonder if you can see any of your own.

      1. I’ll never claim I have no fixations, nor have I ever done so.

        When I have no fixations I won’t be here to claim it anyway. 🙂

        .

  27. https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/09/07/sunchronization-problem/#comment-8045

    Looks like Dennis got upset with me here.

    I had simply stated, “’Who’ is the basic fixation.” And asked, “Does there have to be a who?” And then I pointed out, “Again ‘self’ as a fixation is present in your argument.”

    Of course, I made an evaluation about that exchange. But then I got tons of evaluation back not related to that exchange, but more personal.

    This makes me think that I must have touched some nerve. I have found this to happen with other people too, precisely on the subject of “self.”

    I cannot help it if my present reality is that there is no ultimate who. This may sound materialistic but I don’t think so that it is materialistic.

    I find myself in a minority in thinking that way. It certainly upsets the basic pitch that Scientology makes. It invalidates the whole concept of OT.

    .

      1. I think some readers are curious about you. Take that as a compliment rather than try to evaluate their feelings. See, the difference here seem to be that we pointed out elements about your posts (coming across as “know best”) whereas you speculate on other’s feelings or intentions. It certainly reinforces the impression of a “Know Best” attitude, which incidentally serves the good content of your posts no good.

        1. I would let other readers speak for themselves. Let’s talk about us.

          I seem to understand why you would think that I am “know best.” As we get closer and closer to the fundamentals we are finding that our realities are very different. You see the ultimate reality as a being, or some sort of beingness, which is the basic stable datum of Scientology, and also that of the Semitic religions and Western culture. I find the ultimate reality to be unknowable. This is how Buddhism, the Eastern religions and the Eastern culture looks at it. I am sure there are exceptions to it in both West and East. The above two broad divisions are from historical perspective.

          I am in a minority here with this viewpoint, as I was in a minority when in Scientology. I did get into trouble with this viewpoint when in Scientology and was crammed heavily. This is when I started to get disillusioned about Scientology near the end of seventies. I then left Sea Org in 1983 after spending 12 years in it (mostly at Flag).
          I find a lot of things that makes sense in Scientology. But my reality differs in a very fundamental way from that of Scientology and of most scientologists.

          So, when I emphasize my reality, it certainly stands out among the group, and especially goes against the reality of a highly audited scientologist like you. This is such a fundamental difference that it would certainly be termed “know best” by you.

          I am not surprised.

          1. “I seem to understand why you would think that I am “know best.” As we get closer and closer to the fundamentals we are finding that our realities are very different. You see the ultimate reality as a being, or some sort of beingness, ”

            And in this you are wrong. And you seem to base your premises in the discussion on what you think I believe.

            It is the way you convey your points that come across as “know best” – not your beliefs.

          2. I try to be sincere and honest, and that is all I can do.

            If I appear to you as “know best,” then so be it.

            If I have a flaw, I am sure it will evaporate by itself sooner and later as I continue to address inconsistencies in my universe.

            Go with peace, brother.

            .

    1. Ah Vinnie,

      I enjoy the the diversity you bring as you examine the world as you see it. As far as there being no ultimate who, I must then ask, who are you? And in asking the question I see that I seek to identify you. And in seeking to identify you, I see that I seek to position you, and in seeking to position you, I see that I seek to make you consistent, and then I see that I am not at all surprised that you respond that you are not, never were and never will be. And yet from you springs…

      Kali is dancing with exultation!

    2. No, Vin … not upset at all, although you wouldn’t want to hear my ‘inside’ voice 🙂

      It may be the way your viewpoint is stated or the way it is conveyed. To point out that another’s reality is a fixation (from YOUR viewpoint) may not be the best way to go about it.

      The freedom to express, their reality/viewpoints/beliefs and discuss them, even if totally off-base, is what makes this blog so interesting – even though the subject matter is somewhat intangible.

    1. That is how a subset of a system evolves into a larger subset of a system and not how a complete system evolves into a higher order.

      1. As I stated earlier, the physical universe is a subset of the universe of Considerations.

        The assumed boundary of the physical universe is getting blurred as we look closely into the fundamentals of matter. That is where Quantum Mechanics come in. At the moment there is a lot of confusion at the level of Quantum Mechanics.

        .

  28. Marildi,

    https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/09/07/sunchronization-problem/#comment-8141

    Looks like this is the very point on which I am being chided as “know best” by Dennis and Isene. I am glad to see that you are at least willing to discuss this.

    I have tried to explain myself here:

    https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/09/07/sunchronization-problem/#comment-8154

    There is a whole lot of literature that explains this Eastern reality, but it is so fundamental that anybody who has grown up with the Western reality alters the material while studying it.

    It is only when I am expressing it in stark terms, that people have found that they can’t ignore it any more. Now I have started to see some reactions to it.

    .

    1. MarildiMarildi, “being” “I” “self” “me’ expresses singular, points toward the body the separateness, individuality which includes all the human consideration, all that is part of the bank. The believes of solidity, the concepts of life and death, etc..
      There is no “state” because that again would be something, better, above, different from whatever, yes? I do not have those concepts but while being here I communicate by them. But I am not a human, not singular being, and have no problem with that, that at the same time as “I” write this world the whole universe do the same thing, the ones who are on the “Same level” that is.
      Identity has no importance neither is to be, having or do, when one steps out leaves all those consideration behind than It simply boils down to an instant creation same moment the experience. Very simple, there is no more that is the reason so hard to comprehend.
      When one realizes and understands, than there is total ARC because there is no singularity, separateness, which causes the ARCB’s.

      1. Elizabeth, when you said, “I do not have those concepts but while being here I communicate by them,” it cleared up a lot for me. Thank you so much for your contributions. There is no one here like you!

      2. P.S. It seems that you are saying there will be “no awareness of the self that each of us now has” – that sense of “yourself” that you (or someone) now has. You might only be able to answer the same as you did, but just thought I would ask. 🙂

        1. Let me comment about your P.S. to Elizabeth. For me, for what is being real for me, Yes. No sense of self in the Ego sense. But you will not dissolve into a mushy gooey gelatinous homogeneous lump of nothingness, rather my sense is that I shall experience myself with crystal clarity – my true self without the separateness that ego requires. To be clearer, my sense of it is as a positive thing of beauty and definitely not the “apathetic oneness” that we’ve made light of or that we might have remnant fixed ideas about.

          This seems just “right there” like the word that I can almost say.

          1. Chris, you are ringing bells and ringing mine again too. I think we have the same “sense” of it..

            “…will not dissolve into a mushy gooey gelatinous homogeneous lump of nothingness, rather my sense is that I shall experience myself with crystal clarity”

            That blew charge. Literally.

            Yer gettin’ TA today, my friend!

        2. Marildi, when one drops the body one no longer continues, “Thinking” one leaves thinking behind with the body. The body make one believe in many false things since it is a machine which generates energy continually.’
          After dropping the body one moves out of the solid from the MEST into the spiritual universe and then with that enters into one space huge amount of confusion. Whiteout body the automatic thinking is gone, just bits and pieces of concepts remain. The being is usually get stuck in the heavy energy that time, those conditions incidents totally unique to each being. But when no longer has the BANK and connection to the MEST well, Hallelujah. One can and has total freedom of creation and the same moment the experience.
          Also a factor counts greatly after one “Leaves” the light of the day[ dropping the body, ] where time space, night or day, doing-ness etc. do not exists, losing those considerations alone takes away from one immense amount of considerations. Being-ness vanish, most of the time, but one can feel tremendous loss not having the body and therefore one no longer exists. Big thing, big item need to be run out is sessions.
          By the way when you “summarised” the one-ness you quoted me almost verbatim, you have no reason to complain or worry from the loss of memory.

          1. Thanks. I didn’t think I was quoting you at all because what I was getting from you was more like a loss of own viewpont, of self. And I actually see it differently from that. But I was thinking that Chris’ recent description was quite like my idea. Anyway, sometimes ideas get lost in the words, just because of semantics.

    2. Vin, you yourself got me willing to discuss this subject! And I think that was because our ARC had increased a lot, including with that some similar (or consistent :-)) considerations we shared. The “stark terms” (good description) I don’t think moved me much in the intended direction.

      You have to take your own very good advice to go about getting some understanding by taking different approaches, etc. Geir is right that previously you didn’t really present your ideas as well as you could have – and could. But that was then and now is now (not to get preachy, but you know what I mean). I’m giving you my heartfelt advice just as you have done with me. 🙂

      And now I can say that I’m actually willing to see that what you’re saying is possibly true – pretty good for a Western gal, eh?

  29. Isene says:

    https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/09/07/sunchronization-problem/#comment-8119

    ”Firstly; I will consider a theory of emerging free will out of no will from the first person who can convincingly show how to create four dimensional space out of three dimensional objects. I believe that would be my final word in that realm.
    The basis for physics is agreement. Part of that agreement is what constitutes math.”

    I think that the best way to look at free will is per Occam’s Razor, as

    Ability to visualize + Room to maneuver among what we have already visualized

    The above exists from simple looking. That should be the end of any argument. But this goes against the belief that there must be an independent “who” or a “what” as the source. But that belief is inherently inconsistent because then one would look for another “who” or a “what” behind it, and would be wrestling with an endless chain forever. One may finally settle for a “who” or a “what” for which one may then claim that there is no further “who” or a “what” behind it. And that would be an inconsistency.

    All this demand for “how to create four dimensional space out of three dimensional objects” has no basis at all. Where is such a demand coming from? What is the underlying datum that is creating this demand?

    I would like to know that datum and examine it more closely. Here is something that is being taken for granted.

    To me, there is no ultimate independent source, such as, the Semitic God. There is only DEPENDENT ORIGINATION that Buddha talked about.

    The idea of “agreement” assumes that there are “beings,” who are agreeing. So, the idea of agreement presupposes the presence of beings. When we talk in terms of consistency, there is no such presupposition of beings.

    This is parallel to the comparing a Rational Number to Irrational number. A Rational Number presupposes a “unit,” but an Irrational Number doesn’t. Pythagoras was so upset by his disciple who discovered the irrational number, that he, as the story goes, ordered that disciple to be drowned.

    Please see Going Beyond Counting

    The effort here may be described as

    “Going beyond self (or God)”

    .

  30. Katageek says:

    https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/09/07/sunchronization-problem/#comment-8127

    ” Geir, many fundie Creationists spout the laws of thermodynamics as proof that life couldn’t evolve.
    “Break that, they say, and they will consider evolution.
    “One thing they are overlooking.
    “The universe isn’t a CLOSED system. Those laws work for closed systems. The same goes for taking a Platonic solid and making it into 4 dimensional space.
    “IMPOSSIBLE if the system is closed.
POSSIBLE if the system is not closed.
    “Mathematics is never closed to any system. It can flip flop from subset to master or both instantaneously. Number is the only truly instant totally omniscient thing I know of.
    “Therefore if emptiness/math is a subset of physics. Roy is hopeless meat.
    “If emptiness/math is sometimes a master of physics and/or subset, Infinite number may appear in Roy’s awareness as a subset TO HIM as soon as he drops ego – free will then occurs out of infinite probability. He stops being a subset to probability and becomes the master set of it.
    “Water above. Water below.
 Number above. Number below.”

    This post is worth highlighting. Those who believe in God and soul are trying to make this universe a CLOSED system. But that forces into place a big inconsistency as to the origin of this universe if GOD is a part of it.

    The truth is, as pointed out correctly above,

    “The universe isn’t a CLOSED system.”

    That is exactly what the concept of UNKNOWABLE puts forth. But that concept was laughed at on Geir’s Blog.

    Karma! 🙂

    .

    1. “That is exactly what the concept of UNKNOWABLE puts forth. But that concept was laughed at on Geir’s Blog.”

      Nope. It was probed until you went in circles with it. You defended it poorly, that’s all.

  31. I think that reality IS real. It is a confluence and “meeting point” of different viewpoints, of different expressions of free will. It is the table where we lay our cards, the game board, if you will.

    Reality, and by that, I mean this “meeting place” Reality, and not the “real” objects in it or expressions of it, is basically, a created static. By that I mean unchanging. Reality is the “frequency” we all have to tune into to in order to experience it. Others have called this reality Present Time. Present Time is unchanging and eternal and needs to be maintained that way in order to facilitate interactions with other beings. It doesn’t matter if these beings are all from the same initial source, or created in some other way

    The purpose and function of Reality is to provide the synchronization of and for the different viewpoints. Who originally created it, I don’t know. But I think all who are here experiencing it have a hand in creating it, if only by continuing to “dial into” the frequency.

    The example you gave in the original post about the spoon not existing unless everyone was creating it is flawed. Because if someone did not know to create the spoon that everyone else was creating, then how could he perceive the spoon? How could you keep it all synchronized?

    The answer is, create a spoon and throw it into the Reality space, into that place where others can see it and interact with it.

    With reality so defined, one can see that time doesn’t have to exist as part of it, as well.

    1. “The example you gave in the original post about the spoon not existing unless everyone was creating it is flawed. Because if someone did not know to create the spoon that everyone else was creating, then how could he perceive the spoon? How could you keep it all synchronized?”

      That is the question of the OP restated.

      With your theory, you are faced with the ultimate question; How did “Reality” or “the frequency” come about? You are no steps closer to figuring it out so far.

  32. This thread reminds me of a philosophical question I had when I was around 4 years old; How can we know that another person see for example the color green as green? He can give examples of different green objects and we can agree on that but maybe his perception register that color as blue? So all green waves/frequencies  might be blue in his universe. That puzzled me and still does… I remember I made up lots of metal images with “twisted” colors to imagine how that kind of sight would look like. Green heaven and purple sun. Why not?
    When you say spoon maybe I see a fork? 🙂

  33. “I will consider a theory of emerging free will out of no will from the first person who can convincingly show how to create four dimensional space out of three dimensional objects. I believe that would be my final word in that realm.”

    A long time ago I had a cog on how that would work – It was one of those flash moments of insight, I was considering how to build a 4d fuel tank – having the 4d to store all the fuel in, it could hold a fantastic amount and still be easy to transport – much the same as the fold box in one of Heinlein’s stories (if recall serves)

    Then I realized, if you were talented enough to make a 4d fuel tank, why would you need fuel in the first place?

    I agree free will exists, if for no other reason than I exist. And I think the spoon (universe) exists for any that consider it does exist.

    Perhaps the mechanics are beyond our ken, like the internet is beyond the ken of a dog, or perhaps they are so damn simple, that you consider you are agreeing to the universe and lo and behold, there it is – 3d, color, time, syncronized – the whole ball of wax, just like your dreams Geir. You consider there are beings and places in them and there they are.

    Perhaps you are all over thinking it. It could be that simple.

    Oh, here is another idea. My wife told me of an experience she once had while having sex and being in and experiencing it in both bodies at the same time. From that simple experience I can extrapolate the answer to all of this.

    You are everywhere /nowhere in the universe all the time, however you choose to percieve it from only one location. This solves the conundrum. Since everybody is everywhere /nowhere also, all of the universe is agreed upon universally in complete totality. Therefore everybody sees the same spoon, in the same shape and color and time though they have chosen seperate viewpoints to view the universe from.

    Mimsey

  34. By having seperate viewpoints you have a game – by not assuming a viewpoint you co-exist with everybody and there is no game. But is a bit more like doing both simultaneously, you are really co-existing while pretending be seperate.

    And you know the length and breadth of the universe while pretending to view it from one location.

    Just a thought.

    Mimsey

  35. marildi
    2011-09-12 at 06:49
    Hey Chris,

    “What did you think of the idea that the triggering of mechanics is done by the inherent ability of a thetan to put out an “impulse” (as in the somatic mind quote)? Or maybe you prefer it described as directing energy to specific “systems of control.” Does either of these expressions of it, or the other quotes in my post, indicate to you according to your own “sense” of what intention is?

    Hey, I did address the OP and tried to show the connection or link between such impulses or energy flows and the physical universe. I re-stated it again in a comment today to Geirge (just a joke, that spelling, but you can type that into “Find on this page”) Would love to know what you think!”

    Chris says: Hey Marildi, Thanks for asking. I have been quiet on this because my ideas on this have come up short. Also, smart people like you have been working like the devil and organizing whatever is currently known or conjectured better than I. Also I have been conserving my focus for auditing.

    The OP addresses the logical question of not whether or not there is reality but why we all experience it. There reasonably needs to be preclusions for Reality to exist as we experience it. Your idea that there is an “impulse” and others voiced in this thread are sensible. As I understand it, the question posed by the OP is how this is done. Everyone here more or less agrees that Intention moves things around, but the original OPQ remains – “How?”

    I am loving the language of mathematics. Maths describe orders of magnitude. Maths also describe the becoming of infinitely large and infinitely small sizes as well as ratios aka orders of magnitude within closed systems. My work on fractal math and also considering Bunkai’s and Geir’s rant about “maths vs physics systems” left me feeling that there may be an inherent yet beautifully complex but dead-end trap built into the maths whose purpose would be to fixate attention “away from examining causes.” I have thought that possibly irrational numbers point to the irrationality of leaning too heavily on mathematics to solve philosophical questions. What I truly appreciate about mathematics is it’s explicit accuracy. It can through quantity always rise in accuracy to whatever level is desired. If there is no real world out there then philosophy reigns supreme over even the physical and consequently mathematics.

    On the other hand, there may not actually be infinitely large and small systems of MEST but only large and small systems of MEST “becoming” or moving towards infinitely large and small such as the physical universe.

    I have written about entanglement before and like what I know about it but have also been left wanting or at least I have another explanation for the “observed” phenomena of entanglement. I am not aware that we can accurately measure the timing of events to declare they occur at the same time. There is for me a LOT more work needing to be done with the ideas of entanglement.

    Everyone contributing to this thread has done quite a good job and I feel have been giving it their best, but the answer to the OPQ remains elusive and obfuscated. Maybe there is another more correct way to begin the syllogism.

    REGARDING THE OPQ: I have audited on this link and come up with the cognition that the Intention is “created from scratch.” My cognition may be correct or shortsighted, but currently I see no “link.” If anyone sees more deeply into this than I have expressed then I would be appreciative of their enlightenment.

    1. Good post. I can add this from the WP article:

      “Experimental results have demonstrated that effects due to entanglement travel at least thousands of times faster than the speed of light.”

    2. Oh wow, I hadn’t duplicated which link you had in mind as regards intention. I thought you meant the link between an intention and what happens in the physical universe. It didn’t even occur to me you meant a link just before or leading to an intention – it seems clear to me too that intention is “created from scratch.”

      Creating an intention is precisely the inherent ability of a being – to be able to postulate and have (as per the def of postulate) “a directed desire or order,” which right there is an intention. I would absolutely agree that there is no link that “precedes” an intention – unless you want to call “the link” a Being. Intentions are implied or implicit in the nature of a being – to be able to postulate or originate or, simply put, Create. But am I tracking with you now?

      I’ll get back to you on the rest of your post once this “smart person” grasps it (ha ha!) You are SO much more learned than I am, I just base my ideas on principles I know that seem basic to me and that I sense from my experience, or from intuition, are true. And then I have the nerve to open my big mouth about it all, committing the biggest crime of the universe. 🙂

        1. A real belly laugh from that one! And coming from the nonconforming-maverick-renegade that you are, I’ll take it as a compliment!

    3. Hi Chris,

      Getting back to you on the rest of your post. I don’t know if you’ve been able to follow the whole thread (cool that you are conserving your focus for auditing!) but it isn’t actually the case that “the answer to the OPQ remains elusive and obfuscated at this point”! I’m going to try and sum it up for you.

      First, a quote from the OP: “If there is no Real World Out There, and all of the perceived existence is created by each viewpoint simply by the act of observation – as is one of the interpretations of Quantum Mechanics…”

      I believe that we (at least Geir and I) did come to the conclusion that there IS an objective Real World out there which is actually not one created by the act of observation, but rather is an agreed-upon Reality that is being continually re-created by one and all, albeit unknowingly as an automaticity.

      Further, based on that exchange, this was the way I summed it all up at the end – as this was what the exchange lead to: “And here again it all comes down to considerations – that is to say: the basic truth of existence is the Being = ability to consider.” So Chris, that “ability to consider” would be where “impulse” fits into the picture – as the ultimate Cause and Source of the physical universe.

      Also in the OP: “Now how comes any changes that I make in my view is immediately reflected in every other’s view of reality? This is the problem of synchronization. Why do we see the same?”

      Geir answered that question with his post beginning “ENTANGLEMENT! That would be the answer to the conundrum.”

      He goes on to explain: “Quantum entanglement could be seen as a mirror of the entanglement between agents of free will. As already covered, an agent of free will is out of necessity non-physical, the entanglement described as synchronization is non-physical. This may or may point to ‘We are all one’ or just simply “we are all entangled.’

      The way I see the entanglement and synchronization at this point may be somewhat different from the precise way Geir does, I’m not sure. For me, it starts with the fact that all particles in the MEST universe are “connected” with each other through Entanglement. Then, since we are all connected to the MEST universe via being in comm with it (i.e. perceiving it) THAT effectively keeps us connected with each other.

      Next, consider what LRH said here: “Energy is energy. It has different wavelengths and different characteristics. The mental image pictures are capable of reacting upon the physical environment and the physical environment is capable of reacting upon mental image pictures.”

      Keeping that in mind and the fact that postulates get “posted” as energies themselves, it seems to me that postulates too must be “capable of reacting upon the physical environment and the physical environment capable of reacting upon” postulates. And that would mean that they will “go around the world” because of the fact that those physical universe particles they react upon are “entangled.”

      All of the above tells me that philosophy does reign supreme. In any case, would love your feed back on any of it. We can develop the hypothesis together. 🙂
      .

      P.S. My sister has recently become enthralled with mathematics too – after reading Vinaire’s post about it.

      1. “First, a quote from the OP: “If there is no Real World Out There, and all of the perceived existence is created by each viewpoint simply by the act of observation – as is one of the interpretations of Quantum Mechanics…”

        I believe that we (at least Geir and I) did come to the conclusion that there IS an objective Real World out there which is actually not one created by the act of observation, but rather is an agreed-upon Reality that is being continually re-created by one and all, albeit unknowingly as an automaticity. ”

        Eh – these are the same. One creates what one observes and the objectivity is coincidence in creation, which can be called agreement. So, the statement in the OP stands, and your interpretation is one way of describing it.

        I remain a believer that there is no MEST per se. There is each and everyone’s creation of it. Thus I contest LRH’s theory of the three universes. I believe there is only the universe you create and there is entanglement with other viewpoints that also create the same (and other stuff private to them). I further believe if a viewpoint stopped creating all the other “stuff” on automaticity (like the reactive mind), I believe he would be able to bring the rest of his universe creation up to a more conscious level. There is an awesome amount of automatic creation for each viewpoint. It could very well be that in all of this, a viewpoint is as powerful as it does not create on automatic. This explains why the Bridge works, why Clear works, why the handling of old sub-viewpoints (OT3-7) works as well. The next level after OT 8 would be to bring entanglement with other viewpoints (like between me and you) into view on a conscious level and then bring the automatic creation of the so called “MEST” into view.

          1. Okay. The way it was put (“created BY the act of observation”) I thought meant something else – maybe something similar to the QM idea about observers seeing things differently – or whatever is is.

            But as well, I got the idea that you had not at first considered it to be an objective Real World.

            1. Well, in the physics’ definition, what I describe is not a Real World Out There (RWOT) at all. It is Subjective Worlds In Synchronization (SWIS)

          2. Got it. So is there still a conundrum about this in your own mind? (What do physicists know about considerations anyway? :-)) Or about anything else on your OP? I got that there were two conundrums and the one about synchronization was solved.

            1. I feel sttled on the conundrum for now (answer; Entanglement). I will research further on it later 🙂

          3. I’m glad! I expect that you will go on to eventually erase the line between physics and metaphysics completely and electrify the scientific world (if not shatter it – by placing IT under philosophy!

            And I do think our “spoon” is about as Real and Objective as it’s ever going to be. “Objective” (though tricky) seems to me the more accurate description since Subjective means “distinguished from general or universal experience” (philosophy definition ;-)).

        1. Great post Gier. There are 2 statement which really indicated here:

          Gier: ” I believe there is only the universe you create and there is entanglement with other viewpoints that also create the same (and other stuff private to them). I further believe if a viewpoint stopped creating all the other “stuff” on automaticity (like the reactive mind), I believe he would be able to bring the rest of his universe creation up to a more conscious level. ”

          Gier: ” It could very well be that in all of this, a viewpoint is as powerful as it does not create on automatic. This explains why the Bridge works, why Clear works, why the handling of old sub-viewpoints (OT3-7) works as well. ”

          There is an enormous amount that is on automatic and I agree that if viewpoints stopped creating on automatic there would be one big awakening. The effects I think would be quite astounding.

          These automaticities are continuous to the point where most consider them ‘normal’ and don’t have the slightest clue these automaticities are not them, or not real. They are as real as they agree, or not-know.

          To even look at a scenario where each individual on this planet had the same awareness level as you would create quite an effect.

          As you mentioned about the Bridge: I think that from the earliest moments we walk thru the door of a Mission or Org, dis-entanglement starts. By the sheer agreement of people already studying/auditing and considering that a philosophy or practice may untangle ones life, the new person starts to untangle. Similar to a sane person walking into a confusion – it blows off to a greater or lesser degree.

          And as you mention, once these old sub-viewpoints are out of the way, present time entanglements would be much easier to view. I would expect much greater agreement amongst all but also individuality and certainty in oneself.

          The the auto creation of the MEST universe and other co-created postulates or games.

          It reminds me of an old movie where a large person was gazing into a sphere where a complete civilization lived – people, cats, dogs, cars, schools, streets – everything. And not one person in that civilization had a clue.

          I think LRH mentioned somewhere where the physical universe was like tissue … that may be where we are going …

          Ahh, to look back and say ” Well, it seemed pretty solid at the time …

          1. Oops … I have one incomplete sentence there “The the auto creation of the MEST universe and other co-created postulates or games …”

            Not sure where I was going with that one … thought too fast for my fingers to keep up – I’m usually into the next sentence or two whilst typing my last one.

          2. Dennis: “I think LRH mentioned somewhere where the physical universe was like tissue …”

            I remember him saying in a lecture that the physical universe was like “the cellophane of a pack of cigarettes” in a Being’s hand – and just as easy to crush. Something like that.

          3. LRH was describing the degree to which a thetan had to “dial back” his power in order to operate in the physical universe and likened it to trying to pick up the cellophane wrapping from a pack of cigarettes with your hand without “denting in” the sides. Thus thetans are “bulls in china closets” and inadvertently do destruction no matter which way they turn. Thus they commit a continual stream of overt acts and thus they withhold themselves more and then more again until they are “weak” enough to not damage anything. It is quite a diminishing conical spherical loop.

          4. Yes, that was it! You brought it all back. That image of the universe as cellophane definitely stuck with me.

            Interesting how things have so much more meaning looking back at them again. And honestly, honestly, Chris, I think a significant part of why that is the case for me nowadays, is the exchanges I’ve had with people like you and Geir and Dennis and Maria and Elizabeth and Rafael and others, even Vin (joke, Vinnie!). But not just limiting it to “looking back” at things – lots of broadening of the viewpoint in general. Some threads leave me feeling like I’ve done a course and others like I’ve had some auditing, maybe both. My reality. 🙂

        2. Wanted to get back to the second paragraph in your comment. I’m curious now if I also have a different interpretation of Entanglement (in my comment above) than yours, as regards any of the types of entanglements you mentioned.

          Your idea for the next level after OT 8 – to handle entanglement with other viewpoints – is really interesting. For me, that particular entanglement is based on the same principle as an engram, which is a recording of everything perceived – including the emotion particles and thoughts of oneself AND of those around, ALL of whom record these same things at the same time. As well, it’s possible recordings of any and all ongoing experience, including the concurrent considerations (basically thoughts), are shared with others who are sharing the experience. Any sameness/identity of recordings would probably be the basis of entanglement with others.

          Maybe the principle is effective only with specific bank phenomena, such as problems and O/W’s. The Suppressed Person Rundown, for example, primarily runs problems processes (I’m pretty sure) – and has the result of not only handling the pc’s universe but causing a change, even at a great distance, in the SP’s universe too. Now, that’s dis-entanglement, for sure. And I imagine such things as “fly six ruds” would also accomplish the as-ising of mutual or identical bank content – which, when restimulated in one person, would restimulate in the other too.

          As for the last entanglement you mentioned, the automatic creation of MEST in unison, I’d say that would have to totally free a person from the physical universe and make him a Cleared Theta Clear.

          Anyway, just throwing some ideas out there.

          1. I see the said entanglement as something very basic and not “bank related” – something in the very basic fabric of beings that keeps them in continual sync,

          2. Well, that definitely does go deeper. Where you said “in continual sync” I thought, in what sense would that be – the word “sync” from my concept of it always involves time. But now I’m thinking this might be good old semantics again and you may consider that the sync in time is just a manifestation of a more basic “sync,” a more basic entanglement (better word for it).

            Maybe it’s actually the “sync” of same space – i.e. same beingness. The one-ness idea that keeps coming up in threads. And now I’m wondering how else it could be, since to perceive (create) the same particles of the physical universe each and every Being (in this particular physical universe, at least) would have to be “in” or “have” the same space as all those particles. Space came “first,” before the first moment of time for particles. Space is more basic.

            Or do you mean it goes even deeper than this physical universe?

            1. I believe it is deeper or at the base of this universe. I am also thoroughly considering the idea of oneness.

          3. At this point, my sense of it is that both Oneness and separateness or individuality or individual Viewpoints exist and are true. The Oneness has the ability to have all different points of view (like sections of “mind”) – different View-points – and still be One. At the same time individual Viewpoints exist and are valid too and are eternal in timelessness, just like the Oneness.

          4. Did I cut you off? I thought for sure you were going to add something to the idea of no viewpoints not included, and I was interested.

          5. Cool. I wouldn’t say either that I’ve reached a full certainty and knowingness about it. But right now at this very moment I’m feeling pretty much “one” with folks, especially the folks here. 🙂

      1. I had a related idea come to mind. One definition of coincident is – “occupying the same place or position.”

        Now, what was that definition of Affinity again…? 🙂

          1. That is so beautiful. Your own creation, too.

            (You should have received the admiration particles, instantaneously. :-))

          1. Affinity = relative distance between particles including thetans.
            The most affinity would be no distance; same location; no location; and / or connected.

            Whether systems are “open” or “closed” is for me becoming indiscreet including theta beings.

          2. “Whether systems are “open” or “closed” is for me becoming indiscreet including theta beings.”

            I’m actually starting to get a sense of this, between you and others. 🙂

    1. dont worry about them they will erase while solo audit enough, or after you drop your body. The body genersates thoughts automaticaly and you also pick up the floating thought of otheres. Plus you are stimulated to name, judge things as you perceive. have a session or dozen on the matter. What I tell you is only second had data, find your own.

  36. Chris Thompson said: August 24, 2011 at 1:48 pm
    https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/a-radical-new-view-of-the-upper-scientology-levels-ok-here-goes/#comment-6945
    Yes, this is huge! After my swim this morning I was perusing the blogs and came across your brilliant quote on Geir’s – it was on the subject of “entities” but you finished with the greeting “I am what you are.”
    This dovetails with my current work on ARC, viewpoints and anchor points. For me this is a really good breakthrough and helps rationalize ideas of “oneness” vs. “separateness.”
    “I am what you are” points to the apex of A-R-C and is for me an accurate assessment.
    In my syllogism, Affinity is space-time; Reality is matter; and Communication is syncronization.
    Total reduction of MEST erases mass and space-time eliminating the need for syncronization.
    “Oneness” for me is not the absence of viewpoints, but the joining of viewpoints in the absence of MEST.
    It is the natural destination when walking the path of the solo auditor and will result – I believe – in Native State.
    This is a really wonderful cognition for me and helps answer questions I have about Admin Scale goal setting, as I have been mucking-out the bank without direction other than the overall reduction of mental mass.

    1. So well done on your cog! And I’m thrilled for you that you have worked out a direction. (More power that way, I’m sure.)

      “‘Oneness” for me is not the absence of viewpoints, but the joining of viewpoints in the absence of MEST.”

      That particular articulation “got through” to me even if I wouldn’t be able to articulate why.

    2. Thank you. “I am what you are”. is not my oridinal thought. It was a gift from a visiting being, after arrival he opened his Universe light poured forth and i perceived that concept. Also that indicates there is nothing hidden. From the quality of the light one has known where the being stood. Later when aberration, separat-ness, individuality glued together by fear has become into existance, one hid in order to protect “self” to remain individual and one no longer dared to used “I am what you are”.

      1. “I am what you are” is for me the cleanest statement of beingness minus ego.

        For me it is similar to and linguistically more to the point than the Indian “namaste” when used in the sense of “the divinity in me acknowledges the divinity in you.”

          1. I don’t know about that . . . you are pretty divine! The simplicity in which you view life is “divine.” The simplicity of walking the walk of the solo auditor is divine. Divinity coated in muck! hahaha
            Ok ok I know what you mean — I won’t call you a nice clean name if you don’t want me too! hahaha

    3. “Total reduction of MEST erases mass and space-time eliminating the need for synchronization.”

      Thus solo auditing is a path which can be used to erase mental mass and discover the truth underlying each of these questions we discuss.

  37. Hello Rarael.
    “A fixed consideration is some sort of an static, as it doesn´t change and falls below our level of awareness.”
    This might be some help. The fixed considerations the static is the: invisible, can’t be seen, unknown, forgotten, secret, plus few dozen other considerations can be listed and when one opens those, there is a forgotten universe which were buried in the invisible, unknown, hidden, in secret places, where one put them away because they were too valuable or held too much pain, loss etc…[ there are many other reasons too]
    The hidden, forgotten universe of one’s own is much greater is proportions, magnitude, extent in comparison which one can see. But can be handled the same way as anything else once the wall are penetrated. Since invisible is only a consideration so is hidden, not known, unknown and the rest.
    My best to you, Do well. Elizabeth

      1. Rafael sorry for miss-speling your name not very good with writing. But i have learned to except such. .
        PS: i have put thousands of hours into to open the invisible up. In my estimation 99% our so called “memory, our track” is hidden by such considerations and agreements. if one do not desolve the invisible, the unknown than those experiences remain unconfronted therefore being affective as anchor points.

  38. I think the main mis-conception that Hubbard assumed was that there are any separate beings. There is only one. We are all that one. And that is the only way that anything can exist, and for anyone to “create” something that “others” can then perceive. Each of us is then viewing the universe from our limited viewpoint and beingness, and trying like mad to not know that we are everything, and trying like mad to forget who we really are, and holding onto the beingnesses that we have created for ourselves so that we can be part of the game and not know that it is a total farce.

    That is why anything that is created in the universe is instantly perceivable by any other being. Because each of us know that we did actually create it, even if we did it from some other viewpoint.

    This is why teh subkect of Applied Kiniesiology works. Why any person can be tested for anything that happened anywhere any time. Because each of us knows everything that ever happened. We were there, and we did it.

    1. I tend to agree with you within the framework of this one universe. I have only so far been tapping into my experiences within this one frame of reference.

      If I lose the personal ego and acknowledge “one-ness,” then I have to wonder if there is yet a greater ego to confront and lose outside this MEST universe. My observation of the fractal nature of creation leads me to ask this question whether “we” are yet part of a larger ego.

      1. The question of the One and the Many has been debated for thousands of years, maybe more.

        I believe one transcends the ‘ego’, ‘self’, or ‘individuality’ yet retains it at the same time. One does not necessarily lose the personal as one attains the transpersonal POV. That is ‘pandeterminism’. One is one’s self and others at the same time.

        Beyond that, I would have to agree with Vinaire – it is ‘unknowable’ whether one is part of One or one of Many. The experience can be described either way, and has been for ages. Samadhi has been described as Union(with God). One experiences Native State but to communicate about it, one returns to a personal, individual state of being. Is the ‘individuality’ ever ‘lost’?

        Some Eastern sages say Mu. I say moot.

        These are states of consciousness.

        Buddha attained ‘nirvana’ yet remained as a personal teacher.

        This is what it means to be “OT, but can still fix the little kid’s electric train.”

        1. My view too, I choose not to get fixed to one, nor to the other………….

          The funny question here is: Why would I have to?…….. I certainly don´t need to.

          Otherwise it gets you into a games condition, either way!! 🙂

          My bet is: When you reach the right state, you won´t even have to choose, or even think about it.

          1. Q: Why would one have to? A: Enquiring minds want to know. 🙂

            But seriously, isn’t there a need or just desire to know one’s own nature? There’s also this – truth, in its own frame of reference, is salutary and leads to other truths. I think now of Geir, for example, and the fact that he has a big advantage over other physicists – he knows about the wild-card, senior truth of considerations.

            Also, you mentioned games condition and Valkov indicated mu or moot. There again, I think it’s correct “frame of reference” which as I recall, you are generally big on too (not that I intend some sort of Appeal Fallacy, LOL).

            Apart from all that, there’s a sort of practical even religious benefit, in that the notion of either Oneness or combination of Oneness and Separateness (my personal inclination) creates the attitude of seeing others in a whole different light from “total Separateness” or “none.” (I had to think a moment what you meant by “none.” How could I forget Mr. Unknowable?) And attitude is pretty powerful. You personally just happen to have a good one, others’ could be better.

  39. Yes Marildi,

    I remember that too … it seems to put things in perspective for me.

    It’s similar to the MEST universe being a sliver in a thetan’s finger rather than the other way around.

    1. I remember another “sliver” comparison too – where LRH said the body was the sliver in the thumb (thetan). Even that gave me pause because there are other places where he describes a thetan’s sense of his own size as relatively small.

      But that reminds me of what happened to me on the Sunshine Rundown, outdoors solo-auditing. I suddenly felt the size of the whole space around me (around my body) and people and things were all in “my space.” I wouldn’t have described it at the time as a “one-ness” with them, but they sure were in “my” space, sort of like slivers in a thumb. Had a floating TA at the examiner too – which aligns with data about a pc’s space and meter phenomena. (Hey, Dennis, thanks for the rehab! :-))

      1. Hey Marilidi,

        That’s great! I love getting rehabs/cogs off this blog too – I never know when someone’s origination suddenly clicks in my universe – great stuff ! I’m glad I made you smile.

        This oneness vs. separate beings is interesting … Your statement :

        ” I wouldn’t have described it at the time as a “one-ness” with them, but they sure were in “my” space, sort of like slivers in a thumb.”

        … makes me wonder about the relationship of me to others in situations like this and how it relates to the theta universe.

        It really does indicate that one can experience or have glimpses of the theta universe at the level we are at. It seems to me that, other than considerations which stop one from operating this way, theta is unhampered by the MEST universe. We can experience these things.

        I`m not convinced of the we-are-one theory at this time … I could change, but in situations like you described above, It really does still feel like separate bodies of theta, each with the ability to postulate and perceive on it`s own. It also seems to me that while we are able to experience others in our `space`, we don`t seem to be forming one blob of theta. Even if we move above having various beingnesses & identities, I still can`t conceive of one big body of theta or one conglomerate static … nor do I think I`d like that.

        If this were so, would the potential /aware of being aware Dennis all of a sudden disappear and we would all be Gier the static? Or would static contain various potential ‘Me’s who have free will to create/postulate on their own?

        1. I’d like to indicate that “static would contain various potential ‘Me’s who have free will to create/postulate on their own.” LFBD F/N VGI’s? 😀 (And if so, you have someone else’s item too – mine!)

          Hope you’re not offended by my playing around (partly :-)), but I highly doubt that you are. You seem like a “grown-up” (an OT) in the areas of case and tech, your own cause-point.

          1. Hi Marilidi,

            Not offended at all! 🙂 I like when you have that spirit of play.

            As for being a grown up OT … I guess I am in the sense that these abilities & knowingnesses are re-gained, but on the other hand, I feel like a babe in the woods in my present condition.

            It is a wildly interesting area to me and I am continually fascinated by other’s viewpoints and how they look at things.

            Every one on this board has contributed to where I am at … I hope I can do the same for each & every one.

            If anyone would care to email me, it is red-sky@telus.net

            Cheers 🙂

      2. There are group processes that are all about changing the relative sizes of your space vis-a-vis that of objects. The Mest universe can be viewed as an object and perceived to be as big or as small as you wish.

        1. Hey Valkov,

          Not sure if what you’re saying is the same as my experience or not. I didn’t feel that the people and things around me had changed size at all. Rather, it was an strong, unmistakable sense that they were all completely IN MY SPACE.

          By the way, I just realized that in a recent comment where I named people I could think of whom I have benefitted from in exchanges – I forgot about you! And that’s probably because you’ve not been posting near as much lately. But you were missed! 🙂

          1. Marildi, I was referring to this –

            “Even that gave me pause because there are other places where he describes a thetan’s sense of his own size as relatively small.”

            A “theta’s” sense of his own size can be whatever he considers it to be. It is actually his concept of the size of his space. He can expand his space to include everything, or contract it to exclude most everything.

            What ‘size’ is a thetan? No size. S/he creates size.

          2. Thanks, Valkov, got you now. Yes, LRH made that point just a few times – consideration. It always goes back to that! Everything. This is becoming more and more real and truth to me.

            On a certain level, I’ve experienced intentionally changing my consideration of size. I’m thinking of times (intense times) when, for example, I knew I needed to take another person into my space in order for the comm – from or to – that person to go in. It was a good feeling too, I might add! And it was an instinctive application of the ARC triangle, in that I didn’t actually think of it in those terms at the time. But increasing one’s space = greater Affinity, resulting in better comm.

            Hey, I never thought about the relationship between “intense” (as I used it above) and “intend,” before now. There is so much native, common, everyday, folk wisdom buried in words. I bet you’ve noticed that too.

          3. P.S. I just looked up the derivation of intense and the Latin origin means “intent.”

        2. Exactly so my friend. It is this subject of relative sizes which has gotten me obsessed (figure of speech) with fractal math.

          If I can locate the way in which I anchor myself in place and time, I feel I will be able to zoom into and out away from any frame of reference.

          1. “If I can locate the way in which I anchor myself in place and time, I feel I will be able to zoom into and out away from any frame of reference.”

            Mentally, you do that so well! And per LRH (in SA, “Remembering” chapter) what a person does “with his thoughts [is] what he has been compelled to do with the matter, energy, space and time in his environment.” That might indirectly apply.

    1. Then stick around, Diogenes, and shine your lantern. You’ll find a whole bevy of disagreeable sorts. 🙂

          1. marildi
            2011-09-16 at 21:19
            . . . per LRH (in SA, “Remembering” chapter) what a person does “with his thoughts [is] what he has been compelled to do with the matter, energy, space and time in his environment.” That might indirectly apply.

            It does apply and that is a good reminder, thank you.

          2. “If I can locate the way in which I anchor myself in place and time, I feel I will be able to zoom into and out away from any frame of reference.”

            Hey Chris, I thought of that post, reading this tonight:

            “A thetan can be what he can see. He can see what he can be. If he can’t see it as a thetan (not as MEST eyes), he can’t be it. If he can’t be it, he can’t see it.

            “A viewpoint puts out anchor points. It now has space. How does it know it has anchor points out? Because it can see them. How does it know there are anchor points at all? Only because it can see them. Then how does it know it has space? Because it can perceive. How does it perceive? By knowing. By knowing a datum? No, by being certain. Knowingness is being-certainness.” (Scn 8-8008, “Communication” chapter)

            If it doesn’t relate, read and shred (the old SO phrase :-)).

  40. When I read here, I see questions and answers different realities depends on the “Levels“ one who asks views from here in the MEST Universe and views from totally different reality. In the last two comments Dennis mention individuality and Rafael talks of to “choose from”.
    There is no individuality, and we do not choose. How one could have individuality that concept blows with dropping the body. Individuality exists only here, because of the body. But again when I realized there could be few million others who say the same that I am Elizabeth Hamre. HEHEHE, the last smidgen of individuality has blown.!!!
    Levels, that is a good one, how could be levels when one is infinite and has erased all considerations pertaining where one was taught “one is [singular] belong some place, where everything is boxed categorized labeled, owned.
    Argument in spiritual, theta universe where bodies don’t exists: I am better than you, my father use to be the president of USA, . Yeh? I knew him as her when was a prostitute in different life only a 2bit she could collect since she was so ugly!!! Well la-di-da! My mother was also the queen of England. Yes, tell me about it I knew her from way back when she was cleaning that time my house, queen of England my foot.!
    No levels, none, and one don’t think either that too is became erased
    Since “thinking” questioning” having thought” is human, human activity, When there is no bank has been erased all of it only knowledge remains in the “refined” way. The mass is gone. Even being still here after as-ising one looks at this World as only on illusion. Than how one will “SEE” if one is out and the bank has been erased, what could be seen, when all gone, no more?
    I have read here more than once question in which there was wondering if there is different universes out there. .
    Yes, there is one I know, it come to my understanding long as one has any attachment to MEST, any anchor points hold one here one can’t be any other place because the realities will not allow to see comprehend different reality.
    That Universe is out of this Universe……hehehehe….i needed to put here laughter to express my joy.

    1. This has been one very crazy week for me and another milestone for confronting something important to me in my universe.

      Running O/W’s: I always ran O/W from the hidden standard that I was a good person. “I am a good person and would do the right thing if I could.” My overts are bad things (things I disagreed with) that I did and I need to confront them in order to confess them in order to as-is the badness charge and make me clean and good again. — Something like that, okay? I have run hundreds of hours of confessional auditing and a couple hundred hours of False Purpose Rundown. Overt after overt gotten off – false purposes gotten off, and all the while I’ve been waiting for this to make me a better person. Sure I felt relief at “getting off overts” but you know what? After a while it became a grind and I wasn’t having any cog about “knowing myself.”

      Recognizing and accepting my “evil twin” – not resisting the self that I am has opened up fully 1/2 my entire existence (or more) to me. All the time I have been resisting being “bad” I was resisting confronting 1/2 of my true existence in the material world. It is no wonder that this is seeming huge to me. I have only been truly confronting 1/2 my GPMs.

      Nothing in my experience has done more to shatter my goals-problems-mass than embracing who I really am. And with that, this ethics step is done and my TA has been floating for days.

      1. Awesome win!!

        And you got me thinking how powerful one…single…simple…consideration can be in forming one’s viewpoint, structuring it, biasing it, fixating it and limiting it – inordinately. And then to think one’s viewpoint is pretty much oneself…whoa.

    2. Yes, this ‘individuality’ thing does pique my interest.

      Maybe someone can open my eyes a bit.

      So, my general knowingness is that we carry & constantly create all manner of bric-a-brac around us which can be brought to view or alive at anytime – some good, some to my detriment. All are essentially under my control although some are on automatic and will remain so until I recognize exact time, place, form, event.

      I look around me and see what I see at that instant, but this view can change in the next instant. To a greater or lesser degree, I can discern what I feel are my thoughts vs. other thoughts/concepts, although I do recognize that there could very well and most likely be many hidden realms of awareness whether I created them myself as part of the game, or they were enforced upon me to squash that same awareness.

      How’s that for a preamble? 🙂

      If say I remove all considerations that I currently hold, am able to have/not have, be/ not be – you know – top of the chart stuff … this beingness or identity that I know (a very loose term at this time 🙂 ) of as ‘Dennis’ … not the name, but the essence of ME – that thing that is being aware of being aware.

      From where I sit right now, I believe I would retain that knowledge/awareness – you know – whole track recall both theta & mest interaction, the various universes, tracks etc … everything. I also have an idea that at *that* point, I would be likely able to unravel the game itself … that is, if there is a game (and I do believe there is).

      So, it seems one of the concepts being put forth on this blog is that at some point we amass into one gelatinous blob … now, I know that sound mesty in that the concept appears to contain time & space & location – but, prior to the decision ‘To Be’ we have a static … One? many?

      If as single statics, I would assume that one would be aware that it created a game within a game called ‘Dennis’. But as one overriding static made up of the games that were Vin, Marilidi Chris, Gier, Rafael, the postman, the milkman (well you get the picture) etc, etc …, it seems to me that in this case, I am Not (non existing) … like I am simply some other static’s mockup – a greater power than me that create a Dennis as part of it’s game potential. And it can turn me off in a blink of an eye.

      Rafael, please open the door to the squirrel cage … I need in – STAT!! 🙂

      1. “So, my general knowingness is that we carry & constantly create all manner of bric-a-brac around us which can be brought to view or alive at anytime – some good, some to my detriment. All are essentially under my control although some are on automatic and will remain so until I recognize exact time, place, form, event.”

        I would say that EVERYTHING you see and CAN see is created by you. Every split second. So everything you cannot willfully control is beyond your control and hence on automatic.

        1. Yes, exactly.

          So, once I get back auditing, I do want to tackle all considerations … anything that I am not Cause over so I can have/ not have, create or dispense with of my own free will.

      2. Why is it so difficult to comprehend that we are without concepts, we have no need to have considerations, agreements concepts in order to experience?
        Do tree has a concept of life, or the great whale that slides in the cold of the blue?
        Does the boulder that exists for millions of years have thoughts of existence, yet it is a postulated entity just because it does not talk of human words and eat sleep as human it is alive and lives.
        So why not give up the “body” by not thinking from those viewpoints and be free and look at the universe as intangible and infinite that creates all for the enjoyment of the moment.

        1. I feel I am only just beginning to understand this question. For me, the answer is the multi-multi-multi faceted ego into which I identify so solidly. Only the slightest current shifting in my anchor points which hold my ego solidly in place has caused me to reel as though on a drinking binge. I am running a low grade fever, have somatic sensations and “heat” all over my face and neck, my sinus and respiration is non-optimum. It is like ripping.

          But I seriously know what is going on with me and it is not an out of control feeling. I am confronting the somatic sensations simply and directly and with a smile. I am getting a feeling for the automatic defense measures in the reactive mind. These are in the form of anchor points and when one tries to violate these frames of reference, one’s universe becomes stretched out-of-plumb. It is being very uncomfortable but the discomfort is indicating to me that my foot is walking down the correct path.

          Something I don’t mention (much) is that an original and continuous goal of mine this life has been to confront and overcome the “dragon-of-death.” I was born disagreeing with the compulsive cycle of life and death in the MEST universe and like a splinter in my mind, I’ve “always sensed” that there must be a way to become cause over this cycle of death and rebirth.

          For the first time, I feel that the festering has erupted and that, much to my relief, the puss is flowing freely from an inflamed and putrefied wound. I tentatively state that this week may have been the turnaround for my own dwindling spiral of degradation and introversion into the universe of MEST.

          1. Wow, Chris – it’s like you should go to the Examiner and get that acknowledged! 😀

          2. Nicely done Chris!

            Well, as a hatted PC Examiner about 40 years ago … ” Your needle is floating.” 🙂

            btw, what are you auditing on?

            Good stuff, what ever it is!

          3. Thanks Marildi and Dennis – I DO feel acknowledged by you both.

            The real beauty of this as being a win in dealing with the ego is that part of the win is that only the ego requires acknowledgement! Not to degrade receiving beautiful communications from one’s friends! These are now and always will be welcome.

            The ego for me is like a very large halloween mask on a stick and held out at arms length. The identification with this is never “as a mask” but more insidiously we see it as ourselves. All desire is for me embedded in the ego. (For a person who has carefully using this “psych” term of ego for my entire life, I mean it, I have used it more in this post than all the previous 35 years. But it really is a great word.) All “desire” for stroking is embedded in the ego. The ego is as complicated as it is packed with valences.

            I’ve woken this morning with somatics clearing, feeling fresh, and with a certain knowledge that “losing one’s ego” will absolutely not cause us to fade into “an oblivion.” On the contrary “the certainty of self” which I got from my own view and application of Scientology was a “mock certainty of self” and definitely a reinforcement of my ego. I was definitely going in a wrong direction.

            It takes a lot lot lot of energy and focus to live in the material world. I have now had a peak at this and can say for me that “living life in the physical universe” is for a thetan like focusing rays of the sun through a magnifying glass and bringing this energy and light to bear on a single tiny point. Compared to life in the physical world, our greater existence is so very much larger than what we mock up here on earth as to challenge large numbers!

          4. Oh and Dennis, the auditing processes? hahahaha! I make lists based on what my attention is on. I simply do a little “D of P interview” and just look at what comes up. The simplicity of it defies the fixed idea of a mechanical bridge with definitive steps and containing “mechanical processes” into which one puts a handle and cranks out results. The simplicity of Running Rudiments: on 4-flows; on Items of Interest and of No-Interest to LFBD, COG, FN, and VGI’s leaves me agog. It is done like Life Repair, which was Scientology processing rather than Dianetics. The items are your own. They are simple. They are low-hanging fruit which are right in front of your “eyes.” Do you see? You don’t make this complicated. (By item of no-interest, I mean this definitively as in something which one has attention on such as “I hate mother and have no-interest in her.” You are simply looking for whatever your attention is on be it little or big and “pull the string.” In this way, the items are your items; the correct gradient is built in and the mind is unstacked in a natural sequence and the results are particularly satisfying.

            You do not need a bigger gun. You do not need a better, stronger, higher-level, more OT process. You need your own unquenchable desire to know and some interested looking. All that is required: 1. Audit; 2. Win; 3. Continue. At any point if feeling “unchallenged” you can just take a bigger bite or give Elizabeth a call. She will challenge you! hahaha!

            I have never been a critic of Scientology processes and my own successes were present and well documented. But this day, I am thinking that my attention, focus, desire to get better, and gung-ho attitude were the salient points leading to my improvement.

          5. Chris, thanks for the very ARC-ful reply in the first paragraph. And your whole post was, as usual, “artistically articulate.” 🙂

            I’ve been meaning to ask you about something. You have on this and other posts expressed a very different viewpoint towards the MEST universe from the one I have had. My approach has been to love and enjoy this existence, and in fact work towards enhancing it and enjoying it more and more – while at the same time working towards more and more spiritual improvement, especially in relation to living life itself.

            While writing this, I realized that my viewpoint is no doubt based on the principle of the dynamics and the fact that they enhance each other. And the idea of viewing this physical universe existence with any kind of disdain pretty much gets a ridge from me – probably because it does violate the dynamics. If all you were saying is that you are stripping off valences and the like, that would be fine – great. But you seem to be saying much more. How would you respond to this? My mind is open.

      3. Ha ha ha! Dennis! we both are already IN the squirrel cage! And I´m spinning in it so fast my feet are invisible! (I bet their speed is in the order of Planck seconds).

        What we really need – STAT ……is out! ha ha!

        To be honest, I would have to go with Katageek on this one: I don´t have a f*cking clue! But as of this time, I´m having a whale of a time here guessing ( I don´t want to use the term figure-figure he he!)

        I just haven´t found a handle, or a way to get myself out of the cage, we need to look at the whole thing from a position so exterior it is not a position anymore!

        We are talking about a function which breaks down at the limit, like when knowingness tends to infinity beingness tends to zero…………..but none of them ever reaches infinity nor zero inside this universe………..ups! …… I´m spinning the wheel again!

        1. Brilliant comment. This is what fractal maths show me. How much more insane, how much more beautiful of a trap can there be than the infinite “contained” within the finite.

  41. Marildi, You have not had time to reply but I have an additional thought about your post and I want to jot it down before going off to work. Let me refer you back to Geir’s epiphany of “When one does not feel the urge to either criticize or defend a subject or idea, then one retains one’s freedom in that area.“ The operative word in his epiphany was “urge.” This is because the “urge” is embedded in the self or the ego. Are we still together?

    When you remind me of the “dynamics” I am amazed how my viewpoint has shifted since the past 5 or 6 months. The LRH dynamic “urge to survive” has no place outside the MEST system. While workable within the rules of “evolution,” it is nevertheless unoriginal – having been stated more or less by Darwin a hundred years before. For me the “urge to survive” seems like such “last year” thinking and it is. If the dynamics made sense to LRH early on, he should have worked well out of them with the advent of his “Scientology” and shared such in the 1950’s. His harping on the dynamic urges should have been dropped out or explained more accurately since 50 years ago. I think the “dynamics” have their usefulness — maybe in an introductory sense or as entry point to a new person unfamiliar with Dianetics; and when doing admin scales or otherwise categorizing and organizing one’s living conditions, environment, WOIM, etc., but as a over-arching philosophy of everything? No, it is false.

    Like David St. Lawrence in his post, I’ve swept everything out and re-introduce myself the the entirety of the subject of Scientology. I am willing for it to be right and I am willing for it to be wrong. KSW is a -6 on Geir’s Cult Awareness Scale.

    1. Chris, LRH did revise his thinking (or at least his wording) when he changed “urges to survive” to “urges to exist,” stating that a thetan can’t do other than survive. The words “effort to” instead of “urge to” were also used, somewhere along the line. And he also described the Dynamics as “a matter of reach or sphere of influence.” In any case, I don’t see “urge” as a problem – “to exist” simply means TO BE, and there always IS an urge or effort that follows a postulate, in this case the postulate or decision TO BE. It’s that basic postulate which, to my way of thinking (or sensing), is violated by a contrary way of thinking.

      Also, it doesn’t matter to me at all that others have said something similar (not exactly the same, don’t forget), since it’s obviously true that there is no monopoly on truth. Neither did I get the idea from David St. Lawrence’s post that he swept everything out, more like he is re-examining and re-evaluating and keeping what’s valuable as well as doing some tossing out – i.e. no pendulum swing for him (as I worded it, in a reply), which we should be careful of too, IMO.

      But back to the point itself. I was about to agree with you and say, “YES, of course it’s only in the MEST universe that the Dynamics apply – and that is our condition, it’s where we in-fact-right-now-do-exist.” But then I remembered that there are the 7th and 8th Dynamics too (duh)! And what should we call our “urge” or “effort” to BE on those dynamics, if we don’t like those words? Additionally, existing on just one dynamic, even the 7th or 8th, is in effect a situation of inverted Dynamics, per my understanding. That undesirable situation could be one way to explain why, to me, it doesn’t make sense to put oneself into that frame of mind or way of thinking, just because of the fact that one sees how inferior existence in the MEST universe is, as compared to what it could be outside of it. Over to you, my friend.

        1. You weren’t offensive at all, you spoke exactly to my question – more about your viewpoint. My reply was to give you mine and I hoped you would now respond to that. Are we “in sync” now? ha ha!

    2. Chris,

      I don’t think Darwin ever even dreamed of applying the concept of the “urge to survive as” – an individual, – a second dynamic couple – a group – all mankind – all life forms – all matter everywhere – all individual spirits – and as infinity or a supreme being – all at the same time. And that on top of actually creating them all in the first place.

      Or did I misunderstand what you meant when you wrote:

      “The LRH dynamic “urge to survive” has no place outside the MEST system. While workable within the rules of “evolution,” it is nevertheless unoriginal – having been stated more or less by Darwin a hundred years before.”

      Who or what could create a supreme being and all that being’s creations, and contemplate surviving as all that?

  42. marildi
    2011-09-19 at 05:35
    “. . . I’ve been meaning to ask you about something. You have on this and other posts expressed a very different viewpoint towards the MEST universe from the one I have had. My approach has been to love and enjoy this existence, and in fact work towards enhancing it and enjoying it more and more – while at the same time working towards more and more spiritual improvement, especially in relation to living life itself . . . While writing this, I realized that my viewpoint is no doubt based on the principle of the dynamics and the fact that they enhance each other. And the idea of viewing this physical universe existence with any kind of disdain pretty much gets a ridge from me – probably because it does violate the dynamics. If all you were saying is that you are stripping off valences and the like, that would be fine – great. But you seem to be saying much more. How would you respond to this? My mind is open.”

    Chris response:
    Please look at the ridge and explore and describe your point of view and also that point of view which you are reluctant to assume. Then we can 2-way comm.

    1. Chris, I’m lost! You’ve quoted a comment of mine that was a few comments back, which you replied to and told me more about your shift of viewpoint over the last several months as regards the dynamics. In my reply to that one, I thought I had done exactly as you said above – “explored and described” my own point of view as regards the dynamics. And in another brief comment of mine right afterwards I stated that – based on what I had said, I hoped you would tell me more about your own point of view (the one I was ridging on and “reluctant to assume”) – so I could explore that more too. In other words, I thought we were already in two-way comm on the subject.

      It really seems that there has been some misduplication by one (or both) of us, or a disagreement on the comm cycle per se. I’ve re-read the exchange and hope you will do the same. Maybe you thought, for example, that my remark asking if we were now “in sync” was meant sarcastically or something. Not at all – it was just a comment on the fact that it didn’t seem we had been in sync, based on what you had just said that I was replying to. And now again, as I say, I think there’s some “out-of-sync” misunderstanding somewhere.

      As another possibility, I’m wondering what I said that gave you the idea (as you expressed at one point) that I was offended – no such notion had occurred to me. But it now seems to me that I’m the one who has been offensive somehow, and if so I’m sorry! Please tell me about that, if it’s the case. Again, I really have the feeling there must have been some sort of misduplication by one of us at some point (or a disagreement about the comm cycle, rather than on the subject itself – the dynamics). But whatever your take, you can be as straightforward (or blunt) as I am. (Is that the problem – I’m too blunt? Maybe I’m not seeing something in that respect. If so, now’s your chance to do a good deed and set me straight. :-))

      1. Correction: In the last paragraph, “rather than on the subject itself” should read “apart from the subject itself.”

      2. no-no nothing bad. no ruffled feelings. . .
        Just explore “the ridge” that you mentioned. just like gently turning your face into the wind and feeling and smelling and seeing. Tell me about it. – or not, make your choice freely.

        1. Okay, glad about “no ruffles”! “Ruffles have ridges” 😉

          Freely and friendly speaking, why does it seem I haven’t already explored?

          1. Okay. I know I did go into a number of other things too in response to what you had posted, but the actual essence of my viewpoint was expressed in this part of my comment: “I don’t see ‘urge’ as a problem – ‘to exist’ simply means TO BE, and there always IS an urge or effort that follows a postulate, in this case the postulate or decision TO BE. It’s that basic postulate which, to my way of thinking (or sensing), is violated by a contrary way of thinking.”

            I see now that the above isn’t very clear, so let me try to explain it better. We start with a postulate TO BE, and included in the concept of any postulate is “a directed desire or order” – which is for me the same as saying an “urge” or “effort” in some direction. As regards the most basic postulate TO BE, the direction is this – to survive or exist (the revised word) on or as each of the dynamics.

            Also in the definition of postulate is this: “A postulate infers conditions and actions rather than just plain thinks. It has a dynamic connotation.” Again, I see the “conditions and actions” (related to the basic postulate TO BE) as specifically described in the dynamics. So to deny their validity would be to deny that basic postulate, which would naturally create a ridge, as I see it.

            Is that more duplicatable?

  43. I will rephrase.

    When you wrote, “You have on this and other posts expressed a very different viewpoint towards the MEST universe from the one I have had. My approach has been to love and enjoy this existence, and in fact work towards enhancing it and enjoying it more and more – while at the same time working towards more and more spiritual improvement, especially in relation to living life itself.”

    Compare what you think my viewpoint is paired off to this quote.

    1. Aha, I see some light at the end of this tunnel. I’m getting now that I probably have not had a correct interpretation of what you’re referring to when you comment on “the MEST universe.” I’ve been equating that with “existing in the MEST universe” as in everyday livingness. Then, when you made the comment just above about the dynamics, it seemed to confirm my understanding. Looking at your “re-phrasing” in this last reply, however, I recall now that you’ve mostly been commenting along the lines of the degrading effect on thetans of the MEST universe, which is altogether different – but which I had somehow mushed together with your comments about the dynamics (or essentially about them).

      It seems now that the only difference in viewpoint between us has to do with such comments as the one above, where you referred to the dynamics as “last year thinking” with their usefulness being limited to “an introductory sense or as an entry point to a new person” and maybe useful for organizing – but that as “an over-arching philosophy of everything? No, it is false.” Obvious by now from all I’ve said, I do see the dynamics as an over-arching philosophy of existence. And we could still argue about that if you’re into it – your choice, big guy. 🙂

      But – I suddenly feel lighter.

  44. I saw the recent news article about a particle faster than light and tried to find online something I recall LRH saying about the speed of light (I believe he said it’s not a constant). By chance, I found the following and thought it might be of interest on this thread.

    P.A.B. No. 17 PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN [1954, ca. mid-January] FUTURE PROCESSING (Tech Vol II)

    “…Theta could be considered to be a sort of scanner which is motionless. It is not moving. The MEST universe is changing and interchanging, and the products and forms constructed and organized or regulated by theta change, and this change is in itself time. Time depends mainly upon the creation of new space in the MEST universe. It could be hazarded that new space is created in the MEST universe at the rate of l/c,* which is to say that each new motion of a particle is a creation of new space. What is happening is that the particle seems to be moving in space and the space is motionless. Space appears at the rate of l/c and new space is created at this rate. This gives to particles apparent motion. The boys in nuclear physics will be discovering this in a couple of hundred
    years but there is no harm in giving a tip-off of it here. This is of no great concern to
    the auditor but might clarify for him the apparent change of theta itself. If theta itself is
    apparently changing, remember that it is visible only because particles change. The
    theta is not moving; it is a true static.

    [ * In physics “c” represents the velocity of light in a vacuum: approximately 186,000 miles or
    299,793 kilometers per second.]

    1. There are two areas where I do not trust LRH one bit; Physics and mathematics. He made a very basic blunder regarding the speed of light in one of the study tapes – a complete fumble. And he flunked both the nuclear physics and calculus classes at George Washington University and thereafter he went on to try to laugh off Calculus and berate other areas of mathematics (ref. first tape in the Principles of Creations tape series).

      1. I know virtually nothing about this whole subject, but what do you think of the ideas above, especially: “each new motion of a particle is a creation of new space” and “Space appears at the rate of l/c and new space is created at this rate.”

          1. I assume the question directed at me is rhetorical. 🙂 And I guess it answers my question – you don’t get anything out of any part of this quote. Just thought it might give you a different angle to look from.

            1. I have seen it before, and I have tried to make sense of it. He may be trying to allude to the idea of the discreteness of time as we have covered here with creations every Planck Second or so (or if the OPERA results are correct, a slightly modified rate perhaps).

          2. Yes, the discretemess of time was about all I understood and that’s why I thought it was applicable here. Also, my guess was that you might not have seen this reference since it seems like a pretty remote one.

          3. Did you mean to type 1/c instead of I/c? I looked up the letter I as a symbol and found it is a physics symbol which stands for isotopic spin: “a quantum number that is related to the number of different values of electric charge that a given kind of baryon or meson may have.”

            Pardon my ignorance if this isn’t something you didn’t know. (I wouldn’t know elementary from advanced physics.)

          4. When I first saw 1/c on the link page I thought it was a 1 but when I pasted it into the reply box, in your blog font it was transformed to (or looked like) the letter I – but the 1 in “PAB 17” still looked like a 1. So I looked up the letter I and (co-incidentally enough) saw that it’s a physics symbol for a quantum term. Then when you said that 1/c made no sense, I thought it might make more sense if it were actually I/c. In any case, if there had been some editorial error or something like that, would I/c make any more sense?

            (I’m not just trying to make LRH right, just thinking he might actually have been on to something that could be useful.)

            Here’s the link: http://www.tep-online.info/laku/usa/reli/scien/SECRETDOX/1954_56.PDF

          5. Putting “l/c” into Google search yields as the first result,

            “1 l / the speed of light = 3.33564095 × 10-12 m2 s”, from Google Calculator, with no further explanation.

            I have no idea what this means. Neither “l/c” nor “1 l/c” is defined.

  45. Yes there are beings out there who don’t have the body,[ I be one of them soon as I drop this body, so how many people die daily, have died over the years? ] but they are not bad beings not causing any harm. Not the way as he has written of. Yes they have the track but it is not in affect, dormant.
    They are the Free Souls of the Universe. I was on OT 3 for 4 weeks so badly over run, I was ordered to take the theory over again word by word I was checked out sent back to solo and still not worked. Finally the C/S written a privet note “ just mock-it up any way I can” than after that he let me attest.

      1. Thanks, there are many others who had the same experience,most likely the C/S himself, if not he would not let me attest. Also looking at the auditing part, LRH made a maze, confusion, and LRH caused great harm many different ways, one is coining the word “suppressive”. And its ugly meaning. Relating to his own none-confront. Love to wring his neck for that alone. Yes sure, we all can call somebody that just because we don’t like their ways.
        Just think, one learns that word and goes into agreement how bad that action is. Than when one do something, the person who do not like that call that action suppressive. Total control. A form of black mail to force the being to do different. Since no one wants to be labeled suppressive.
        Making somebody believe because that person do, acts no to our liking is bad, rotten, no good therefore do not belong in the group.
        Instead just to say. Hay man, we have rules here we have believes and to belong please fallow those rules. Simple, one is in if one fallows or out if not because not fallowing the group agreement. But if not that do not make that person bad, rotten just different.
        Oh, sorry, on this topic, I am fired up, heated and over boiling. Since I too was told while On Flag I was suppressive because my disagreement on OT 3 material [ 5 years later’] I told them off in a long letter written all the outpoints and “put this in your pipe and smoke it” with that I ended my note and I left.
        Now I would use less gentle words since there is no fear of loss in my universe.
        But they have called me later and said No you are not suppressive please come back. I never did. I never believe I was in the first place. You see, the CL. 12 C/S on Flag wanted to make me believe that those beings out there were harmfully, and affected my case badly, therefore I should not SOLO AUDIT ANY MORE BECAUSE I MASS UP MY CASE. Yes, I just love to be massed up. In other words they wanted to keep me in control with that more money etc… Suppressive, my foot.

          1. No I don’t, I did not like their rules and i was not willing to give up my believe. So we parted. I did not have ARCB since I did not believe what I was told being true. I have understood: the church promised freedom and when I got it they would wanted to continue with control. That was not my idea of having freedom. By now I really understood that end of OT 7 did not mean end of the bridge. And much more auditing was needed.
            I had what I paid for the bridge, the material therefore I believed I can use it any way I desired to do so, my call.
            You see Valkov by that time I have solo audited for about 5 years. I knew it was working, While the at the last visit at Flag where I was grilled over the hot coals by CL 12 auditor, she has hit me with dozens of questions on all in regard and the effects of my solo audit the BT’s etc. I think in her earlier life she was a Sargent major. She could not pull out one reason why I should stop auditing, I could not find one item that I was harmed by my solo sessions. And she real wanted to make me wrong, she was very good. On the end she run out of questions and she indicated that I head F/T and not needle.
            After that when that Idiot told me I was suppressive in the lobby, I laughed; you should have seen his face at that. He said, I just told you are declared suppressive. I said it is only your reality no mine so I am not. We parted.
            Meant nothing at all since I knew I was on the right track. One month later calling me at home two of them on the phone for one hour wanted to convince me that they made a mistake, and to come back, and “WE are here Elizabeth for you, we can help you if you need us” That was that, after that phone call because I realized I was stronger than two of them not only there was F/T but the universe floated and so had I. No ARCB at all. How could I have ARCB since 73 i have gains, and on adventure which cannot be described worth words. I am grateful for every bump, they are treasures when confronted.

  46. That there are other beings out there. That is true but not as he put it, hanging about on the body. He loved to dramatize and he scared the Hell out of people. Good selling item, causing fear.
    I have not copied the above.

  47. So he caused immense amount of ARCB’s. Every one of them can be audited out. But he left something priceless behind which can sort out every kind of confusion, and no matter how many ARCB’s are there because of being used, ones trust being abused, take for the ride etc…etc..
    Rudiments do work on every kind of considerations. It is a priceless piece of technology, since not only one can run out, present time stuff but whole track which is on accumulation of ARCB’s and by running Rudiments one can erase all the effects of implants.
    So, we should look at our ARCB’s with the church and scientology as part of the package we have to pay for becoming the Free Souls of the universe which is small price to pay on the long run. Actually a way I looked it we only can win.
    So he should be forgiven since him to have the bank. We can’t throw stones we all live in the same glass house.

  48. Valkov, now more than ever I believe because I see how different each persons universe is, just because one believes something in which I dont, should make that person suppresive, or make me one because I dont do what other wants me to do.. I do understand to suppres is to gain control. But it is a game condition here. Is the lion suppresive because got that buffalo, no here on Earth those are the game conditions.

  49. Elizabeth, I Understand what you are saying, and I think it is wonderful and “very well done!” that you reached that state where you could reject their confused reality and keep your integrity to yourself.

    I am simply saying that I would call their actions “suppressive”. I would say they tried to suppress you and failed because you would not accept it, because you were more enlightened than they were.

    I would not even call them SPs, I would say they were confused and unenlightened; just possibly not trained and audited enough to understand where you were coming from.

    Why they were in such a poor condition of understanding is another question.

    “Suppress” is a perfectly good normal English word and I’m sure you have used it yourself in auditing, in Assessments etc. Like in Life Repair type actions.

    The way the stupids in the CoS use it is something else entirely. They are themselves “suppressed” to be that way, in my mind. Who or what was suppressing them is again, another question.

    “Suppression” can occur on any or all of the 4 flows; the basic one is after all flow zero, “Self to self”.

    As LRH said, “The basic aberration is denial of self.”

    At Flag they tried to make you deny your self, and you refused and kept your integrity. That is well done, that’s all I’m saying.

  50. Thank Valkov. I have used that word thousand of times, in every session. Since looking at the track there is so much what we have suppressed in order to, or not to. I also used added words which realy opened up the pit. depply, totaly, heavily, complately, and few more ways. Talking of Life Repair. That was one of the way i looked at auditing. To solo audit, to repair ones life ones track to finnaly make it go right. It is od I never used or thought of that word outside of session.
    Good one thanks.
    Your moods, what you feel is the underlieing energy, intention of your comments, usually it is humor this time gentle, teacher like explaining the meaning of the word. love it.

  51. Valkov, I do get your meaning. What I actually realize after I left Flag I did not belong but only thought I had and on that I had ARCB. I still don’t belong here that is the reason so many or most things I have no reality on I had different understanding and were affected differentially, etc.. and by now you know that. My home is not here.
    What has surprized me than that those auditor like CL 12 and C/S –as did not understand the simplicity and even me being interrogated and they have seen the results they still have not believed that by running Rudiments one can as-is so much. But of course I am no longer puzzled by that.
    You see, Valkov, I have recognized the value of the Tech, instantly when I have seen it and I that was the reason I understood the simplicity of it, and what it actually was and where was it originally from. But taken me many- many hours of discovery search on the track to find those facts.
    LRH has stolen the ‘Spiritual “concept, but being here he only has recalled part of it and mixed it with his implant ideas, since he was once upon the time of the very best out there. Putting together games=implants. He was good, brilliant so many ways; he still is good and brilliant.

    1. Right, I see this. Thus inverting LRH’s model of the 8-dynamics and falsifying the exalted importance of the individual. As the ego is the very tip of creation is the first to go when working backward through the layers toward the foundation of infinite possibilities that we call the quanta.

      When the individual dissolves, there is still the family.
      When the family dissolves there are still groups.
      When the groups dissolve there is still mankind.
      When mankind dissolves, there is still biology.
      When biology dissolves, there is still the physical.
      When the physical dissolves, there are still ghosts.
      After the ghosts dissolve, there are still the quanta . . . infinite eternities of the Observer?

      1. You call it quanta, I call it unkinowable.

        Yes, ego (self) is the first thing to go. then the “self” of family, the “self” of group, etc… and finally, the consideration of self itself.

        .

        1. Yes, this “self of ego” is very useful. I only learned this term recently and have used it more in the last two months than all previous. You know how hard we were steered away from “psych” terminology in the church. I am having a very good ARCx with LRH’s urge to survive and the 8 dynamics. Actually, blinded by the upset, I am endeavoring to understand if I should retain any of it. If any of it is useful for categorizing, filing, whatever.

  52. Unknowable. I saw that coming Vinaire. I should have just wrote it when writing that comment. Why stop at quanta Marildi? No reason. I am just trying to understand my new knowledge. It is hard to box in language.

    There is a line, an area between the subjective and the objective and it is wide and blurry and it is called quanta by the physicist. I don’t know if it is half in or half out or if that is even a cogent comment. Subjective and objective seem to be layman’s language to describe thinner and thicker states of matter. Has the physicist bridged the theta universe?

    I feel like I did when a child and learning to talk and make myself understood. Not only the language is missing but these are new concepts for me as well.

    1. I didn’t expect Vin to call quanta unknowable, since we “know” something about quanta or at least “consider” something, or are naming something. I figured he’d point to beyond the quanta. (And just when I thought I was beginning to understand what you mean by Unknowable, Vin.)

      But Chris, your comments all seemed cogent to me! “Has the physicist bridged the theta universe?” That’s exactly how I am seeing it. Quanta – postulated particles in space. The ones we all contribute(d) to and agree on. The particles created in the “theta universe” are the ones in each of our subjective universes (sometimes called our mind) and are not universally created and agreed upon. This whole line of thought – while I/we may not have its exactness worked out – I find to be literally exciting! Because it does bridge the two universes and somehow opens vistas…

      1. Vin has been considering stuff about Unknowable for more than a year – that’s 365 times more considering than we have done with quanta so far 😉

        1. It will keep him busy for a good while. Lots to look at and peel off… 😀

          Where is our man? Is it past 10:00, his bedtime?

      2. UNDERSTANDING UNIVERSES: Like the “sound barrier,” there may be no barriers at all. There may only be frames of reference – if that. I see no reason to draw lines and borders. This idea of universes may be archaic and and soon have no useful place except when explaining how we used to misunderstand things. To pursue “The Truth,” I believe a person has to be prepared to relinquish their tether to the banks of The River and allow the waters to carry them. For it is not a river to ford but a journey to travel. Maybe “The Way” has no memory of a beginning and maybe “The Way” has no goal of an ending.

        (This is all the metaphor I could wring out of my weary self this morning. I had a busy night of dreaming of places and people and good-sweet cigars whose smoke I inhaled deeply but did not tickle my cough – hahaha!)

    2. If you look from the very core, subjective also becomes objective. “Subjective” is actually the structure of viewpoint itself. To observe the viewpoint objectively, one needs to step back from it.

      It is KHTK, if you can only grok it.

      .

  53. Yes, Marildi. Open Vistas. 🙂 This is how things seem to me. Open. Possible.

    And I’ve noticed coincindental defusing of reactivity on this blog. Several of us have writen something about it over days including contributions by new or long absent contributors.

    And I’ve cognited about something I’ve noticed for sometime now regarding “cognited vs learned” knowledge. I don’t know quite how to say it. I’ll figure that one out and jot it down later.

    1. Looking forward to hearing about that cog!

      Yes, I noticed the defusing too. What do you think – was it a result of group auditing, or FDS’ing, or enlightenment? And maybe I’m forgetting or being dense but, posts directly about it?

      1. I just think that when one reduces the GPM, the GPM is reduced for everyone. Everyone here works very hard to try to improve their understanding and interaction. There naturally will be times when things are going better as they seem to be now. Do you think so? Sometimes we are more agitated and that shows as well. But just now, Geir has posted a lovely poem. Vinaire has declared us all friends. I have written a bit but am also quietly winning personally. Valkov showed back up. Elizabeth has written spontaneously and cheerfully and some others that I didn’t recognize popped in for a comment or two. You are perpetually optimistic, and so it goes. Nothing heavy. Just an organic rhythm of well-being pervading. Maybe someone else has noticed and has an idea about this?

        1. Wow, Chris. Have I told you lately that I love you? (spiritual rendition of the song)

          You asked, “Do you think so?” Yes! I only wondered if you meant “posts DIRECTLY about it.” Every one of the indirect things you mentioned I absolutely did notice! And I’ll add a couple that you may or may not know about. Just yesterday, Elizabeth and I got back in comm with an email exchange (and I felt so good about it). Also, I get from Marty Rathbun’s blog that a tipping point has reached as regards the CoS. And just minutes ago Elizabeth posted a new blog post about “love=affinity.” That even as we “speak.” 😉

          I think again of synchronicity – on so many levels, down to physics and above that (or below it) the influence of our individual thoughts/postulates/feelings/actions on others. I posted a comment not long ago (maybe you saw it) to the effect that I have had moments when I felt so strongly, so certain that I – me, myself and I – have caused or do cause a shift/effect/influence on the whole world. It’s uncanny. Uncanny too what we’ve observed in our microcosm here. And I’m very sure you too cause an effect that ripples. Probably everybody does, to different degrees perhaps.

          Remember the slogan in DMSMH? Get those engrams! Yours would go with the later research – get those GPMs! And I agree, as a group we’re chipping away, you and I and the others. 🙂

  54. WHY QUANTA: Well I used the word quanta to try to go in a little different direction. Plus at Geir’s suggestion, I’ve been wading through a book. The concepts are simple and there aren’t many of them. That is the easy part. But the concepts are so absolutely counter-intuitive that I’ve spent many hours just relaxing my fixed ideas on what I think I already know about the physical world so that I can begin to let in quantum ideas.

    I used quanta because it seems relevant to the OP. Maybe those in the know wouldn’t disagree too vehemently with me if I defined quanta as “the basic field of infinite potential.” I wouldn’t call it a field of “postulated particles.” According to its own theory there are no particles there. But there is potential that presents itself in a particular way. It has coherence in that its wave function has a uniqueness. I won’t put quanta in the category of unknowable just yet. There is reason to believe that through time and effort that we can know about it. Likewise, maybe calling it “The Force” from “Star Wars” is a reach too far but you can judge. Maybe calling quanta the original resource of all things physical is better balanced.

    Which brings me to my point which is that rather than looking at synchronization (which is occurring very dependably) maybe if we looked at the reverse vector of how individuation occurs from the wave function there would be a fresh look at how consciousness interacts with physics. Maybe entanglement is a first step. Maybe one wave function becomes entangled with another until decoherence is born. See what I mean? This is the reverse vector. As Vin mentioned from the Rig Veda, we are synchronized because we are born out of this synchronization. In biology, we say “ontogeny repeats phylogeny.” In physics, we can work back from effects to analyze causes.

    CONSCIOUSNESS: Physicists routinely do what they can to steer clear of contact with “the consciousness.” It is too non-physical to nail down and so falls outside their purview. In fact, whole disciplines within QM exist solely to use the very dependable quantum mechanics without acknowledging the metaphysics which are suggested. This goes so far as to deny the existence of atoms as particles and thus avoid thinking about the horrors of consciousness.

    Scientologists and other spiritualists are equally biased. The jaded Scientologist will do extraordinary work to “make” the physical world reconcile with their view of consciousness. I have fallen into this category and am making the effort to re-balance.

    Interestingly, I have found the Scientology definition of “as-is” when used in the sense of “destruction upon inspection” to be remarkably similar to the reverse vector of QM’s “wave collapse” or in other words, “the coalescing of matter from the wave function upon observation.” I may be still stretching to make things fit. I think it is natural to want to retain something of what one has “known to be true” and build on that knowledge. However, if I can see how this is inconsistent, I will gladly let it go in favor of greater consistency. Unhappily, I have discovered some scales of graduation which I learned in Scientology and have held as stable data were inverted if useful at all. Maybe there is something here to know. Maybe all stable data lie interspersed between one’s ego and The Truth.

    1. Mind blowing. (in any sense) 🙂

      And to quote you, “I may be still stretching to make things fit. I think it is natural to want to retain something of what one has ‘known to be true’ and build on that knowledge. However, if I can see how this is inconsistent, I will gladly let it go in favor of greater consistency.” Ditto.

      So with that in mind – I’m interested in what you directly followed it with (something on my gradient!): “Unhappily, I have discovered some scales of graduation which I learned in Scientology and have held as stable data were inverted if useful at all. Maybe there is something here to know. Maybe all stable data lie interspersed between one’s ego and The Truth.”

      (That is, if you are interested in writing more about it. Writing can clarify and even propel a person’s thoughts and explorations [as you know]. But you may have going a momentum in other directions…)

      1. Thank you. Well, those weren’t points I was trying to make but ok. I am continuing to study and audit. Rereading my post I can see where I did a bad job of explaining my point, but if you frame up a particular question we could discuss it.

        1. I was curious about the specifics on the part of your post I quoted. You may point my mind in a direction I haven’t turned to or even known was there.

          1. Well, not desiring to debate Scientology per se, maybe you are wondering about “stable data?” I would ask how far down the rabbit hole do we want to go? Truth is a relative term and apropos for a given frame of reference. Are we together?

            If we want to begin cutting loose anchor points so that we drift or actively navigate away from “familiar frames of reference” why then “truth” may shift accordingly and we should prepare for a measure of discomfort. We might need to acknowledge and cope with a schizophrenic existence:

            Living in a world of lies,
            while knowing otherwise.

            This I believe is what we see when we read the great classic works of the great physicists. They cut anchor points and let themselves contact frontiers of the universe which were undiscovered until with courage they forged into that unknown. The relative truths being debunked by consequent discoveries are as relevant for those older previous frames of reference as they used to be. However, moving into “new self-similar models” in a fractal and recursive universe requires “new truths.”

            “The Truth” in an ultimate meaning may point to an undesirable unraveling; however, I predict that will neither stop us nor slow us from “pulling the string.”

            Stable data for me seems as stable as we are willing to hold it steady.

          2. Thanks. Yes, we’re together on the idea of frame of reference, and that’s what I was wondering about – your new frame of reference relative to Scn stable data. But that’s okay – maybe I will sit back a while and “gather” the frame of reference you are into from your posts. Carry on…

            As for the question of oneness or separateness, now part and parcel (or particle) of physics, here’s an interesting video that Elizabeth forwarded to me:

          3. Researching a bit on the net I find that the group that produces such videos seems to be a cult (of all coincidences, or not – maybe cults are a dime a dozen). But I still think this boy’s words and beingness are both absolutely fascinating. I’ve watched a couple other channelings of his (including one of Jesus) and felt the same way about the ideas and the beingnesses he is able to exhibit – fabulous ability there if nothing else. This one of the swami has the most appealing beingness and applicable ideas.

          4. Can he channel Hubbard also, I wonder!

            What is being channeled seems to be a set of considerations that one may associate with a certain beingness. Those considerations seem to have a certain consistency to do with that beingness, much like a character in a novel.

            .

          5. I read on the internet that the channeling of Hubbard by this child is coming soon. Elizabeth tells me he/she (it may actually be a girl) was a Scientologist audited to OT, who got herself a body. And that she saw another video where he/she talks about the mind just like we do, as LRH did and that he/she “can enter into any dimension.”

            Even if it’s as prosaic as you describe – what an ability! That in itself says something about a being..or the mind…or dimensions…or somethin’.

          6. I wonder if a set of considerations may just float around like a compressed radio signal, with its considerations locked into each other as a program sub-routine.

            A certain mind can have the capability of tuning and grabbing on to that sub-routine. The sub-routine then temporarily takes hold of that mind and plays itself through that mind.

            .

          7. (Chris – my reply directly above was meant for you.)

            Vin, this one’s to you. I should never have doubted you! I really like what you say here and it seems consistent with both physics and metaphysics and breaches the gap, erases the line. (BTW, you now have us all practically unable to speak without using the word “consistent,” like you did with “filter” :-))

            I’m seeing what you say above as a sensible, de-mysticized explanation for not only Universal Mind but Oneness and intuition and entanglement/synchronization. What do you say?

            I also noted that if “a certain mind can have the capability of tuning and grabbing on to that sub-routine” – done causatively, it would be pretty OT. Apparently that’s the case with this girl, causative and knowing ability. And if it’s true that she is an audited OT, that’s a pretty “amazing person” product of Scn.

            It’s probably much more common that “the sub-routine then temporarily takes hold of that mind and plays itself through that mind” – i.e. just another way of being Effect, though an exotic one.

        1. as-isness not un-stacking, if one un-stack than you still have it. When one as-is the item that item dissolves vanish.
          By the way I too love the expression “un-stack”.

          1. Stack= heap, pile, load, mass, mound, rise, group, batch, bulk, layer
            What you mean in your reality if un stacked, than no more? Or the stack now placed in different place existing in different form? By as-ising something one do not place that item someplace else.
            Are you are saying the samething as I have?

          2. Stack is a reference point a person is operating from. At the bottom of the stack is the ‘self’.

            It is a stack of considerations. Once un-stacked, that consideration is gone from the stack. It doesn’t matter where it is gone, as long as it is no longer being considered.

            It may be reconsidered, of course! But now it may be adding to the stack… most likely at a different point on the stack.

            .

          3. No, he is not, Vin means an action, (similar to taking the lowest hanging fruit, as you said), and you mean a thing (similar to the hanging fruit itself)
            Unstacking is the natural sequence in which the mind presents the things which need to be looked at, so that inconsistencies can be eliminated.
            As I see it, it is a process in which the mind tends to follow the right gradient in which knowledge can be reached, the next obstacle which has to vanish before the sub-sequent obstacle can be observed, focused, so that higher consistency can be reached.
            It is like moving up a mountain and finding the place in which the next step up can be taken.

            Each time a higher consistency is achieved, means the correct obstacle has been as-ised.

            From this view, as-isness is not destruction, is creation of higher consistency.
            Total as-isness can not be reached when confronting a lot of inconsistencies all at the same time.
            Total as-isness can only occur at the moment when total consistency is achieved.

        2. Very good. Then in the same context and in the same language describe “decoherence.”

          1. Vinaire, when discussing a theory of everything and the synchronization problem, resorting to a recitation of your religion seems to dodge the OP and thusly inconsistent to me.

            Is this gentle enough and specific enough for you to answer my question of how you would apply your ideas to decoherence?

            If you have nothing on this, you may refute decoherence if you wish, some do.

      1. I see your point, and now we are going for accuracy or possibly semantics? Regardless, I begin to see more incompleteness in my Scientology education. “8-8008” may be a good starting point exercise but now I can begin to wonder does one “extend points to view” or is one’s viewpoint been extended from the quanta by “what consciousness?”

        This for me is not an either or question. QM is helping me to think in a new direction. Together with my solo auditing I am opening up to more possibilities regarding “what is consciousness?” I am understanding that a “truer sense of consciousness” may be quite different from my earlier ego-based consciousness. No need to reply to this as I already know we are in agreement on this point.

        Regardless, I think your good point defines a line which I think we agree doesn’t actually exist in QM.

        I also was pleased and agree with your declaration of friendship. I feel the same.

    2. “Quanta” is plural of quantum. Quantum is the minimum amount of any physical entity involved in an interaction. Behind this, one finds the fundamental notion that a physical property may be “quantized,” referred to as “the hypothesis of quantization”. This means that the magnitude can take on only certain discrete values. Reference:

      Quantum

      In my opinion, the superset of the physical and spiritual universe is the Universe of Consideration. This means that the magnitude of “consideration” can take only certain discrete values. A discrete consideration would be a recognizable consideration, which, one may say, is the result of “wave function collapse.”

      So, what is the wave function related to a consideration?

      .

      1. Maybe that “wave-function related to consideration” is AS-ISNESS.

        As-isness as “creation” is super fast “stacking.”
        As-isness as “un-creation” is super fast “un-stacking.”

        But, as-isness is “super fast stacking and un-stacking” of what? And here lies the crux of the matter… or the crux of fundamental particles.

        One may look at the “irrational number” for an answer.

        In an irrational number we have non-terminating and non-repeating decimal positions. Each decimal position may be looked upon as something designating a quantum. Thus, there can be smaller and smaller quanta. There is no smallest quantum. There is no end to how small “discreteness” can be.

        I shall leave it at that for the moment.

        .

      2. So, the wave function related to a consideration may actually be like an “irrational number” that cannot be pinned down to absolute exactness. Underlying that consideration wave function, there is always some uncertainty, no matter how deep the certainty may go.

        The act of considering then collapses that ‘consideration wave function’ into having a certainty.

        .

  55. vinaire said: 2011-10-06 at 03:26
    As-isness is de-construction and not destruction.
    vinaire said: 2011-10-06 at 12:19
    As-isness is superfast un-stacking.
    vinaire said: 2011-10-07 at 00:13
    Anything un-stacked is gone. It has been executed. The cycle is completed.

    Really?

    1. As-isness is something very precise. It is not random at the fundamental level.

      Destruction has the connotation of randomness.

      .

  56. [b] It cannot be said with certainty what was there prior to any creation.
    There was neither space nor time. There was no viewpoint.
    Anything that we may considere to be there, would just be our consideration… a creation.
    What one may imagine to be there in the beginning could be a field of sorts similar to the electromagnetic field.
    Waves come about in a field. In the electromegnetic field we have light as an example of electromegnetic waves.
    Interference among waves creates “standing waves” consisting of fixed nodes.
    Thus, come about the seed of the form, we may call “self.”
    “Self” is not something permanent or eternal. It is a natural phenomenon that occurs in any field of waves.
    An aspect of “self” serves as a viewpoint (the point from where viewing takes place).
    Another aspect of “self” serves as a dimension point (something to be viewed).
    Both viewpoint and dimension point are part of the same system. They are not independent of each other.
    A combination of viewpoint and dimension point then evolves into individualities.
    There is no such thing as a “One that breaks into individuals.”[/b]

    The above is how I look at the Creation Hymn of Rig Veda. If you find inconsistencies in what I have written above, please do point them out to me.

    .

    1. Maybe a tiny bit above the electromagnetic field, there is a field of infinite possibilities.

      At the creation of the electromagnetic field, (the appearance of the ebb and tide),is the creation of space, two points become separate, one is the “viewer”, and one is the “viewed”, viewpoint and point of view. Interested and interesting.

      That would be the basic inconsistency in the field, and also, the first step into persistence, which then would grow into all the rest.

      Seems like all apparent consistencies (permanent things, stable data) are made up from inconsistencies, otherwise, they wouldn´t persist.

      As we hang to our stable data we achieve persistency, solidity.

      A wave consists of two opposites interacting, a stable wave becomes a “static” ( means the wave is changing in the same cyclical pattern, over and over) and vanishes from our awareness, consciousness, knowledge.

      The “collapse of the wave” should mean as-isness, but it also mean the solidification of the wave, when it reaches an apparency of consistency, and becomes an “stable datum”.

      Maybe that process is potentiated by agreement.

      The process to find our way back into the origin, then, would be:

      1. Find something which seems consistent to us.

      2. Find the basic inconsistency over which it is built.

      3. Discover a new (higher) level of consistency.

      4. Find the new basic inconsistency,

      5. At each step we can become slaves of the new stable datum, or break free from it by “jumping into the void” somehow.

      6. Of course, our preconceived notion that there should be “something” consistent out there, could easily take us in the contrary direction, and reach a point in which we are creating each new higher consistency again!

      Well, I guess this would be the squirrel cage.

      Of course all this is covered by Vin´s KHTK processes (At least, as I understand them)

      1. Brilliant piece of work Rafael! Very clear and easy to understand.

        I shall now give KHTK a review. I have previously given it a brush off with the obligatory “I already know that” which I must say is how — left to my natural inclination — is how I already look at things.

    2. Your statement seems inconsistent in that It can easily be said with certainty what was there prior to any creation. Speaking with certainty about things whether known or unknown is not difficult. Your statement that there was no viewpoint nor space nor time “before any creation” is inconsistent.

      I have just created this viewpoint out of space and time which is consistent. What existed before I did that?

    3. When faced with questions for which one does not have an answer, it seems to me more consistent to simply say, “I do not know,” rather than to label the unknown datum as “unknowable.”

      Labeling the answers to questions as unknowable blunts ones looking and cascades down that slippery slope into cult-think. “Unknowable” is not a revelation, it is a curtain.

      I believe this is consistent with the whole of science which has gone before.

  57. The true nature of a number is “irrational.” The rational number is a special case of a “collapsed irrational number.”

    Similarly, I believe that the true nature of matter and energy is also “irrational.” The discreteness of particles of matter and energy quanta are special cases of a “collapsed wave function of matter and energy.”

    The discreteness of consideration is a special case of a “collapsed wave function of consideration.”

    .

    1. I actually get you. I cannot confirm if you are correct but your arrival at this statement of a rational number being the special case of the collapsed irrational number is the result “reverse vector” looking that is producing for me some results. Interesting.

  58. Alright, the following three statements of yours seem inconsistent with each other:

    vinaire said: 2011-10-06 at 03:26
    As-isness is de-construction and not destruction.
    vinaire said: 2011-10-06 at 12:19
    As-isness is superfast un-stacking.
    vinaire said: 2011-10-07 at 00:13
    Anything un-stacked is gone. It has been executed. The cycle is completed.

  59. I’ve been going over this thing about “what was there before there was something” and the question seems inconsistent having a false major premise.

  60. “Unknowable” is just a consideration, and so is, “I don’t know”, and so is, “It may be possible to know some day.”

    The fact is that these are all considerations that are created.

    None of these, or any other consideration, can ever tell you what was prior to their creation.

    .

    1. You get what you create. If you don’t create anything you don’t get anything.

      “Prior to creation” has no meaning then.

      .

      1. Your statement is inconsistent in that when “you create” there is something both before and after.

        In a deterministic universe “prior to creation” would have no meaning. You can make your statement more consistent if you filter the spookiness and free will out of your statement.

      2. “Prior to creation” will always have meaning, even if bi-directional as is one interpretation of QM.

        In a sense, we turn around our thinking and go backward in time in order to understand the present.

    2. If you say, “There is a potential to create, prior to creation.” then you are simply presenting a consideration, and then looking at that consideration.

      It is just a created consideration. What was their prior to this consideration is not known.

      If you say, “I know what is prior to creation to be potential.” Well, that is this just your consideration, and not something prior to this consideration.

      It is all dependent origination as Buddha said… a universe of consideration… floating in the unknowable.

      .

      1. I should have kept my mouth shut than this place would have remained a much simple and less confusing place and people would not grapple understanding what is between spiritual and matter.
        By continually looking for answers in matter, looking for words to describe something with words, when not finding words than saying it is unknown.
        Searching for answers having thought one arrives having thought. When one will stop having thoughts=considerations that do not mean unknown or empty but that simply not understandable by human thinking. It is simply impassible to comprehend since there is no concept thought can describe since concept “is” something” which has mass of some form.
        Give up thoughts, empty the mind than there will be a sense.

          1. Considerations are going to be there. All you need to do is to know that they are all additives… and then you’ll be free.

            .

    3. Yes, the Buddha is poetic. Each of the numerous times that you have written “just a consideration” I have wondered why you use the modifier “just.”

    4. vinaire | 2011-10-07 at 17:55
      “Unknowable” is just a consideration, and so is, “I don’t know”, and so is, “It may be possible to know some day.” The fact is that these are all considerations that are created. None of these, or any other consideration, can ever tell you what was prior to their creation.

      Dodging the communication; throwing around some bull about considerstions; and then claiming our considerations won’t talk to us is straw. I bet you can come up with better.

      Sometimes you seem to lose your sense of humor.

    1. vinaire said: 2011-10-07 at 18:19
      All you can do is keep adding to the universe of consideration.
      It would continue to float in the unknowable.

      This is inconsistent with your other statement: “Where does a cycle go when it is completed? It is simply gone. It no longer requires any attention. It is finito!” (but not destroyed

      Does your statement mean that you can diminish the expanding universe of considerations? Or do you mean that you can “consider the cycle to be gone,” thus expanding the universe of considerations? Which do you mean?

  61. Vinaire: As-is= to view anything exactly as it is without any distortion or lies, at which moment it will vanish and cease to exist [scn dic]
    That is the moment when cognition comes with new reality which will not contain distortion or lies. that new reality will never be stacked since it holds no mass it is intangible

  62. the word “anything” it self? OR:
    Un-stacking is confrontation. Depends how many auditing question or just simple question makes one finally confront that basic. The amount of layer depend on the individual just how many none confronted concept existing piled up about the same, accumulated over the being existence in the MEST.
    Any repetitive question aimed at the item can take of layer by layer. Very simple procedure.
    .Knowing you, you already know the answer and will give one, not related to what I write here.

    1. Confrontation is an interesting word that implies a games condition. Auditing is as-isness, and I don’t see as-isness as a games condition. So, I do not see un-stacking as a confrontation. Elizabeth, you must be confusing un-stacking with something else.

      .

      1. Auditing too is a game condition, since it is a do-ing-ness. is it passible that you have a confusion? As-isness too is a condition. Confront: looking at something while doing. Yes? If one do not face it, looking at it cant un-stack it or stack it. What is the problem whith the concepts here? We do or we dont. [words like: maybe perhaps, while being used to describe actions believes: never have achieved anything, those concepts are still hanging in the air.]

          1. care to list separatedly what is natural and what is not when it comes to creation a game? What is the diffence between one game and the other? What is good about one game in one’s reality or what makes it bad ? Is there speacial rules one need to go by to un-stack? Who’s rules are they?

          2. Now you have defined “natural unstacking.” Congratulations.

            What actually defines “games condition” is arbitrary rules by one side and lose for the other side.

          3. Two different meanings for confront/confrontation. (1) to encounter, as something to be dealt with and (2) to face in hostility or defiance; oppose.

            Also two different meanings for game condition/gameS condition. The first with no “s” at the end of “game” would simply be one of the conditions in a game (all are listed out in tech dictionary under “game conditions”); and (2) with the “s” on the end of game, it is a case thing, it’s derogatory (defined in Tech Dict under “gameS condition”).

  63. Un-stacking is completing cycles one by one in the reverse order that they were stacked up.

    Where does a cycle go when it is completed? It is simply gone. It no longer requires any attention. It is finito! Very simple.

    How does one go about completing a cycle? It is looking and rearranging whatever needs to be rearranged to achieve consistency. This is very simple too.

    .

    1. My experience with unstacking is not so neat as you say “in the reverse order they were stacked up.” Not all considerations are of the same importance to the person doing the unstacking and so the items of interest to the person present themselves are naturally unstacked in their order of importance to the person doing the unstacking.

      Additionally, for me it is really not a stack. Not like a stack of pancakes. For me it is more like a wad. A wad of steel wool or other thread-like wad such as the brain. Regardless, this may be of no importance as each person’s sensation of this will be of their own reality.