Ideology and responsibility

Why do people believe what they believe?

Upbringing? Seeking objective truth? Subjective truth? Coercion? Brainwashing? Gut feeling? Presented with overwhelming evidence? Unquestionable authority? Why?

Lot’s of avenues to formation of belief.

But could responsibility play an integral part? Could a person’s need for vindication help form his beliefs?

There may be comfort in believing that you are not responsible for the shit you have done. Or will do. But to achieve that comfort, you need a plausible belief system – a world view that is not so obviously born out of your need for vindication. It needs to be pervasive enough to solve both that need for comfort and possibly other situations in life.

Come God, come Allah, aliens, guiding spirits, science or philosophical determinism.

If you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. — Romans 10:9-11

But now he has reconciled you by Christ’s physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation. — Colossians 1:22

Allah’s will is always done. — Al-Ahzab, 37

Every man has his own destiny; the only imperative is to follow it, to accept it, no matter where it leads him. — Henry Miller

Everything is determined, the beginning as well as the end, by forces over which we have no control. It is determined for the insect as well as the star. Human beings, vegetables, or cosmic dust, we all dance to a mysterious tune, intoned in the distance by an invisible piper. — Albert Einstein

The initial configuration of the universe may have been chosen by God, or it may itself have been determined by the laws of science. In either case, it would seem that everything in the universe would then be determined by evolution according to the laws of science, so it is difficult to see how we can be masters of our fate. — Stephen Hawking

Everything in nature is the result of fixed laws. — Charles Darwin

Destiny is a good thing to accept when it’s going your way. When it isn’t, don’t call it destiny; call it injustice, treachery, or simple bad luck. — Joseph Heller

Man does not control his own fate. The women in his life do that for him. — Groucho Marx

One may chose to believe in God, Allah or the Great Spirit to explain one’s actions or more easily escape responsibility. Or one may elect fate or destiny, astrology or unseen influences to shirk it. Or one may want to put one’s trust in determinism or in quantum mechanical randomness to escape any notion of responsibility altogether.

May the need for vindication play a not insignificant role in what the person choses to believe?


328 thoughts on “Ideology and responsibility

  1. Scientists don’t belive. The doubt eternally. It is their desire to know that moves them.

    This is what I “believe”. 🙂

    I think that what a scientist “believes” comes from his view of consistency, which he tries to express as best as he can.


    1. That would be a true scientist. But the history is full of scientists with strong convictions in the most ridiculous things. A true scientist would have no fixed or preconceived ideas. I say there are very few true scientists in this world, if any. Most (or even all) people believe.

      1. Buddha was a true scientist. He is my role model in a way.

        When I say scientist, I mean a scientist in spirit, or when one is wearing that hat of a scientist.


        1. More hands on at my work (New Products Introduction, manufacturing engineering). That is fast track for me. 🙂


      2. I agree. I think a belief in materialism has had a big impact on education and also where the money goes in science; where the attention goes. I’m no expert on this but does the scientific method exist to filter out the human instinct to favour a particular outcome and then adjust the evidence he looks for? You cant trust scientists you can only trust science. Great poster btw 🙂

      3. The recent post on “Open Mindedness” more or less assumed that one would subscribe to the truth. But how can one know one has reached the final truth ?

        … and still have an open mind for another possibility ?

        Thus I think that most scientist will at any time will have something they believe is THE truth, while still holding his/her mind open for other things that MIGHT be true …

        1. From a scientific point of view there is no absolute truth. There may only be inconsistencies that attaract one’s attention.

          When all inconsistencies are gone, then all that remains may be called “truths that one is creating out of playfulness.”


          1. “From a scientific point of view there is no absolute truth. There may only be inconsistencies that attaract one’s attention.”

            Your statement is an absolute truth.

            he he he! 🙂

            Hi Vinnie!!

          2. But at the same time, if anyone came to learn all there is to learn, assuming of course there is a final amount of knowledge to collect or learn, then I guess that person would know the absolute truth.

            But, how would that person know,
            – for the first that all that could be learned was learned,
            – and for the second that what was learned was the absolute truth ?

          3. Ah! Maria,

            That’s feisty indeed! You got my ears to perk up.

            The truth is that anything expressed through language appears absolute. Now join me beyond language in that unknowable realm… Are you there?


          4. I love this feisty side of you, Maria.

            But speaking of statements expressed through language, which statement do you think cannot be taken as absolute!

            Language has its limitations.

            But I have a suspicion that you have some acquaintance with that realm beyond language where we can roam in the unknowable chuckling to ourselves.


          5. To Tor Ivar Nilsen: We assume, and then we try to argue upon that assumption. what is the sense in that? The thing to really look at would be

            (1) Ah! One can assume. How wonderful is that!
            (2) Oh! One can argue. That is fascinating.
            (3) And one can hide what one is assuming. That is truly marvelous.
            (4) Then one can make claims to discovery and knowing. That takes the cake.


          6. “But I have a suspicion that you have some acquaintance with that realm beyond language where we can roam in the unknowable chuckling to ourselves.“


          1. I guess you are right on that, as one might then have reached a kind of enlightenment,
            but I guess then also that one couldn’t bring that forth as evidence for anyone else ?

          2. why ones absolute truth is important? why one need to convince others of such? the absolute truth exist only for self. if you agree with mine than you only agree. Like buddhist do, they only agree because of that they got stuck within that agreement.[ nothing better was coming down on the pike that time] Cant move out, cant think for self yet believe it is the absolute truth. DA? Did any one of them went earlier similar life and investigated for self just how much truth is there in that belief? Geir put up a most excelent post few weeks back.about such a matter.
            [I hear gnashing of teeth]

  2. The most fundamental desire is to know.

    Other desires, purposes, intentions, etc. get slapped on top of that fundmental desire to know.


      1. Looks like we agree on quite a few things.

        So there must be some similarity bertween KHTK Looking and Elizabethan solo auditing.


        1. My Dear,at the basic one reaches, has the same reality . Only the solidity, the words, cause barriers. Only when communicates uses words can and have ARCb’s.

  3. Fixed belief is an aberration. It always leads to inconsistency.

    Inconsistencies on various levels may be named as follows:

    1.Engram = Inconsistency on the layer of perception
    2.Unwanted feelings & emotions = Inconsistency on the layer of experience
    3.Indoctrination = Inconsistency on the layer of information
    4.Beliefs = Inconsistency on the layer of hypothesis
    5.Doctrines = Inconsistency on the layer of theory
    6.Fixed ideas = Inconsistency on the layer of principles
    7.Fixed viewpoints = Inconsistency on the layer of axioms
    8.Fixed identity = Inconsistency on the layer of self

    The above is from KHTK 6: INCONSISTENCY


  4. It seems that free will advocates continues to promote the view that a “non free will human” automatically has no responsibility. My mechanistic (not deterministic – huge difference) view of the world has not lead me to “put trust” or “take comfort” in it to “escape” responsibility.
    Humans are conscious, thinking beings even though we have no free will. We can analyze information and assess consequences of our actions, independent of free will. When the sum of a series of immensely complex events take place in “me” (the collections of atoms that I am built from) reaches a “decision” – this lump of atoms is responsible, because it has generated this “decision”.

    Am I responsible for the “shit” I have done and will do? Yes!
    Did I have a “non-material will that can perform magic tricks over matter to guide my conscious decision making”? No.

    1. I am glad I could be of provocation 🙂

      But there is no logic in a lump of atoms “being responsible for anything” no matter how complex it is – since It did not generate anything. It is Only a result of previous motions or random motion. Is it the 8-ball’s responsibility that it pocketed that hole? No. Is it the white ball that hit it? No. Etc. One can “act as if one is responsible” in a deterministic or random (or both) universe, but even that “acting” would then Only be a result of previous or random motion.

      1. Why is that a contrdiction? There is a structure to thinking. That is, what one has already postulated forms the boundary around what may be postulated. Consciousness is a generality. It needs to be defined much more clearly.


  5. Excellent point – because it really points out the problem here: terminology. The way you interpret the word “Responsibility” assumes (or even requires) a free will being. In your interpretation, using this word makes no sense on atoms and molecules.

    In my interpretation, responsibility is just what you say – the cause (previous or random motion/forces). The human brain is so vast, so complex that these “previous or random motions” are intensely complex to understand, and the result is impressive. On the surface, it may seem like we have “free will” because of this complexity. To many confuse this impressive machinery with magic.

    Occams razor

    1. So when the knife enters the victim, why not jail the knife? Punish the arm instead? Or the shoulder together with the arm? Or the head or the brain? No… obviously it is the impulses into the brain that must be brought to trail. The mother and the father, the teacher and the brother. The ancestors are responsible. Where do you logically draw a line?

    2. Ok. I dont have reality that brain is doing anything but i understand that it is used in term of expersion , thinking. But I am last about atoms and molecules. They dont exit in my universe which is outside of Solidity as MEST.

  6. A rather arrogant comment might be as follows :

    Upbringing? – Yes, most plausible
    Seeking objective truth? – Yes, most plausible
    Subjective truth? – Yes, most plausible
    Coercion? – Yes, most plausible
    Brainwashing? – Yes, most plausible
    Gut feeling? – Yes, most plausible
    Presented with overwhelming evidence? – Naaah, think this is less sure,
    and if one thinks so, then the next reason might be the actual one …
    Unquestionable authority? – Yes, most plausible …

    Now where and when is that BBQ of yours ? 😀

      1. Hehe ! 🙂

        But to be a it serious (OK, try to at least) on this approach and subject, for my own sake the seeking of truth was my way IN into belief. I think also quite a bit of finding an “understanding”, and yes that might have been that “vindication”, to try to understand why I had become what I was etc. to find excuses for myself and all others who had affected me and my life …

        Myself I never felt the need for not being responsible for the things I did, more on what had happened to me etc., and what I thought I couldn’t have affected and also what I thought I could affecyt and change …

        In other people I have seen most the other reasons, except maybe that “overwhelming evidence” and those I met that though that they had been presented for such, more less all accecpted things as evidence as it came from an “Unquestionable authority”.

        Maybe the only suitable example I can think of that might falll into the case of “presented with … ” etc. might be that “22. of July”-guy, though he’d kind of collected his “evidence” hinself … :-S

  7. Btw, love that Marx’ Bro’s comment ! 😀 Willie Nelson has supposedly once said something like :
    “There are no such thing as an EX-wife, in my life they’re all like ADDITIONAL wived … ”


  8. Geir – I have to tell you that I am having such a HAPPY time on your blog!!!!! I am utterly delighted to be able to discuss all these concepts so near and dear to my heart!!!!!!

    I am having a wonderful time studying two rather immense treatises I found on the web.

    The first is entitled “Modes of Thought” by Albert Whitehead, written in 1938. Here is the link:

    The second is entitled “The Information Philosopher,” an online site devoted to exploring philosophical concepts directly resulting from quantum physics. Here is the link:

    Here’s a quotation from that site:

    “The fundamental question of information philosophy is cosmological and ultimately metaphysical. What is the process that creates information structures in the universe?

    Given the second law of thermodynamics, which says that any system will over time approach a thermodynamic equilibrium of maximum disorder or entropy, in which all information is lost, and given the best current model for the origin of the universe, which says everything began in a state of equilibrium some 13.75 billion years ago, how can it be that living beings are creating and communicating new information every day? Why are we not still in that state of equilibrium?

    The question may be cosmological and metaphysical, but the answer is eminently practical and physical. It is found in the interaction between quantum mechanics and thermodynamics.”

    As far as the question of vindication – I think that people desperately seek vindication or more accurately stated, they seek release. A fresh start. A new beginning. Some means of recovering from mistakes and miscalculations. I think that this impulse is easily preyed upon to exact obedience, obedience that is enforced. I really think that if there is no mechanism available to recover, then mechanisms will be invented and as long as the inventions result in some form of relief, they will be popular and interestingly, very workable, no matter how unbelievable they may be to another.

    1. …the very reason for sleep or even death perhaps?

      And thanks for being here and contributing. You are a gem. Truly.

      1. 🙂 (see this as a huge smile, beaming!)

        I do think it is the reason for sleep and death and forgetfulness and probably insanity too.

          1. Agreed: Nirvana is dynamic fresh start with each and every moment.

            Unknowable: no fixed identity, therefore no possible assignment of transgression, guilt or punishment.

            As Geir has so rightly pointed out, we won`t be jailing unknowable in any time or space.

            1. “Unknowable: no fixed identity, therefore no possible assignment of transgression, guilt or punishment. ”

              How would you know? 😉

              The Unknowable… The Great Red Herring

          2. The Great Red Herring:

            Amusing scenario comes to mind. Unknowable produces knowable and knowable is the great red herring – the pesky unknowables!

            🙂 (cheesy smile)

          3. You got it Maria… it seems… 🙂

            That, which is not manifested, cannot be known, hence unknowable.
            Knowable is that which is manifested.
            A red herring can only be a knowable.

        1. Maria the “death” is just a concept same a life, time, space. It do not exist. How could a spiritual being die whe do not have a body it is not made out of matter, and infinite?

      1. Yes, I do agree with you. I have been following your posts on this blog, and I was particularly pleased to read this comment from you:

        “Evaluation is devaluation and has a color usualy dark -gray, heavy has size of course and has weight. It action in motion looks like a blanket and it is a very powerfull surge . No wonder one protests when evaluated even if the action is covered up by positive word, that is not strong enough. the spirit is not ignorat being, one usuly knows.”

        It has been my experience too that evaluation is devaluation. I also see it as dark-gray, like a shadow or cloak. I am guessing that this is an awareness that might be shared among individuals, for I have noticed that references to the “dark side“ are made by all manner of individuals who work with release mechanisms.

        1. Yes–yes– yes– that is Fantastic dear Maria. I need to locate the basic-basic where the reason the devaluation is from. I just dont buy simmple reasons like being “aberration” that is to general, to simple, and do not hold the power to as-is. Yes the blanket is thrown at the being, I am thinking here. I see it. In other place and time when we were not in the MEST U. Example You create something let say shimmering image , very lovely. Here I am throwing a cape-dark gray blanket on that creation, which is that moment since you have created it is you since you are expetriencing…… I blanket at you.
          You no longer exist since the heavier dark form have over riden the briiliant light. In my reality you no longer exist that is… But that reality is only mine not yours. No wonder than you yell top of your voice, create a big heavy club and come after me. Good one, But this is not the end. Why would I make a cape like that I need to find the original creation. First I will have coffee with cream and maple syrup. I get back to you on this.

        2. PS, Maria, I have no idea if you know this or not. But the so called darkness the incredible magical indigo space which holds nothing solid outside of the “heavenly bodies” is where the true spiritual life exits and the games can be head. But there is even better “place” where there is no solidity of any kind what so ever……….. That is the true Heaven.

          1. Is is heaven, why do you think I can communicate on every level on every topic? I can experience every view point, feel what others do, see the other side.

          2. “Looks like a being is generated from evaluation“

            I had this amusing sequence of ideas from these last few comments:

            Looks that way to me too. And then fixed in place with it. Identified. Separated from the pack. Isolated. Mine!!!!!! NO!!!! Mine!!!!! Go away!!!!! Leave me alone!!!!!!!!

            Pesky beings!

        3. Maria and Elizabeth,

          This data about the dark side is good to know, very enlightening (no pun intended). But I’m not sure that all evaluations are like that. There is the matter of intention, which may or may not be to darken or lessen someone’s creation. If “darkening” is the intention, it’s actually an invalidation, although it may be thinly veiled. But whether intention is good or bad, either way evaluation can and often does create a bad effect.

          What may happen in the case where there is no ill will is that, although not actually darkening, the evaluation “colors” the creation and thus changes it or replaces it with something else. I’ve looked at evaluation in terms of taking cause-point away from a person and making him into effect-point – perhaps a better way of saying that is to say it’s coloring or altering the person’s creation, by creating over it.

          I guess the only safe acknowledgement is strictly what is used in session, simply an indication of having heard and understood. Any additive to that can be risky unless the comm line is good. Sometimes no additive was intended but it gets received that way, but this is a different kind of thing and is a result of something lacking in communication, probably from both sides. 🙂

          1. OR, if the comm line is really good, even adding to the creation might be not only acceptable but looked at happily as a co-create!

            And if the comm line is really exceptional, even what would essentially be an invalidation could easily be received and either accepted (in a self-determined way) or itself evaluated with no negativity from either side.

          2. Marildi,
            Evaluation: assessment, appraisal estimation, calculation, valuation.
            Invalidation: nullification, undoing, overthrow, cancelation,.
            No matter what information comes in, the being automaticaly do the above one way or ….. To adjust that information to ones own reality. The bad or good is equal, has importance.

          3. “…To adjust that information to ones own reality. The bad or good is equal, has importance.”

            I agree, “adjusting to one’s own reality,” with eval or inval (good or bad), is what stays stable. The only changes are in one’s own reality – and then what comes in can get a changed evaluation. Keeps life interesting. 🙂

          4. Perhaps good or bad has nothing to do with it at all! I am quite sure there are gradations of color and shading. I was just surprised to find that Elizabeth perceived evaluation as devaluation and dark-gray! One thing I have definitely noticed about myself is that with every release or awareness of freeing up, I get an accompanying “brightening,“ and some have been so extreme that I have described it as being like I was watching TV on a little black and white TV and suddenly I had a 60 inch HDTV with surround sound. Or another way of saying it – someone turned the lights on and I was shocked at the difference in clarity and brightness and sharpness and vividness.

            It seems to me that evaluation is a limiting process – after all, one is telling another what to think about his or her own ideas. I see this as different from shared or self-directed discernment entered into on a voluntary basis. Yet, even that appears to be a limiting process albeit self-limiting.

            Perhaps that`s why the tremendous stress on the destructiveness of evaluation and invalidation. It may also be the genus of `judge not, that you be judged.`

          5. Maria: “evaluation is a limiting process…different from shared or self-directed discernment entered into on a voluntary basis.”

            I get how evaluation limits the person being evaluated for. But it gets tricky when trying to communicate in the back and forth of a discussion. I mean, discussion isn’t just a series of ideas put out, one after the other, related only by subject matter. It involves responses to what someone else has said and as soon as that is done, no matter how carefully it’s phrased there’s a direct or indirect or implied evaluation. I feel like I’m missing something. Any further ideas on this? (and make sure you don’t evaluate – joke! :-))

            Also: “someone turned the lights on and I was shocked at the difference in clarity and brightness and sharpness and vividness”

            Just curious, were you talking about the clarity, brightness, etc. of the physical universe?

          6. Marildi

            I get how evaluation limits the person being evaluated for. But it gets tricky when trying to communicate in the back and forth of a discussion. I mean, discussion isn’t just a series of ideas put out, one after the other, related only by subject matter. It involves responses to what someone else has said and as soon as that is done, no matter how carefully it’s phrased there’s a direct or indirect or implied evaluation. I feel like I’m missing something. Any further ideas on this? (and make sure you don’t evaluate – joke! )“

            This is an excellent question and I`ve given it some thought since you asked it. In fact, it is an awesome question and i so pleased you brought it up because this seems to be an area that I really haven`t given much thought to. So thank you!!!

            As I see it so far, there is a very big difference between diminishing another by attempting to think for that person, with an effort to push that in on the person and bringing forward information for the purpose of examination, comparison and joint analysis. One is a cooperative activity and the other is an effort to overwhelm, diminish and disregard. I think lots of troubles come into play even during a cooperative activity when one or more of the participants has fixed ideas or responses that are stemming from uninspected areas of upset or belief systems, etc.

            Another example is when an artist is going to school to learn how to paint. The outset the artist has gone to school for the purpose of learning and expects to be evaluated. But its one thing to be dismissive and critical without that purpose in mind and another to bring forward techniques and methods that would aid in producing an additional and wanted skill.

            Finally, I know for myself, many times in the past I`ve encountered thinkers that were so much more capable than I that I just shriveled. This is self evaluation really, and perhaps it is even more awful than others evaluation. As well there have been times when something shook my stable data so badly that I hated the other and it seemed like they were evaluating for me, when in reality I was just so uncomfortable that I had to break off the communication.

            That`s the gist of what I have looked at so far. I have a feeling that this one is going to be a long, long chain of sorting out and insights!!! If you have more questions or comments I would really love to hear them.

            As to the statement I made: “someone turned the lights on and I was shocked at the difference in clarity and brightness and sharpness and vividness”

            Perception wise it was definitely in the physical universe. It was truly shocking. It also had a corresponding subjective clarity that I can only describe as a clear, still brightness.

          7. In this discussion we seem to be looking at the evaluation of a person. I think further insights lie in the direction of understanding what a person is.

            In my opinion, a person is a construction made up of viewpoints, intentions, and ideas. Ideas are fixed to the degree they are based on the past. Intentions are fixed to the degree they are based on the future. Viewpoints are fixed to the degree one is attached to them.

            Evaluation of a person means evaluation of certain viewpoints, intentions, and ideas. An evaluation would either not-is, alter-is or as-is viewpoints, intentions, and ideas. This would be upsetting to the degree one is attached to these viewpoints, intentions, and ideas.

            One is not upset often when another’s viewpoints, intentions, and ideas are evaluated, when one is not attached to them; but one is upset when one is attached to them. This is why many scientologists get upset when LRH and Scientology is evaluated, because they take it very personally being attached to it.

            So, there seem to be a triangle here of evaluation, upset (grayness), and attachment.

            More later…

          8. Maria: “I have a feeling that this one is going to be a long, long chain of sorting out and insights!!!”

            Me too! 🙂 But just airing the subject, both flows (mine and yours), has helped sort it out. Also, you have “pointed my mind” in a direction that it wasn’t well enough pointed toward – my own responses when I myself or my viewpoints are being evaluated, the other side of the coin. And your comment on comparison of oneself with others and self-evaluation…the clincher.

            I may be forever changed (still cautious me, ha ha!). Thank you, dear fellow cooperative discusser (fella? fellette? feline?). I will muse some more…

          9. Vinaire and Maria,

            I’ve got it all figured out now – all we need to do is to keep in mind at all times all the things you both said. (joking – and serious too)

            Vin, your triangle seems to make sense. But as for your apparent problem with attachment – are you attached to that? Hey, I hope so! How much fun is there in no attachment? Seems lifeless. (To attach or not to attach, that is the question. ;-))

            Maria, forgot to ack your answer about the physical universe being brighter. I surmised that would be your answer. Cool. 🙂

        4. Evaluation, when directed at self, is merely an opinion because self is always changing.

          Evaluation of data is something else entirely. It is valuable to the degree it simplifies any complexity.


          1. self never changes, I thought you have agreed to that. You can use evaluation in your universe any way you please. Your Universe, your own space.

          2. Self is made up of considerations. Considerations change.
            Nothing is permanent or eternal.
            So says Buddha.
            So feels Vinaire.

            Universes are created, sustained and uncreated.
            The ultimate cause is unknowable like the last digit of pi.


          3. Vinaire, those scientologists who are upset with those who evaluate LRH and scientology ….. being upset …..that could be a permanent condition for them..

    2. Maria, thank you! I checked out the second link and it is one amazing piece of information. So far I’ve only skimmed it, especially the more technical and scholarly parts, but I got an idea of what this Information Philosophy is about and it may be the best thing going in the way of proof of the existence of free will and immortal beings. Here are some more quotes to tantalize everyone:

      “Biological systems are different from purely physical systems primarily because they create, store, and communicate information. Living things store information in a memory of the past that they use to shape their future. Fundamental physical objects like atoms have no history…

      “Information is constant in a deterministic universe. There is “nothing new under the sun.” The creation of new information is not possible without the random chance and uncertainty of quantum mechanics, plus the extraordinary temporal stability of quantum mechanical structures…

      This one is for the physicists (note: just about every other word is underlined so you can link to the page telling more about them):

      “In physics, information philosophy provides new insights into the problem of measurement, the paradox of Schrödinger’s Cat, the two paradoxes of microscopic reversibility and macroscopic recurrence that Josef Loschmidt and Ernst Zermelo used to criticize Ludwig Boltzmann’s explanation of the entropy increase required by the second law of thermodynamics, and finally information provides a better understanding of the entanglement and nonlocality phenomena that are the basis for modern quantum cryptography and quantum computing.

      Here’s one especially for Geir:

      “Our second ethical imperative is ‘share knowledge/information to the maximum extent.’ Like love, our own information is not diminished when we share it with others.”

      1. Marildi – glad you liked the links! I know what you mean – its like stepping into a playground!! Oh my!! Both those sites are like candy stores (I love candy!)

  9. Per the most recent and very interesting book by David Deutsch (The beginning of Infinity), Science consists of people guessing at the reasons for things, and then figuring our whether the guess seems to work or not. Per Carl Popper, no-one can ever know if the guess is right – but one can determine that it isn’t. Hence science, and knowledge generally, advances by taking away or disproving all those things that fool us into believing nonsense. A sort of negative gain approach, if you will.
    So when pondering these issues, trying to determine the source of rightness – such as authority, or scripture, or common sense – is pointless. You cannot establish the truth of a proposition. You can only establish a tentative acceptability, or else its untruth. And the stupidest thing you can do is to work on vindicating your own beliefs! You simply cannot do it.

    1. True – however people do venture into beliefs of all sorts for various reasons. Now the vindication I am talking about here is not about vindicating beliefs but instead looking for a belief that vindicates one’s actions.

      1. Such vindication is simply is an effort to make oneself right. Then one carries it around using at every opportunity. Then it becomes a part of the self.

        Maybe, the self is made up of layers upon layers of such vindications.They give it reasons to exist as that self.

      1. vinaire : “To me, looking and recognizing inconsistencies is the path to enlightenment.”

        That I like and agree on, been that way for myself also. Like Bohr => find the paradox, sort out the wrong “equations”, reformulate and go on …

  10. But who or what is responsible? The knife? the arm? the Joe…
    But who or what is Joe? There are many identities…
    So, you tag the body for responsibility that supposedly houses Joe.
    And when the body is dead, you tag the name.
    What is there in a name?
    Where does it take you?

    Self is just a construction just like knife is a construction.
    The ultimate is unknowable…


    1. I can understand the comfort in that, too.

      I am looking forward to the jailing of the knife or the blaming of the Unknowable.

        1. To me your idea of the Unknowable generates eternal boredom. I tend to seek ideas that produces new knowledge, interesting new aspects and results that others find productive. Like the KHTK take on Looking as a fundamental approach to therapy.

            1. Nice try in making yourself (or your idea) right.

              As I have argued before, the idea of the Unknowable is a dead end. It has as far as I can see produced no new knowledge for anyone – except speculations by yourself. Unknowable cannot have any link or any value to anything knowable because that would render it less than Unknowable. It cannot have any relevance in any theory or practice whatsoever or else it wouldn’t be Unknowable. This is why it gives nothing of value to any theory. This is why it is eternally boring. And that is why I will hereafter refer to it instead as the Great Red Herring. You may just have succeeded in producing the Greatest Red Herring in the history of mankind. Nothing to see here, move along folks.

          1. I think each one of us is trying to make our ideas right.
            You are no exception. 🙂

            All knowledge is ultimately the result of speculation.
            Keep moving along.
            You’ll end up at the same point.

            1. Helpful advice is helpful. So I would welcome any and all helpful advices when they come along.

          2. Am I supposed to be giving helpful advice here?
            Helpful from whose viewpoint?

            I am simply presenting my viewpoint.
            That’s all.
            Take it or leave it.

            I don’t mind at all if you leave it.
            But please speak for yourself only.



          3. And please cease from telling others to move along, there is nothing to see here.

            Let others make up there own mind.


            1. Pot, kettle…

              I know of no one here or in my vicinity more hellbent on peddling a viewpoint than you. So sir; You first.

            1. With the purpose of achieving something valuable and useful for all parties involved. Agree?

          4. I don’t try be condescending. I simply state what I see the way i see it. But if that appears condescending to you, and you ridge against that. then I can’t do much about it.

            But, Geir, you can do something about it by not putting up that ridge.


            1. And that may just be the most condescending you have been on my blog 😉

              It is amazing to met that you seem unable to see this from another’s viewpoint.

          5. The value to me is the integrity of observation. I don’t expect any other value beside it. I simply observe and report what I observe. I don’t have any other agenda or purpose where research is concerned.


            1. Well, my purpose is to be of value to my readers. As much as possible – from their viewpoint. Case closed.

          6. About being condescending maybe the problem is with you. If others feel that I am condescending towards them then they will let me know.

            Case closed. 🙂


            1. I have seen many people taking up this point with you during the last couple of years.

              But, you could not reply to my comment without yet again communicating in a condescending way. I am amazed at how blind you are about the way you communicate. Simply amazed. And it is actually sad since that alone will tend to devaluate the content of what you have to say. Humbleness, my friend will get you a long way.

          7. (1) I am what I am. I don’t think that I am condescending in general. If I am condescending at all, it may be towards those who are condescending to start with, and only in the specific communication cycle (kind of a reflection).

            (2) I totally ignore personality and simply look at the actual content of the discussion as much as possible. I don’t get hung up on people’s personalities. I haven’t called you condescending, even when I have felt you to be so. I just ignore that. If you want to make personality an issue in discussions then it is your call.

            (3) If a person can’t evaluate some material on its own merit, and have to judge it by the source,, then the problem is with that person’s ability to evaluate. That is the problem LRH had with both his supporters and detractors. Knowledge should be judged for its on merit with total disregard to the source.

            (4) I would expect an OT VIII to be above reacting to quirks, such as, “somebody being condescending.” But things are as they are; and I have to modify my expectations.


            1. I am not in any way shape or form upset – you see, this is not about my feelings or emotions – it is about your behaviour on this blog. I have warned you before when you were acting as an arrogant prick against Valkov. Then as now you came across as infallible, condescending and arrogant. And I have never seen you take any responsibility for your own communication. You always and up blaming the other person. Reminds me of a funny Scientology Bulletin that includes a list of “Famous Scientology Justifications”, and I quote:

              • You can’t hurt a thetan
              • I was just being self-determined
              • It’s better than suppressing
              • He must have done something to deserve it
              • He was dragging it in
              • It’s not against my moral code
              • They couldn’t have it
              • They weren’t willing to experience it
              • I can’t help it if he reacts
              • It’s only a consideration anyhow
              • Codes are only considerations
              • It was my duty to tell the truth

              I used to think these were hilarious and that nobody would actually think or act that way. I guess it wasn’t a joke.

  11. Responsibility? Responsibility is thought, how to behave, what to say and do. Responsible person who’s actions are inside the laws, agreements of the group is “approved” , recognized by the group as “good” and given rewards for such a responsible behaviour. Something which is recognised, coveted as “value”. The behaviour within the guidelines keeps the structure intact. SO we must reward in order to keep solidity intact
    BUT if not and dare to go against the group agreement, weeeell…..Hell breaks loose. The culprit is voted out of the group with punishment which serves not only as the punishment for the “dared” behaviour and being different but to on give on example for others, as a warning, stepping out of line is not OK. Fear is inserted in order to control. Since that irresponsible action and with that action loosen up some of the solidity. Bad, very bad person.
    Responsibility do not exists in the “”free” world, in the thought, in the “mind” , in the privacy in one’s own space, in the theta universe. One can create; be and do anything one desire to have and can be a free thinker-creator and there is no censorship.
    While one agrees to play the game, yes one need to take responsibility to that extend.

    1. Isn’t responsibility the “ability to respond in a way to as-is what is there”? After all what is there is because you have put it there.

      Ha! This is another way of looking at KHTK.


      1. Responsibility is to admit one has created it, as-is used in a bit different manner or have different out come. Admiting is usualy to somebody ” yes, or no”

  12. THANK YOU MARIA, your comment brought on a cog.
    I did not get to the coffee I asked the question on my way to the kitchen. I found the cape or blanket.
    When I do something I am being my own creation and suddenly this other image which is not mine appears what one do in order to get it out one’s own space? Throw a dark blanket on it. The blanket has destroyed that strange item with the same blanket we realised we created a wall to have privacy of one’s own,
    Having privacy in the universe one must have walls. Here is a goodie, Marie.
    AND WHY A DARK BLANKET? I am trilled I am flying once more.
    HUGE COG: The spiritual being knows that in darkness one can’t create, since to have shape and form and colour and to the item-creation to be seen one needs light. [I have posted on article in my blog about this and what is sleep all about]
    So the clever spiritual being knows: if I recreate –darkness and use it to cover others creation than it can’t be seen, no longer exists in the universe.[of course lie enters, distortion, individuality, mine, others, space]
    Of course now the being here uses the same blanket, evaluation=devaluation because can’t handle change coming in. SO one must destroy thoughts, ideas of others in order to keep one’s own believes intact. If that can’t be achieved than at list put it into the sub-basement and let the rats piss on it. in order to make the other being look on idiot, stupid, worthless. And self who has recognised that fact therefore the smart , full of knowledge above the lowlife.

  13. “Why do people believe what they believe?”

    The most basic reason might be to have a stable datum. To be stable, stabilized in the game of life. From there, all the other factors can come into play and make for individual experience and creation of beliefs.

    I’m seeing things more and more as being rather mechanistic – simply due to the nature of the physical universe and being in that game. But within the game is the power of choice and free will and creativity (or else it wouldn’t be a game).

    1. p.s. An impulse toward a stable datum would fit with the desire to play the Game. And responsibility would fit under the impulse toward a stable datum, i.e. how it is viewed by an individual would be determined by his viewpoint of how it relates to stability. Someone seeing his stability as jeopardized by accepting personal responsibility – won’t. And at the other end of the spectrum, a person may consider that personal responsibility will bring about stability for himself and for others as well, and may also consider that the broader acceptance of personal responsibility will in turn affect his own.

      Geir is taking it a step further by being active in getting others to also take personal responsibility. This blog post gets people to look at the idea directly, with the intention of promoting it. And other posts I would say are either direct or indirect ways of promoting personal responsibility. Geir is a unique example of how personal experience (plus choice) influences the exact form responsibility takes.

      LOL, I realize now that I’ve sort of re-stated the “dynamic principle of existence: survive!” Maybe improved upon it. 🙂 Actually, there may be truth to that as, for me at least, it is a more fundamental and universal expression of the basic dynamic of life.

        1. “Survive” seems to be the basic impulse of the universe. Even with matter and energy, Survive is inherent.

          I’m looking at the whole Universe Game in terms of a cycle of action. There was a Beginning and now the Game is in the Survive or Continue phase. Beings, playing the Game, have Survive/Continue as a basic impulse.

          Adopting a stable “datum” is the manifestation of that impulse, is how I’m looking at it now. A datum can be as basic as any object in the physical universe, even a sub-atomic particle. But in the realm of beliefs, it’s an idea.

          The adoption of a belief is the adoption of what is considered by the being to be a stable datum and is the manifestation of the impulse to Survive or Continue in the Game.

          1. The Cycle of Begin, Continue, End is the least common denominator of what we observe. Survive seems to be the “Continue” part of that cycle, which appears as things persisting. Is it a self-generated impulse? Maybe. It is just a part of the phenomenon observed.

            The Hindu God, “Vishnu” symbolizes the “Continue” part of the cycle.


          2. Vinaire: “Is it a self-generated impulse? Maybe. It is just a part of the phenomenon observed.”

            Seems like it, based on the intuitions of philosophy and now also the findings of science in QM. The video I posted below is one of those my sister posted on your blog. Have you watched it yet? How did it fit in with your theories?

  14.  Tor Ivar Nilsen
    2011-10-28 at 22:05
    “But at the same time, if anyone came to learn all there is to learn, assuming of course there is a final amount of knowledge to collect or learn, and then I guess that person would know the absolute truth.
    But, how would that person know,
    – for the first that all that could be learned was learned,
    – and for the second that what was learned was the absolute truth ?”
    When one “learns”: acquires, obtains, and attains knowledge from other. With that body of knowledge one can agree, disagree, or not –is. Since that body of knowledge is not original to the being so in that body of knowledge one can’t discover the basic ultimate truth for self since since that was not created by the “learner”. Each beings universe is so different, for that reason, absolute truth is individual as the being. Again, in the spiritual universe one do not look for truth. Things are very simple: create=experience and have a ball.
    The answer is within.

  15. The reason why?. Before the begining was a cause and a purpose of the cause was the creation of causes, so responsibility can be assigned to persons as independent free will units.

    1. Rafael, not trying to be the devil’s advocate, but may I ask how you came to that belief? I can think of a couple of different ways, one being that it was what someone said – someone you respect. (Actually, one person who said that was LRH.) Another possiblity is that you came to this belief by direct knowledge somehow. Or you could have worked it out through reasoning, etc.

        1. Thanks, Rafael. You are right – what you are saying is not really what LRH said, though it might be extrapolated that way from all he did say (rightly or wrongly).

          Okay, it was a cognition. Cool. I look at cognitions as a kind of direct knowledge, in the sense that they come from looking at data (knowledge) in one’s own mind and seeing what has been buried from view. The knowledge viewed newly may have been deeply buried or not, and thus it is either a basic truth or not. Do you see cognitions that way too?

          1. Dear marildi, from my view from all he did say ( rightly or wrongly ) a scientologist can extrapolate almost anything to make himself right and others wrong to protect the infallibility of the tech. I see cognitions not as looking at my mind but as an spiritual perception.

          2. Rafael, I may have come across as trying to make you wrong and LRH right but that isn’t my intention. I’ve been disabused of anything like that for some time now! And I certainly understand why you would expect such as attitude and interepret my question that way.

            My actual interest, and I expressed it in recent comments on the previous blog post, is in revelations and direct communication with God that people speak about. I didn’t want to ask you something like that straight out as I thought it might be presumptuous or invalidative.

            Thanks for the direct answer you gave – a spiritual perception. Do you mind explaining that a bit more? Sincerely interested.

          3. Cognition is readjustment of one’s considerations.
            It is not necessarily a truth.
            It is simply that one’s considerations have become
            More consistent compared to before.
            But not necessarily consistent in an absolute sense.


          4. Absolute consistency is as-isness, in my view.
            What is left after as-isness… or complete disappearance of consideration… I don’t know.


      1. Dear vinaire, before the beginning of a house there was the architect, there is no contradiction. Who created the architect? there is your consistent absolut who has always have being only with his potential to create or not.

        1. We are talking about beginning, and not “beginning of a house.”

          So, before the “beginning” of a house, there was a “beginning” of an architect, and so on.



          1. Dear vinaire, this universe is matter the same as a house. The architect i am refering to is god and do not have beginning because he is not an object to as-is . He is the is-ness itself.

  16. RAFAEL, what beginning do you refer to? Here where is solidity? Here the words were bought to existence with that responsibility was tough how too, as any other doing-ness: like clean your house, take a shower etc…. In the Universe were the original creation was, there where no thoughts, so was no responsibility existed. Just look around, would the being in so deep if taken responsibility, or could take responsibility or have known about it?

    1. Dear elizabeth, i do not understand well your question, but i can by now say as a reality point that before the singularity of the big bang there was the existence of a free will causative being, that is one and multiple due to his created and independent causative free will beings. The original creator is one and absolute and his created independent causative free will beings are growing to the condition of the original creator.

          1. Rafael So far I have not expressed my view point on God and I am not venturing on that minefield with ease, even without the body.
            No God created my reality I will take responsibility for all my creation regardless what so ever that is. From my side no one will hear that I am a victim of anything or I was given something to which I have or have not agreed. The only god and gods I have seen in my wondering in the universe was on implanted beings playing gods in different computer games. One could buy those games in different planets, they were hot item, to assume different personalities. Hot-hot topic. Uff. No god exists in my universe and never will

          1. Vinaire: Why should I go by somebody else’s reality?
            you are contradicting your self. by totally believing in buddhism, becoming one with who is not real only hearsay a myth.

  17. Dear isene, i do not see the reply button but will answer here. He/she is like santa klaus that gives the toys and the kids some times do not even see him but when they grow the job is done by them.

    1. Elizabeth, just type a colon and a right-side parenthesis, like this:) Be sure to type a space with the space bar before you type the colon or it will just show up as a colon and a parenthesis, like mine above does (notice, no space between the word “this” and the colon and parenthesis). Now I”m going to leave a space 🙂 and you see the smile face turn up.

      1. LIke this, between the brackets [:)] . You won’t see it as a smile until after you push the “post comment” button.

      1. I grumble when somebody respects me, That word is a trap two ways same as veneration, high esteem, adoration and a few hundred more. They capture the being within the boundaries of those energy flows. Those words gives the impression that one is above, has importance, therefore better than others. Has value, because of that others too should fallow that footstep to achieve. Respect is usually given for achievement for on achieved “layer” which is not easily attained.
        Rafael lets walk side by side please, that feels very good

  18. Dear marildi, here i anwer to your 2011-10-29 at 01:37 coment on this blog post.

    revelations is what you get from spiritual perception not direct comunication, not in my case.
    what do you consider is a revelation?

      1. Dear vinaire, as i have just answered isene, the spiritual reality is not an objet to be located in space so it can not be measured with scientific tools. But it is a real beingness that is part of the existence. Religion is in charge to get you in comm with this things.

          1. Dear vinaire, “mental space” is a build energy machine, that is what the e-meter reads so it is a consideration. Spiritual reality “is the reality”, the part of the existence that you can not as-is because it is from the undatable ocasion of his creation from god whose primary characteristic is that has never had a beginning. But neverthless this existence can be perceived and that perception is spiritualy healing.

          1. To see without eyes? I thought every body do that, I know they can but people dont realise they doing it. .Vinaire sweetpots, what do you think auditing is all about? but to regain abilities one once had. One one do not have the body one still can SEE , observe. in reality the being has 360 degree perception. only the body, the eyes can see narrow closed in, way. Not easy to explain if someone has no reality. Please, no insult intended here. . by the way i been thinking about your “Unknown” I belive for you it exists, my reasoning is that we only talk of what we know. Same with questions we only ask if we know of the subject.
            I have realised some time back if i think of something than I better look because there is something needs to be discovered. So I believe for you in the “unknown” something important waithing for you to find. I do hope you locate your need.

    1. There’s a definition that means “something communicated or disclosed by God.” But the definition that is more like what I meant is “God’s disclosure of Himself….” My wording of the latter is “direct communication with God.”

      Maybe I should just ask you to tell me more about the experience you had when you cognited that there is a God, if you don’t mind describing it.

      I am one who doesn’t necessarily believe we have to arbitrarily wait for science to discover some truth (but I do believe science can discover truths that are already known intuitively by some, as it has already done at times in the past). Intuition itself I’m confident willl be proven by science, probably in the near future (I base that on more than intuition ;-)).

      1. p.s. Rafael: “…before the singularity of the big bang there was the existence of a free will causative being, that is one and multiple due to his created and independent causative free will beings.”

        Wording it that way seems no different from what perhaps the majority of posters here believe. Maybe the biggest objection with the word “God” is that it usually includes the idea that one is at effect point, must submit to the will of God. But whether or not that “idea” always makes any real difference in how a person actually conducts his life compared to others, I’m not sure.

        You may very well be just as much willing cause as those who don’t “believe” they are at effect of any God. So if it works for you (anybody), I don’t think there’s a problem or that there should be any objection

        1. Dear marildy, my wording of this creation do not include the creation of an effect point, this is false data from hubbard. God created independet free will causative beings so each one of them has full responsibility for his misbehaving.

          1. Okay, thanks. I don’t think I got that from Hubbard only – I’ve heard many people uninfluenced by Hubbard state one way or another that they are in God’s hands, that what will happen is up to God, etc. But I like it that you do not have that consideration.

            Do you belong to a particular religious sect?

      2. Dear marildi, science NEVER will prove the existence of god, because science needs always an object to apply any lab experiments on it and god is not an object. Bona fidei Religion is the tool for this revelation. About the experience i had that lead me to that revelation, it was not one but a process of many experiences. If you are ready to look the leassons will appear.

        1. Would you call your experiences revelations, then? I haven’t ever talked to anybody with quite your viewpoint, so I’m being very inquisitive.

          I like your way of talking about religion. 🙂

    1. If you never talked to her, how would you know that she seems to be the upper side of the spiritual dichotomy?

      1. Dear isene, you can feel the grades of something like the density of fluids without having to talk to them. why seems to be the upper part of this ? because if i am created as an independent free will cause being i feel what is bad or harmful to me in grades and what i like or feel supportive to me and my associates. i can see worst gredes of it in others and better gredes too, so the first independent free will creator of independent free will causative beings in this line should be in better condition than any other in this line.

        1. Rafael, what you write here seems to be answering my question about your cognition. If I understand correctly it IS a kind of direct perception of spiritual “beingnesses” that you have done and/or do. This is very interesting! Tell more if you will.

          Also, what did you mean by the phrase “spiritual dichotomy”? She and He? Or…?

          1. Dear marildy, spiritual dichotony is not he or she, it is the minimum to the maximum of the same matter. On spiritual matter this will be from the worst of it to the best condition of it.

            The revelation is being done daily, if you are willing to learn just LOOK AT THE PERSONS not to the matter. My best wishes for you marildi.

          2. Rafael, I’m finding that I like your perspective and way of wording it. There hasn’t been one like it here (that I know of) and I’m glad you’ve joined in! I’m also glad to have your best wishes, thank you for that. 🙂

            I was thinking about the “maximum to minimum” of the many spiritual existences and the maximum to minimum of MEST (including mental MEST). A theory expressed on an earlier thread is that the very smallest of quanta particles were created by God (or Pure Potential, as Geir calls it, or any other “name” for the same thing) and that those smallest particles may actually be the initial “bridge” from God to the physical universe – the first manifestation BY God AND. let me add, the first somethingness manifesting the “nothingness” OF God (nothingness in relation to the physical universe). That basic “minimum-maximum level” could also be viewed as something like the footprints of God and a kind of evidence of his existence. And it could also be viewed as either a level of the spiritual (spirit) or of MEST or both. (I don’t mean to make it a semantics problem.)

            In a comment to Vinaire, you said about spiritual reality: “…this existence can be perceived and that perception is spiritually healing.” I was considering whether this perception might be those quanta “footprints” – or if not quanta whatever the “footprints” are, because it seems that with “perception” there must be something there to perceive, something that has been created by a Creator.

            Also intriguing was this part: “…that perception is spiritually healiing.”

          3. Rafael: “…just LOOK AT THE PERSONS not to the matter.”

            Here’s a short video that explains more about the levels or layers of existence that I was trying to express. It would be great to get your feedback on it.

            (For anybody else interested, it’s one of the best QM/spirituality videos I’ve seen.)

      1. Dear elizabet, i still operate in the mest universe. The levels can be established before the creation, out of and after the end of the mest universe by the power of free will.

        1. Thank You Rafael.
          I have had many sessions on immense amount of levels and have found that each level is on agreed upon considerations. Each level exists to segregate to wall off, to create space, and to create differences among beings to have different reality, to establish value. Etc…. hundreds of different other reasons. Also the walls=levels act as safety to keep in or out.
          When I have demolished most of the walls, since I will not say I don’t have any left, I have realised the existence of self singularly do not exist, but there is coexistence. This is my reason I believe I walk behind no-one, I do not fallow, neither I don’t lead.
          But again as I have written in my blog more than once, this is my reality and I sincerely hope, no-one makes this their own but fallow their own Path of self-discovery.

          1. Dear elizabeth, true reality has diferences and relations so the existence of levels. The all is the same or all is the same thing can be nirvana i do not know but for me to increase spiritual awarennes it is not needed the scientology auditing. This is my path of self-discovery and it can be extended to my loved ones.

          2. Rafael, you said that auditing is not needed to increase spiritual awareness. I’m guessing that you do not disagree that it can and does increase it, however. More generally, I’m curious what your viewpoint is of the benefits and/or drawbacks of Scientology technology (auditing and training), and the truth of the philosophy of Scn.

            Also, is there an active doingness to “extending your path of self-discovery to your loved ones”?

            Sorry to bombard you with questions! But as I’ve said you do have a unique perspective. Answer when you can. 🙂

          3. Elizabeth, that wording is really good: “existence of self singularly does not exist, but there is coexistence.” If I duplicate you correctly, it means that “self” (not ego but one’s basic beingness) does exist – just not singularly. THAT indicates truth for me at this moment in time. 🙂

  19. This is a list I have been working on for a while. It resulted from realizing that it is necessary to know what is assumed for the purposes of scientific thinking. These are the unstated assumptions science appears to be based on, assumptions that may or may not be provable. Some may only apply to the purely physical sciences.

    Core assumptions of science:

    1. the physical universe exists
    2. the physical universe can be known entirely as it is in itself, quite independently of the biases of any observing subject.
    3. meaning does not arise in an inert world, or even in living organisms, apart from in the minds of human beings.
    4. there is no purpose in the physical universe, no inherent meaning in anything.
    5. the physical universe is primarily orderly, it follows rules
    6. effects proceed from causes
    7. there are causes that are inherent in the physical universe
    8. there is consistency in the inherent causes in the physical universe
    9. inherent causes can be discovered
    10. evidence from the physical universe can be used to learn about those causes.
    11. evidence may be acquired by narrowing the scope of experience sufficiently to fully isolate causes
    12. causes identified by evidence can be expressed as principles
    13. principles are derived from simplification through abstraction
    14. true abstractions can be expressed mathematically, if they cannot be expressed mathematically then they are not true abstractions.

    1. Good one Maria very good I hope you dont mind me evaluating., but with that I evaluate for my self. May I ask where is you located the body that is? I have great interest in ‘distance’.

      1. Hi Elizabeth,

        I don`t give out personal information on a public websites. I used to, but then it got used by prospective clients (they googled me) and so I don`t do that any more. I don`t mind using my first name because its so common that it is useless on the Internet. But location plus name can be used to gain a great deal of information and points of view that I don`t wish to share. Perhaps I can email you privately and let you know.

        1. Rafael, here is something I have been considering or realizing if you will, for several months now:

          These three treatises of Scientology are a map or recipe or description of how THIS world, the physical universe, came to be, how it was constructed, and how it continues to be constructed. It could be thought of as an in-depth view of the core scientific assumption that the physical world exists. It is an analysis of what happened, what was and what is that continues as the manifested world, the physical universe as perceived. The flaws are well described and included as they must be for the description to be useful. The first line, “before the beginning was a cause and the entire purpose of the cause was the creation of an effect,“ is the first thing that happened along the way to the zoo. There is no claim or even suggestion to the effect that this is God`s law or even that it is a good law. I have become aware that each and every time one uses that very first premise, carries it out by participating in creating an effect out of another, one steps to the tune of the physical universe. I have become aware that there is an earlier beginning than the beginning of this physical world. That beginning doesn`t seem to have an ending and it`s laws are not subject to the factors, axioms and logics described in Scientology.

          1. p.s. please note – I have come to realize that the biggest problem with Scientology is that it is invariably misunderstood. These treatises are a description of mechanisms that lead to all manner of problem, separation, denial, isolation, fear, and so on. i.e. they are the mechanisms of the “game“ that has been going on for a very, very, very long time. By examining the mechanisms, one can then utilize that information, utilize the mechanisms to undo the mechanisms.

            “And above these things there might be speculation only. And below these things there is the playing of the game. But these things which are written here MAN can experience and know. And some may care to teach these things and some may care to use them to assist those in distress and some may desire to employ them to make individuals and organizations more able and so give to Earth a culture of which we can be proud. “ (Factor 30)

          2. Maria, you just acknowledged my reality. I have experienced more than one occasion being outside of the Universe, Last time was few months back and I have seen how pitiful and small the Universe is even if it seem so vast and endless. But it is not. I also realized there is more much more but not the way as is in the MEST. Here: there are no thoughts of any kind and one only be and one can only enter[ I can’t find better words to describe] if one gives up all thoughts-agreement: the connection to the Universe.
            And for the first time I had the choice, since I felt I still have lessons to lean from I am here.
            I have talked to one other OT she too had similar experience.

          3. Dear Maria, i know well these three treatises of scientology but i don not see them as a map to increase responsibility and free will in the human condition as the results of the current church world wide show. I was finance inpector in the s.o. and can attest of the abuse of staff based on this basic philosopy. there is no respect to the dignity of that staff and even for the public ( i have been public too ). i respect you a lot but can tell that the abusive activity of the church will not cease changing leaders. The problem is a dramatization that goes out straigth from the academy courses, no international leaders present.

          1. Indeed. Beginning – middle – end. Each of these is an effort to stop / limit the process so it can be identified and inspected. A freeze frame. I have come to understand that knowledge / data derived from an inspection of a freeze frame must not be taken as truth other than within that freeze frame. It is an inherent flaw of freeze frame, that one is studying something that has been deliberately limited for the purpose of narrowing the scope of observation. And that freeze frame is a copy / abstraction of that which cannot be stopped. So one studies a copy. A frozen, limited, and stripped copy.

        2. Ah Rafael, you have so misunderstood what I meant!

          I too have experienced what you have on and off staff. And over the last few years I have been reviewing what occurred that resulted in that experience.

          One day, I realized that it was neatly summarized in the very first line of the factors: “and the entire purpose of the Cause was the creation of effect.“

          And I understood that these three treatises are a map of the limitations, alterations and considerations that inevitably decrease respect, dignity, and causation. Their usefulness lies in the recognition of them as such.

          There are actually 4 treatises, including the pre-logics:

          Q1 The common denominator of all life impulses is self-determinism.
          Q2 Self-determinism may be defined as the location of matter and energy in space and time, as well as a creation of time and space in which to locate matter and energy.
          Q3 The identification of the source of that which places matter and energy and originates space and time is not necessary to the resolution of this problem at this time.
          Q4 Universes are created by the application of self-determinism on eight dynamics.
          Q5 Self-determinism, applied, will create, conserve, alter and possibly destroy universes.

          I cannot express the terrible sadness I felt when I understood that the auditors were hard at work undoing what was identified, and sincerely working with others to rehabilitate their self-determinism, while their “support“ personnel are busily going the opposite direction. And I finally understood the insanity I had observed where auditors are attacked, vilified, removed, stopped, and so on, which has now been extended to attacks on clears and OTs.

          But here we are you and I, refusing to continue to play a game that is quite mad, refusing to use methods that have been inspected and undone. As I see it, it is the final step of Scientology, which is undoing Scientology. And it is the first step of the rest of the way, which cannot be accomplished within the walls of limitations and falsities and narrow physical existence.

          I think the next step begins with experiences that reflect and build on what you have summarized:

          “before the singularity of the big bang there was the existence of a free will causative being, that is one and multiple due to his created and independent causative free will beings. The original creator is one and absolute and his created independent causative free will beings are growing to the condition of the original creator.“

          How fascinating that what you say here is a 180 degrees reversal of the first factor, and an application of self-determinism on EIGHT dynamics, which puts it into the realm of the PRE logics.

          I`m here on this blog because I find that Geir wants to explore the madness unchained from the narrow limits imposed by the C of S, imposed by arbitrary systems, imposed by ideologies and explore beyond. This is what I want too. It was what I wanted in the first place.

          This is why I rarely speak of Scientology any more. I do not wish to send someone into the jaws of disaster nor do I wish to contribute to the creation of any more insanity. In this, Geir and Vinaire are my companions, for they are truly attempting to find ways that are completely independent and that can be made freely and easily available.

          And so it is that I am utterly thrilled that Geir continues his blog, and I LOVE every contributor on this blog for their sincere contributions. Here is where I come to share what I have learned and gleaned and here is where I come to learn what others have too.

          1. And so it is that I am utterly thrilled that Geir continues his blog, and I LOVE every contributor on this blog for their sincere contributions. Here is where I come to share what I have learned and gleaned and here is where I come to learn what others have too.

            I wholeheartedly concur 🙂

          2. “I wholeheartedly concur”

            +1 !

            And a great post otherwise too, Maria. 🙂

    2. The following quotation is from the Gale Encyclopedia of US Foreign Policy:

      “According to Webster’s Tenth New Collegiate Dictionary, “ideology” is “visionary theorizing.” Alternatively, it is “a systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture,” or “a manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture.” Malcolm Hamilton, in his article “The Elements of the Concept of Ideology,” offers a more scholarly formulation, writing that ideology is “a system of collectively held normative and reputedly factual ideas and beliefs and attitudes advocating and/or justifying a particular pattern of political and/or economic relationships, arrangements, and conduct.” The historian Michael Hunt, meanwhile, views ideology in more specific terms as performing a particular function: it is “an interrelated set of convictions or assumptions that reduces the complexities of a particular slice of reality to easily comprehensible terms and suggests appropriate ways of dealing with that reality.” These are just a few examples of scholars’ many efforts to define ideology.

      Expanding upon these three examples, however, we may construct a meaningful definition. It might read as follows: Ideology is a shared belief system that may serve at once to motivate and to justify. It generally asserts normative values and includes causative beliefs. How do things happen? What does it all mean? An ideology may be utopian and progressive or protective of the status quo. It offers a way in which to order the world, defining enemies and allies, dangers and opportunities, us and them. Ideologies are formal, structured, and involve their own particular logic, often appearing in the guise of science or objective knowledge. Ideology is implicated in collective action, as criticism, goad, explanation, or promise. It is represented in symbols and beliefs held by a community and is publicly expressed. Ideology is at once philosophy, science, religion, and imagination.”

      There is also a fascinating discussion on how ideologies are brought forward to justify positions of power, and hold a populace to a particular standard intended to support that position of power. This is a different form of vindication, but as I see it, quite influential in forming belief systems.

  20. Maria when I have cognition it is like I am totally separated from the Physical Universe. I don’t see forms, bodies of any kind. I only see-perceive energy flows how they move and what they do. I don’t see anything else.
    I know for sometimes I do not have sessions about the human-human conditions I have run out of those. After all human condition thoughts, agreements, are very limiting and limiting.
    To me it is most fascinating to observe how energy particles interact. The conclusion I have come that there is nothing new in or an the body. Every sensation, like lifting ones arm, placing ones foot on the ground is energy pieces which now they seem small, but they were not in the Universe before bodies were created. WE brought them back, or retained, kept, never have given it up, or we did not know how, we did not know we had it, yet it still existing there are ours. I call this energy pieces old energy. The new energy would be bump on the head, cut on the finger etc…
    When I talk of the Universe I see how the energies move about, their color, all the particles, but there is no size since I only see one item at a time, so I can’t compare size, because there is no side by side. Of course there is no sound, ears are for that.
    When I see on explosion it is fascinating how it is. Like one moment dark space no light than the explosion as the particles fly and the colors I even see the gas since that is too a particle on energy surge.
    So when I see the evaluation I seen how the act the original was created and much later that energy was used and how it was used in different way as device, segregate, create private space, used for cover or hide under, make self-invisible “hiding in darkness as without body of course”. Cape= blanket like that has immense variety of use. Love is many splendorous thing. And that is so true. We love our creations, since any creation when it is untouched is pure love.

    1. Elizabeth: WOW. Thank you for telling me that! I have been realizing along these lines for some time now and wondering if anyone else ever did.

      For me, cognitions never seem to be in the physical universe in the sense that many of my thinking processes are. I have been having this awareness more and more of existence that is somehow not in the time stream at all, like the cognitions are adding up to this big bright stream and replacing all kinds of rubble, dissolving things and flowing into shadowy hidden areas and filling them up and replacing them and lighting them up somehow. And there are times when I feel such immense love that its hard not to go jumping around the house like the energizer bunny.

      The time I speak of is not a now. And it is not a then. And it is not a will be. It seems to be like the liquid that permeates the cells of the body, well sort of. Permeates and dissolves everything it encounters. Thoughts, forms, particles, if you can name it it permeates it. I have a lot of trouble with describing this in words. I don`t really know how to do it. I hope this communicates somewhat and I feel encouraged that it might because what you have written fits what I keep finding as I make my way.

      1. I call it wiggling in my skin I have difficulty control, being, remaining with the body, If I go for a fast walk I feel I float since all the anchor points are gone. I wonder as I float if others notices this. I also have great difficulty finding words, takes long time to write since words don’t exist in the so called dimension, space, universe whatever. Solidity has vanished with that all the thoughts, but love affinity the totality is.

  21. Vinaire;
    Self is made up of considerations. Considerations change.
    Nothing is permanent or eternal.
    So says Buddha.
    So feels Vinaire.
    Blast Buddha stop quoting Buddha, you are a poweful being you can think for yourself. Buddha should have been born without tounge or at least his mouth should have been washed out with soap.. that would saved lots of beings stuck in somebody elses space. Dont you see one looses individual reality or how to explore come to conclusion for self.: find for self the absolute truth, ones own reality. You have no idea how I feel about such colossal failure

      1. I have lots of charge on that life still is seems. I dont have on idea go, to reach into their space and ring the bell, wake up you lot, move on. This is the reason I am very interested in “distance” You see Geir, beings have some kind of protective, invisible wall, which so far i cant penetrate. but this wall is affective, in ceratin ways, do not apply onther way. This makes me a safe cracker in some way.

          1. Yes I have, i found what i carried inside for eons well hidden is in fact has no value. So here I am without treasures and totaly happy, contented.

  22. I had a cog, why I am so rattled every time I hear quotations of Buddha.. I feel quilt to no end and I can’t take responsibility of what I have caused. I am standing the edge of great dived and I can reach across to undo the trap.
    Than I did not know what “responsibility” was, what can be the consequence of one creation? The “not knowing” are the sin, the burden one carries.

      1. What is responsibility for me? Good one Rafael. I thought you felt that way thinking playing outside the allotted is sin. I don’t sin I have no sins. I have realized all my wrongs while in sessions and realizes also in session in form of cognitions that “wrong” is and was only on agreement , only exists because it is on agreement.
        But I have learned, come to conclusion, realised while I play here “IN” the MEST Universe I need to agree with the rules and the rules depends on whose backyard I play in. And mortals live by rules and most of all ruled by rules of their own making therefore suffer from and die by the same.
        But when the layers the walls vanished which were the very prison I have created for myself by agreements and I found that I am free totally free, to think and do, have or not: my choice.

        1. Dear elizabet, i do not ask what “sins” you have or what you think is “wrong”, i asked what responsibility is for you? i mean your operating definition of responsibility. i will very much apreciate a direct response to this question.

          1. It is here or in my earlier comment.
            “But I have learned, come to conclusion, realised while I play here “IN” the MEST Universe I need to agree with the rules and the rules depends on whose backyard I play in.”

          2. Rafael: I seldom ask people to come and play in my yard because in my yard have no rules and if, somebody who will enter who is locked into heavy agreements will experience the wild joy of space its infinite-ness but soon gets lost feels panic and dashes out back to own safe yard : to the anchor points, the rules and regulations.. By now I also know there is equal “in”, all thoughts so I have no problems . This will complite, how I do responsibility Thank you.

      2. Sin, evil, wickedness, I love those word, simply love it. That indicates wrong doing, going into agreement accepting the rules regulation staying within the boundaries of the game.
        But most of all indicates that the being is not thinking for self not free. Not even in one’s own privacy of the mind. Since thinking, thoughts having thoughts are sinful, it seems even thoughts are controlled. One must think as it is prescribed by stay with in those guidelines if not than one sins and goes to Hell burns there for eternity [ by the way, the Devil and I we were pals once upon the time we were In, after having been audited he turned out good as any other being.]
        So where is the free spirit, where is freedom of the Theta, where is it when thoughts are controlled by social agreements? Were by these agreements even the high-est form of creation is forbidden to be demonstrated, which is love? One can only LOVE which is agree upon, for example: within the heavy boundaries of marriage?
        Just think Rafael one sins because of having affinity for a being who connected to a Female body, just because that body has what, different components from yours? One do not love the body. so where is the sin? If I ever put my hands on that being who fabricated that word SIN …… well ….let me tell you the universe will take notice……. And I won’t feel guilty at all.
        I will audit out all his sins……hehehe………:)

          1. Rafael, charming well…… i am in fact 6’2″ 200- pd’s lifts weight, hold black belt in martial art and love kick boxing beside gardening of course. Elizabeth is a pan name in honor of a old friend.

  23. Dear vinaire, this is the coment for your 2011-10-29 at 20:00 post coment

    Your take on god starts with one assert: ” The desire to know the unknowable produces visualization or thought. ” . To me god is knowable and i start from there.
    It is very interesting your buddhist view point but i know budda was wrong in this. God is a person and nirvana is just imagination from budda. to explain this in one coment is unfair for me but i will teach you over the time. ha and btw i liked your wordpress blog and will have attention on it thanks.

  24. Dear marildi this is my coment on your 2011-10-30 post coment

    The in the ” hands of god lies my responsibility ” is almost to say that all existence is just predetermined matter without spirits so i have no responsibility for my god or bad acts. So why do the good conduct?. For me this is a false assumption.
    I do not follow any sect.

    1. Yes, to me it does seem to degrade existence to conceive of God that way.

      Thanks for answering about no sect. What about some particular philosophy or theology? (Again, just being curious.)

  25. Marildi, Elizabeth, that wording is really good: “existence of self singularly does not exist, but there is coexistence.” If I duplicate you correctly, it means that “self” (not ego but one’s basic beingness) does exist – just not singularly. THAT indicates truth for me at this moment in time.

    now walk and observe the body walk and you float! happiness is……………..

      1. that depends on just how much stuff was as-ised in that moment and when the rest of yak moves back.[ since you have lost anchor in that moment of the cognition]
        And again “High” any amount, that would indicate amount, measurement, measured which would be distance. and too that degree: here now etc… The sipritual being as free, has nothing. You have no location.

        1. If I were good at making jokes, I would have said:

          You say “Float,” I say “How high?”

          But your answer was good.

          1. I can’t believe “unknowable” has attracted so much attention from an OT VIII, being referred to as the Great Red Herring. It must be part of OT IX case (just kidding). 🙂


            1. I am about to label you as socially inept. Vinaire, take a three days break from posting here. Consider this a yellow card. And believe me, I understand that you cannot or will not understand what you did to get that card – but that really doesn’t matter. It is not about any other person’s feelings or ridges or resistances or anything else but how you behave socially on this blog. Last time with Valkov, I thought you got the point. I was wrong. This time take the hint. Please.

              See you in three days.

          2. Geir, you know that I adore you but, honestly, I don’t know how you can imagine that this would not put Vinaire in a position of being unable to keep his pride, or just save face.

            This isn’t a statement of certainty on my part, and I would really like to know your views – Social relations is one of the many things that can be learned more about here.

            1. It is a matter of social conduct – there is a line and Vinaire has crossed it (more than once I may add as this is certainly not the first time).

          3. Okay, I get that and I see what you were intending.

            Part of the dynamic on the exchange seemed to be that he got put on the defensive and responded off of that in part. But I thought a couple of times at least he tried to back down subtly and still save face but you wanted to be sure he got the point and I understand why (to benefit everyone including or especially Vin).

            Hey, I changed my mind about it now being too much a matter of pride for him. That’s not the right viewpoint to collapse wave functions with :-). Besides, I’m sure he’s got what it takes to collapse whatever needs to be collapsed.

            Once again I am glad for this place to communicate.

  26. Rafael
    “This is my path of self-discovery and it can be extended to my loved ones.” Than extend your bounderies little further where sin dont exists. For that to be accomplish one would need to eliminate few levels. other words give up a few heavy agreed on considerations. Yessssss.?

    1. Dear elizabeth, noooooooo, excuse me i am chained to my loved ones. if they sink so do i. Life is not worth living alone. For me sin exist if i have a human body with no exception.

          1. you have come to the right blog, Geirs here and mine, i take it you have been there too? we dont do politics, but we know how to look at knowledge in many different light. . We all are here to learn. Me, self, i am very happy to be here, I have learned many things and about my self also.
            PS “but i doubt that i will ever be audited again on sins” what do you mean by that? What is a sin? I have not thought about “sins, sin-ing since I was a little girl.

      1. Rafael: thise are your own words “but i doubt that i will ever be audited again on sins”
        “.For me sin exist if i have a human body with no exception”

        1. Dear elizabet, i will answear to your earlier post comment and for this one as follows:
          i have been following the ideas of Geir since day one on the marty blog a couple of years ago and i am very happy to having had the opportunity of learning from him. I know your blog and is pretty interesting. I am not interested in politics but in learning how to look at the existing things.

          as regards to sins, i have had so many confessionals that i feel my hands pretty clean and feel that have learned to clean my hands by myself without any gadget. A sin is something dishonest and lying and unloyal to your loved ones if i am perceiving that.

          1. I got it thanks, the O/W, I loved to run that stuff.
            I have turned over many stones looked behind invisible walls searched and looked for the forgotten items, taken the universe apart in order to find and discover my dark side my dark deeds.
            Learning of ones so called darks side gives a total view not on what we think we are but who we are in reality, with that one learns what one is capable to do and one’s magnitude of power. LRH’s genius shown when he realised the power behind O/W. One never can be free till face those, take responsibility for every kind of creation. Thank you Rafael.

      2. Rafael, why a body, having a body is a sin. I dont get this. I could give my body a name or two but the Nordic God would appear with a bar of soap and wash my mouth out.
        . I never thought in any way as a sin having a body, well I take back something about my body, Through it, from it I had learned great many lessons. yes this body had its good side. But it still wont livitate

        1. Dear elizabeth, having a body or a name is not the sin. The proper conduct that we do with it is the point. There is a proper way to feed it, to clean it and take care of it so you can learn so many great lessons as possible. Because this is the purpose of having a body to learn and up-grade our human condition and that of our loved ones and recover spiritual integrity and peace.

      3. Rafael there is more to “sins” than 2D sins. Much more, that is relatively very small in comparison to other things we do and made to feel guilty about. To make othersfeel guilty is a control thing. Big time. But it is a very complicated subject.

      4. Rafael, there is a MU here, extending boundaries do not mean one cheats on one’s wife, kills etc. simply means when one eliminates levels one becomes free without guilt. Yet the responsibility the ethics becomes part of what we do. One never thinks of those as separate it simply is in at all time. The cause which makes the person do’Wrong” is eliminated.

        1. Dear elizabeth, you say ” when one eliminates levels one becomes free without guilt ” . I understand that if you can afford the expensive upper levels of metered auditing then becoming free is possible and otherwise it is not.

    1. Oh wow, what impression did I give by asking too many questions? Did you get the idea that I have an agenda of some sort? 😦

      I have no blog or even face book. I was heavily involved in Scientology for a couple of decades, up until the last few years (and I’m still acclimating, believe it or not). My social networks has consisted of email with family and friends (once I learned how, LOL). And I’ve been posting here on Geir’s blog for something close to a year. Also been in comm by email with a couple of other posters here.

      The discussions have helped me so much and that’s my whole agenda – as regards you too. 🙂

        1. Rafael, what do you wish to know? I saw on another comment that you have been in the SO, and so was I. Maybe that will give you a certain amount of R on me, and some understanding of why I’m not yet much in the virtual world. (It seems virtual reality is the real world now!) Actually, I had a face book account briefly but found it difficult to interact with old Scn friends who are still active in the church. In any case, I would rather spend the time elsewhere on the net – like here.

          If you would like my views on any of the subjects I’ve asked you about (or others) do ask. I happen to think we learn a lot about each other in these exchanges, but the main thing is to exchange viewpoints. If I got too personal, please let me know.

          By the way, are you the one who has posted on Elizabeth’s blog? I’m interested in knowing you better too, through your posts. Hey, I just thought of a modern day slogan – “You can know them by their blog comments.” Lots of truth to that.

          You commented above, “The problem is a dramatization that goes out straight from the academy courses, no international leaders present.” The Academy was one area I was posted in for some years and I would be interested in an exchange views about it. Let me know, okay? 🙂

          1. Dear marildi, i will work eventually on the subject of what i consider a person and a virtual name. I do not post in the blog of elizabeth. If you want to know my posts just google my name and will learn the black and white of rafa. On the academy it is off topic and do not want to de-rail this blog post.

          2. Rafael, the subject of “a person and a virtual name” sounds interesting, I don’t think I’ve come across a discussion on that.

            As for the Academy subject, I thought it did relate to ideology and responsibility – but Maria more than covered the whole idea! I would have been commenting on how twisted LRH’s tech became, but she took it deeper and well beyond. Anyway, my understanding of “the way out is the way through” is that it applies to the entire game we’re in, and that’s why I think LRH’s true tech (including training) and the philosophy underlying it are invaluable.

            One last thing: “the black and white of Rafa.” Nice turn of phrase 🙂

  27. Marildi same to you but i live in BC, I am clue-less when is Halloween here. It made me laugh Rafael said “life is not worth living alone”. Rafael I am not laughing at you, no.

    To believe the spiritual Path is a lone Path is a great mistake. I never ever thought that i have so many friends. When one walks the Path backward one finds all the friends one ever thought have lost. I am surrounded totally enfolded in love.

      1. Vinaire today I am changing consideration, cutting out, I want to have a different anchor for the body I am heading to the Sahara and be a grain of sand an just drift aimlessly without any responsibility if you care to join me on the adventure you are welcome…………. You will be surprised just how many interesting beings we will encounter………………..

  28. “To believe the spiritual Path is a lone Path is a great mistake. I never ever thought that i have so many friends. When one walks the Path backward one finds all the friends one ever thought have lost. I am surrounded totally enfolded in love.“

    🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂

  29. Etymology is so informative sometimes:

    Consider this rhythm:

    dum diddy, dum diddy, dum diddy, dum dum

    (To hear the rhythm, simply say it aloud. In terms of duration, the diddy is the same length of sounding as the dum.)

    Two dums chanted or voiced together (dum dum) are called a “spondee.” The term spondee derives from the Greek spondê, which means “libation.” This is because the “dum-dum” rhythm was used in chants / songs during solemn drink-offerings to God(s) or ancestors.

    The preist or cantor called (sponded), the followers re-sponded. And that is the source of the word respond. They were responding. Answering.

    From Encyclopedia Britannica: “Respond – plainchant melody and text originally sung responsorially-i.e., by alternating choir and soloist or soloists. Responsorial singing of the psalms was adopted into early Christian worship from Jewish liturgical practice. Most frequently the congregation sang a short refrain, such as Amen or Alleluia, between psalm verses sung by a cantor. “As medieval plainchant developed, more elaborate refrains (R) were sung by a choir alternating with soloists singing psalm verses (V), producing a musical form R V1 R V2R. The responsory, or refrain, was frequently abbreviated on its repetition. Its text usually related to the meaning of the feast day or the content of the psalm. Only a few such chants survive in this long form, which is now normally curtailed.”

    Continuing the etymology:

    c.1300, respound, from O.Fr. respondere “respond, correspond,” from L. respondere “respond, answer to, promise in return,” from re- “back” + spondere “to pledge” (see spondee). Modern spelling and pronunciation is from c.1600.

    From there, the modern definitions of respond:

    1. to reply or answer in words: to respond briefly to a question.
    2. to make a return by some action as if in answer: to respond generously to a charity drive.
    3. to react favorably.
    4. Physiology. to exhibit some action or effect as if in answer; react: Nerves respond to a stimulus.
    5. to correspond (usually followed by to).

    And the modern definition of responsible:

    1. answerable or accountable, as for something within one’s power, control, or management (often followed by to or for ): He is responsible to the president for his decisions.
    2. involving accountability or responsibility: a responsible position.
    3. chargeable with being the author, cause, or occasion of something (usually followed by for ): Termites were responsible for the damage.
    4. having a capacity for moral decisions and therefore accountable; capable of rational thought or action: The defendant is not responsible for his actions.
    5. able to discharge obligations or pay debts.

  30. Knock-knock!
    Who’s there?
    Neti-neti who?
    – – – – – – – ! (if that)

    Happy Halloween!

  31. This was emaled to me:
    “Resposibility is a a big subject that can be forced onto people to make them feel guilty or wrong but it doesn’t make them any more responsible.”

    1. Hi Elizabeth, I’m not sure if I agree on such a definition.

      Personally I find responsibility to be an acceptance of my actions having consequences.
      These I can to some degree predict while I cannot.

      All these consequences will affect other people I will have judge morally if these are acceptable compared to the consequences to myself.

      Sometimes one will be in a position where there are consequences that are not really acceptable in any kind, but withholding from my action might create even worse consequences.

      So I must evaluate what I should do, and consider if I am willing to accept the possible negative feedback from society. Either because of direct consequences that I did predict or because such consequences I did not predict, eg. considering if I am willing to take the punishment that might come and if my actions will be worth taking the consequences.

      This kind of evaluation is what I consider being responsibility.

      1. You have my agreement, I will e-mail your comment to Peter, who sent it. But the comment is not his personal viewpoint just a viewpoint. Peter seldom comment in blogs but he read my postings. I thank you for your communication, good of you. you have my best and my best is very good! 🙂

        1. Thanks Elizabeth 🙂

          As a standalone viewpoint on responsibility I can see that some would see it that way … 🙂

          However I realized also that my viewpoint is a rather elaborate way of expression what is in pt. 4 in the last paragraph of Maria’s etymologi post above … 😛
          My best for you as well ! 🙂

          1. Peter who sent that view point from Australis is OT 5, and CL4 auditor. But also he has been solo auditing on his own same as I do. We exchange thoughts, lists, ideas, different viewpoints and of course wins=cognitions. Thank for your communication i am delighted that you have taken time out to do so. Best Elizabeth

  32. This few lines are from my own blog:
    “If somebody has some idea how the OT should behave act-talk or know, whatever, that is their own idea, their standard. Any behaviour” ANY” is BANK=Implant given how one should spit or not, eat with fork or fingers, white wine or red with what course”.
    This is the reason I believe that there are no levels existing since levels are, created by judgement.
    The judgement in fact indication not where the judged being is but the one who doing the judgeing: with judgement one establish ones leve.
    I am off to my beloved garden and we will share space as we bask in the sun.

    1. Hi Elizabeth,

      I’m not really sure which of my wins you are referring to, but in keeping with Geir’s philosophy of sharing knowledge (he is very passionate about this) you are welcome to use whatever I publish on his blog as you see fit. I think it would be nice if you directed people to Geir’s blog as the source blog. Also, I have no blog and don’t intend to put one up. While I would love to claim “ownership” of my ideas, the truth is that most of my wins are a direct result of thinking through, working with and considering hundreds of conversations and comments on Geir’s various blogs along with reading literally thousands and thousands of articles and materials that are freely distributed on the Internet. It also includes Vinaire’s entire blog, and yours as well. So thank you!

  33. Responsibility to self.
    Many of you wonder the reason why I continue solo audit even after so many years. Some believes I had to have huge aberration, to be tally fucked up. True-true, very true, that has been the fact. But that only can be recognised and understood by those who experience the same. If one is on this Planet that person do not have any less than what I have had.[ note the past tense.]
    I got into scientology because my sex life was not so hot. Been married only a few years and act of sex has dribbled down to almost none existence BUT, here is the BIG BUT: my husband and I, we were great friends, we had tremendous affinity for each other. Here was the contradiction, if we love than why don’t we have sex, where is the flame, the desire? [In sessions, later I understood sex and love don’t grow on the same tree.]
    So I thought it was my fault, that “something wrong” was mine I have caused the problem.[aha, I had responsibility level even than] have found a counselor who was a field auditor. The rest is history [ noooooo, our sex life did not improve we divorced later, he did not wanted to be audited and to take courses. It was his decision. The affinity has remained intact to this day.]
    When I have found out, read that auditing will change, can better my life I can be anything, have anything, whatever I want to be and have, weeeeell, who needs more incentive? I was a flame from the first moment, from the first session, the first course I have taken…… wanted my sex life to be rip-roaring, to swing from the chandelier, etc…. I wanted to be rich, live in mansion, and have servants and the driveway be paved with gold, and diamonds to rain upon on me. I wanted to have huge important parties, sail the oceans on my 150 feet raft, ….
    But oddly I wanted to know more of the spiritual aspect of the Bridge more than anything else. Those were the silent wishes, the quiet ones, the secret yearnings which were sitting under the glitter of the Earthly delights.
    At first at the beginning, even after I have attested to OT 7 the disappointments piled up. mile high. No riches have come my way, no mansions, etc I still had to earn my living with waitressing, oh, I had offers to work in Israel, in Australia, be on animator for Disney etc, be a mistress for well to do man, become a model, be published in the Play Boy mag. to spread it wide, to become a violinist, Cordon Blue cook, garden adviser, artist. So I had choices but I stayed with waitressing. It was simple life, the money was more than good. By that time I also realized, there was no difference how money was earned, the importance, being important has vanished out of my universe.
    So I moved into solo auditing to erase all the ARC B’s the huge disappointments,
    slowly all was handled. … and my priorities why’s to have sessions changed.
    As the sessions rolled by the thousands, my –reality has changed, my reasons to have sessions to continue has changed taken different direction. I have discovered the Universe!!!!!!!! Now that Universe I wanted to know, that has become much more interesting than little old me. [don’t believe for a minute I think of myself as a little old whatever on the contrary, anyone who tackle the universe is not a little old thing and definitely not powerless, but one powerful, knowing mighty infinite.]
    Because the losses were gone I have noticed, that I become rich beyond believe, I had everything abundance was everywhere. Life have becomes very simple since discontentment was replaced by contentment, happiness. Those the very limited reality-considerations of becoming rich, live in mansions, showered with jewelry and to sail the seven sea’s become totally meaningless matter fact those thought have vanished altogether.
    Through confrontation on any subject in sessions, I can discover how everything in the Universe is, in sessions I can look for and discover the forgotten which by now has become over the eons the unknown.
    Miracles, magic, poured into my universe. What could the being lack when can see all there is to be seen, be and do anything one desires? Have the freedom to create, be the light particles which travel across the space, be a grain of sand in the Sahara, and sit on the top of the highest mountain in a clear day in the Himalaya?. Be a seed, a flower at the same time and the sun and the bee, the fragrances which fills the air and the air itself, having-ness- richness fills one’s universe with every thought.
    Riches at the beginning I only could measure which could be bought with money but those things which money can buy are very limited and limiting since they are Solid so why only want something which is solid?
    I recall when I have had sessions to become young again to change the body back where it was in its youth. I wanted to be young for a long time and remain beautiful. Now I know I never be young but in fact I never be old either, I will live be eternal-infinite. Body-life those considerations were erased as reality which included beautiful-ugly-old age-death and the new reality replaced those beliefs now I am eternal-infinite. Simply the limiting factors have fallen away…………..
    In the beginning I wanted to get rid of being shy, become a better communicator, so I could step out of the shadows and live again.
    Now, I speak the universal language, I communicate with beings where words are not needed and I can say the universal greeting “I am what you are”
    Way back I wanted to be levitating, move through the walls etc. Now there are no walls, the barriers have fallen away nothing can hold me in place. How can one be held captive by illusions?
    I wanted a mansion filled with priceless art, now the Universe is my home and art is what I create.
    Driveway, I no longer need, where I go roads don’t lead.
    And for company, the elite, those who wear designers clothing and sips vintage wines, I have no desire to be with nothing in common. For friends, for company now I have Beings same as I, eternal and infinite.
    Now I do understand the reasons the very few who acknowledges me , I have no value here, I don’t live here anymore I don’t exist here among the believers who measure the susses the same way as I have done way back.
    I understand why others who have not walked on similar path as I have don’t comprehend, don’t understand my reality: one being has written “Thanks for the crumbs.” I offered the glimpse, the reality into the incredible richness of the spiritual universe he only found few crumbs……At list he has found something……… I have been asked for proof more than one occasion, to proof something which I write, talk of, Can there be any proof given to those beings who has no reality what is the universe like where solidity don’t exist? Those who live by solidity their need the proof has be solid touchable by hand, seen by eyes only and sounds must be heard by ears? Their needs order to be real must be demonstrated through action of solid particles? How can I give proof, and I lost the need to prove myself to anyone in order to be recognised, acknowledged.
    At first the beginning one confront the bumps the small everyday occurrences from one’s life and as they disappear[ so is the concept of time] the universe opens up, and there is understanding that one not deals with upsets, but the incredible history, of ones creation in the history of the making the Universe.
    The discovery of this…. gives one reality of one’s power, abilities, ones role in the Universe and the future role: one’s destiny. …….. love, the universe is many splendours thing………..

  34. oh post it others are having huge wins on it. I will post it to, under the title sink or swim!!!!!!

  35. I have finished the largest cycle I ever soloed on since it covers every aspect of life. Love that is, it has taken month and a half to as-is. When I say as-is I really mean it. Nothing left, not one molecule. I just don’t write this in my blog. Who would believe it and have reality on it?
    While I have taken all the bloody considerations on love apart I have found the only key which holds the MEST in place. Again this I can’t write of it who would believe it, not only that no one could comprehend the simplicity of it. I have found it when looking for the reason for jealousy [jealousy, not included only in love relationships but encompass everything what the person believes owns therefore the fear of loss existing], and when I have found the word “Ownership” when whole bloody thing has as-ised including the sensation of love-affinity. Ownership=Fear they go hand in hand, they can’t be separated. One does not exist without the other.
    While I run it in session what is “ownership” what we own new reality cognition come in.
    COG: What we mock-up we own and have of course instant attachment to it,[instant attachment means: we experience] so we hold it, since that mock-up is ours we feel very protective toward it and we don’t like it touched=interfered with so evaluation invalidation is a no-no.
    While “in love” a person believes in ownership toward the “loved person” since there is a feeling of ownership there than there is a fear existing of losing that person so there is the “Jealousness” comes into play,[[ not the person one fears of losing but the mock-up which is connected to that person the “Love” the person becomes so powerfully protective toward the ownership of that mock-up loved subject, could kill etc… history is full of recording of such incident. Killing out of passion, The persons FEAR IS , the loved person will withdraw the Love and will give it to somebody else, stupid I know, but there is no rationality exist. Because there is no reality exits on jealousy the why.]]
    As you know that kind of love is not real and not love in the first place just protection ones mocked-up property. On illusion, Hell people, just how irrational games can be?
    If you care to look at ownership what you believe you own when it comes to your own believes, you could blow huge amount of energy a major case gain can be head.
    If one could give up all the ownership one believes one owns the mock-ups the thoughts agreement the bank would simply vanish.
    The whole track existing because ownership, nothing else holds it in place, ownership is permanency, What we own we keep, very simple, Mine, mine, mine, don’t touch!!!!
    Fear existing because losing what one own, have value if there is no ownership than there is no value.
    As you know fear exists because one holds something valuable like: believing one lives, [have a life] so must not die because than one no longer exists. Huge MU. Not only huge but the most idiotic concepts ever created to have a game. The stupidity of it is because by agreeing one trapped self into that condition.
    The question should be , what is ownership, till totally understood,[till totally understood what is] than what others think ownership is, next question should be what consideration I have about owning=whatever this should be run on every flows YOU CAN THROW IN THE RUNDIMENTS the O/S’s every place it applies. Must not forget there are secrets and one can own secretly something hehe, many things in fact.
    Secret ownership means FANTASISES one has about sex outside of marriage, or owning the world, having money or simply killing the neighbor’s dog who’s bark keeping you wake at night, anything outside of the law, the not “normal”. Not agreed by others or others do not know about it.
    Who believes in ownership, what ownership do, what ownership hold intact, holds in place, what makes ownership valuable, having value . Of course who needs to own anything? Who need to own =what?
    Of course “possessions” is including in this category.
    PS: I know I have found this item on my very end of my journey , by understanding this, it’s true meaning, I have accomplished my dream what I have worked for, to become free, become separated from the MEST universe.
    SEPARATIONS MEANS: one is no longer being the part of, don’t share the agreements.
    But I have also realised: I now as-ised the spiritual universe the theta universe where only mock ups existing. They are there very simply because of the ownership, of the spirit believe in, identify with and hold embraces.
    The fear is there because the being believes he is nothing without those mock ups. Therefore the value is created.
    So blow the ownership the fear will disappear too. My best to you all, Elizabeth

  36. Hi Geir, here is something you figure.
    Tonight I happen to catch a show by Nova: Elegant Universe Einstein…..
    I don’t know those things and till now I had no clue what is QP meant. Yet I have reality on it since I do see those things while having sessions and cognitions. Also they have talked about tiny light particles which has sounds. “String Theory” they have called those.. I have seen those many times that is the reason I said over and over again no such a thing as dark, because of them floating about. Also I have heard their sound and in my posting I called that affect Universal Harmony a sound so beautiful that it can’t be described.
    I also looked into gravity in sessions and I have seen more than one kind and I do understand what they do to the persons “personal energy-universe”. I have run on gravity quiet few sessions since I have found the idea interesting.
    I am not a scientific person and never dwelled into that field. But I have found it interesting that scientist are looking at possibilities’ of having the existence of different universes. Sometime back I have become aware of a new reality that I am not the only one who say Elizabeth Hamre but who knows how many beings claim the same body at the same time and I know for the fact that I am not having sessions alone or is the cognitions are only mine. Definitely not.
    PS: about the String Theory, was said not likely they ever can prove it existence so it will remain theory.
    I found it interesting also on acknowledgement that my reality is out there in theory form.
    Yes, auditing works., no doubt about it.

  37. Geir, I have emailed you major cognition as from person to person and as to on OT 8 since I thought you too was in search. [ my mistake]
    It was posted yes, but you have not acknowledged it since the email was for you. It seems my communication had no value it not deserved ack, a common courtesy which is usually used in communication..
    I also understand the meaning of “no –acknowledgement” : With that you have invited me not to post in your blog in the future.

  38. Scientology was touted as the religious practice which was compatible with all religions and required “no belief.”

    When I was IN, I would have parroted this.

    Years later and looking back it seems to me that I was taking quite a bit on faith. The religion that I practiced was like this but looking back I yearned for the intangible part which was sold to me with smooth half-truths and outright lies.

    Maybe its not the religion but the method and attitude with which a person pursues his dream to know his own ego which makes the difference.

Have your say

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

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s