Religions, therapeutic practices or ideologies often base their methodologies on an assumption about what you want to achieve.

In Judaism, Christianity and Islam the goal would be to serve God and to have a union with God and to reach Paradise. Nirvana can be seen as a goal of Buddhism, whereas Hinduism promotes four goals. Various branches of psychology serve to work toward less irrationality, less mental suffering or even more obedience. Yoga attempts to let the person become aware of her deepest nature. In Scientology, your goal is to reach total freedom. Other ideology goals can be harmony, enlightenment, awareness, knowledge (as with science) or peace or love.

Promoters of a methodology often assumes that you want the goal they want. To a Scientologist disseminating Scientology, it is obvious that you want spiritual freedom, or at the very least that you are determined to increase your potential for survival. To some promoters of harmony, it is obvious that the path lies with “looking” to attain knowledge, to others the path is obviously “tolerance” or to yet another it could be “you already know, so just know”.

The point I am getting at is that such assumptions can be dangerous. An assumption about what the person wants can lead him astray from himself. An assumption about what is “obviously” the best path to a goal that he truly wants can lead him into missed opportunities or even into the woods. Assumptions are the hallmark of failures.

What is often missing, is the assessment of what the person himself really, truly wants. And no matter how convinced the therapist, friend or random-person-wanting-to-help is about the “obvious” goal, it may be completely wrong. Or if the person’s goal aligns with a certain methodology’s goal, that path may still be the wrong path for that person.

Perhaps this could form the basis for an interesting discussion.

856 thoughts on “Assumption

            1. See your post. You said:

              “Assuming that “Looking” is the only way to handle an assumption is… an assumption.”


  1. This article is based on the assumption that there are individual selves, and each wants something very individualistic.


      1. No. I do not assume anything except for the ultimate being unknowable.

        To me, that is a reasonable assumption because there is no more basic assumption than that.


        1. Vin: You’ve made this statement a number of times:

          ” In KHTK (Buddhism), any consideration from the viewpoint of “unknowable” is an assumption. ”

          Are you saying that the ultimate in a spiritual journey is unknowable?

          If so, how would one recognize when he has attained such a state?

  2. Good post Geir,

    I like your line:

    ” The point I am getting at is that such assumptions can be dangerous. An assumption about what the person wants can lead him astray from himself. An assumption about what is “obviously” the best path to a goal that he truly wants can lead him into missed opportunities or even into the woods. Assumptions are the hallmark of failures.”


    Looking at LRH’s statement to ‘Advocate Total Freedom’

    This type of general statement would resonate with most people seeking to improve their life.

    The concept of Total Freedom for one may differ from others: one person wants to be able to speak in front of groups; another wants to be more effective at helping others , and yet another wants to blow hats off at 40 feet.

    On a smaller scale, I think that one’s road to Total Freedom is personal in that each has his own needs/wants to be handled so as to be more effective in life. It is an evolution is difficult to quantify.

    On a larger scale, the creation of the game itself is one that may be common to all but occluded. It seems to me that one needs to take responsibility for one’s own ‘Total Freedom’ within the daily obstacles of life to a point where one can even conceive of that big game let alone do something about it.

    For a religion or practice to set hard line goals or results in finite periods of time seems the wrong way to look at it.

    One cognites when he cognites,

  3. your very best post in my reality.
    “Assumptions are the hallmark of failures.” How very true. To assume is to fail.
    Thank You.

  4. Geir may I have your permission to post it in my blog under your name of course. Let me know. thank you.

    1. Sure – anything I write can be reposted anywhere – without my permission – as long as due credit is given.

        1. Yeah, I got that. Tough, but someone had to do it. (I’m not going to speak to your other inference. What was that word that Dennis one time described you two as…scalawags? ;))

  5. “Total Freedom” is a very vague concept. That, itself, can mean different things to different people. The most egregious assumption that anyone makes, in relation to Scientology, is the assumption that the organization wants freedom for the individual. It most certainly does not.

    1. Agree with you there Dave … the organization is totally geared towards bad control & money.

      What ever happened to helping the peoples of Earth?

      Sad ….

      1. Dennis wrote:

        Agree with you there Dave … the organization is totally geared towards bad control & money.

        What ever happened to helping the peoples of Earth?

        Sad ….

        Was this your personal assumption for Scientology, Dennis?

        1. Mine was “To have a better, more meaningful, and more productive life by going Clear and OT, and to help others do so as well”.

          It started out great. It really delivered on my personal assumption above at first.

          But then it became a drag, and more and more unsustainable. Until at one point, I was actually and literally enslaved on staff.

          I believe that the reason this happened was because my personal assumption was actually not part of the subject of Scientology in reality. The subject itself was not set up to actually deliver on my assumption – even though it promised to when I first joined. If it was set up to deliver on my assumption, I believe my later experiences would not have happened.

          Can anyone tell me where I’m mistaken in my reasoning?

          1. Al,

            I don’t think you’re mistaken in your reasoning although I think you might also consider the other viewpoints (staff members who handled you incorrectly, etc) involved.

            Say, every single one of them was on the same purpose that you had (which is quite admirable I think), and did their utmost to see that you achieved those goals, might it have not turned out better?

            One’s own responsibility for one’s condition also enters into the scene in that you have this set of goals … a mountain off in the distance, and you continue moving towards that mountain.

            Things that contribute to that motion, you enhance or expand,; things that hamper you or stop, you dispense with.

            I think this is a basis for the Independent movement … depite trying to correct a number of situations caused by a minority, one says ‘to hell with it’ and looks elsewhere

            1. After living the life that you lived within the confines of COS, and after having walked away from it, why do you assume that the problems were “caused by a minority?”

            2. I guess I still look at the vast majority having a pretty decent outlook on life and helping others and that their heart was in the right place.

              Maybe I’m simplistic in my view, but I still like to think the majority of the people who got in were there to better this little mudball.

            3. Maybe it is a problem inherent to religion. Since running my own case (after some cleanup work a few times by Aida Thomas), I’ve been doing just great. Maybe spirituality is our view of ourselves and religion is more like someone tells you what to think about yourself.

              That one datum is a dead end like no other. Maybe worse than “unknowable!”

            4. Hi Dennis,

              I believe you are very correct that almost everyone in Scientology was good-intentioned, but you know what they say about the “road to hell”. When you join and support a group, you take on their model of the way things are, some more and some less. In my opinion, this model (in the COS is the same fascism that has been used countless times in history by self-serving or insane men resulting in war, bloodshed and hatred: “Do whatever is necessary to accomplish the objective, no limits.” It is so easy to buy into this when the purpose sounds grand and noble, but I bet that is the same thinking used by suicide bombers, etc. And they know they are doing the right thing.

            5. Good post. I have often thought that given similar environment and training that I could strap on bombs… just saying that I get point of view.

            6. Chris: “…given similar environment and training that I could strap on bombs”
              Me too, at least before my intense inspection of viewpoints, partially resulting from and partially spurring my departing Scientology. What a benefit to have gone through that andf come out the other side stronger and smarter, much harder to dupe.

            7. Agreed. Not now, but as a young man, I could easily give myself totally to an idea. Maybe because I thought there were absolutes that I could know about. Maybe I still do this but the spectrum is wider. I hope it continues to widen.

          2. That seems right to me Alan. Same here, I was on a quest to learn about life and the meaning of existence. Reading the basic books did nothing for me; however, upon reading through “The Factors” one time and I was hooked. My assumption was that Scientology would deliver a thorough understanding of the factors.

            Scientology HAS been a productive part of my “spiritual” path but today I am on a path of knowledge of my own construct and this is now more pleasing to me than the exercise I went through in COS. But that was part of the path which is so pleasing to me today, so tomato-tomahto, right? I am happy with my life and my current progress “up the bridge” now so I guess it’s worked out fine.

            To the OP, my assumption that my own life could be informed from outside myself was either wrong or preparatory for the way that I’m informing myself today. Thank you Scientology or In spite of you Scientology? Either, neither? Both?

            1. I feel the same way.

              When I started studying Plato, and digging into the next level of texts for me in Buddhism, I realized that I had graduated. Scientology gave me a footing for my next steps on My Bridge(R), and my re-evaluation of Scientology after I got out has been very valuable for me, too.

            1. Dennis, you must now turn the question around on him and ask if everything written in the Vedic Bible is true?

              Our poor conversation is devolving into this defending of our religions… We seem to be losing freedom in this area.

            2. 🙂

              Actually, I have no leanings towards any religion at all. My grandfather an uncle were ministers … yes, used to listen to Gramps up at the pulpit, went to Sunday School for years (actually, I was there for the juice & cookies).

              When I got into Scientology, I had absolutely no interest in the religious aspect. I did the Ministers Course & was ordained … only so I could audit.

              When I go to the wedding, I gaze at the amazing architecture and love some of the music. I am also there for the bride & groom but can hardly sit still in anticipation of the party & good comm after 🙂

    2. Just as Geir’s opening post suggests, an individual can have an assumption about what the religion is supposed to do for them that actually does not exist in the religion.

      And, a religion can advertise an assumption to get in new recruits that the religion only pretends to have.

      If the scientology organization does not have the goal of “Total Freedom”, is it possible that the subject of Scientology does not have it either?

      Question: if you can find mind control techniques, applications of operand conditioning techniques, and socially coercive practices built into the subject of Scientology, how could the subject of Scientology be built on the assumption of “total freedom”?

      1. Having asked this, I HEREBY DO ACKNOWLEDGE AND TESTIFY that it is possible for an individual, operating on his personal assumption of Total Freedom, to apply the subject of Scientology to that end – if he leaves out the parts of the subject which are designed to enslave people.

        But if those enslaving parts were placed into the subject, then is it really possible for the subject of Scientology to be based on the assumption of Total Freedom?

        1. A corollary could be “Is it possible to use a hammer for any other purpose than what it was intended to be used for”?

        2. Alonzo: ” But if those enslaving parts were placed into the subject, then is it really possible for the subject of Scientology to be based on the assumption of Total Freedom? ”


          You have predicated your statement with the assumption that there ARE enslaving parts within the subject.

          I would think it odd that anyone in their right mind would want to study or practice anything that would enslave.

          ‘Total Freedom’ for one person could be as simple as ‘wanting to talk easily with my mother-in-law’.

          If one considers a subject from the out-set to be enslaving, why bother – it seems there would be nothing to gain from that viewpoint.

          1. Dennis wrote:

            You have predicated your statement with the assumption that there ARE enslaving parts within the subject.

            Correct. Because after I had been in Scientology for a while and gained enough experience with it, and was sufficiently trained in it, I was able to identify those enslaving parts in the subject.

            I would think it odd that anyone in their right mind would want to study or practice anything that would enslave.

            Totally and completely agreed.

            ‘Total Freedom’ for one person could be as simple as ‘wanting to talk easily with my mother-in-law’.


            “Total Freedom” means “wanting to talk easily with my mother-in-law”?

            How so?

            If one considers a subject from the out-set to be enslaving, why bother – it seems there would be nothing to gain from that viewpoint.

            At the outset, before I knew enough about the subject to be able to identify its enslaving parts, I never even considered that Scientology was based on any other assumption than its advertised “Total Freedom”.

            It is only after I knew enough about Scientology, and had enough experience with it, that I began to identify its enslaving parts.

            So the question still stands: Can a subject which presents itself to be based upon “Total Freedom” have enslaving parts in it?

            1. Like I said, Total Freedom is in the eyes of the beholder.

              My example of ‘being able to communicate with mother-in-law’ could in fact be something that suppresses one beyond belief. For that person from his/her viewpoint, it could be expressed that way.

              Your definition or concept is of course, different. Nothing wrong with that at all.

              As for your question: If you are being lied to, you’re being lied to.

              Also, you did not comment on the other viewpoints involved …

              It is quite obvious that you were mishandled … for that I am truly sorry you had to go thru that.

          2. Dennis, For me you are describing these fractal layers of consistency when you describe freedom. Once that guy can easily talk to his mother-in-law, he will feel like a million bucks for 1/millionth of a second and then he will find a new jagged edge on which to stub his toe. This, in a nutshell, is what I can understand Vinnie trying to communicate, and for me, this corresponds with my concept of all life and livingness to consist of a fractal construct which can look smooth and harmonious until I inspect more closely and then once again I see the jagged edge.

            1. Agreed Chris,

              This is one of the things I love about this blog – new levels to experience almost daily.

              There’s a real fluidity about it that I like.

              Each corner I turn, another surprise awaits

          3. Dennis says, “You have predicated your statement with the assumption that there ARE enslaving parts within the subject. I would think it odd that anyone in their right mind would want to study or practice anything that would enslave.”

            Chris to Dennis: So is this statement of yours the answer to the question of who would participate in a game that would enslave? Is not this the core premise of Scientology?

            1. Chris,

              Although it could and has been used to enslave, I really doubt this was the intent.

            2. Yes, but my real point is that “here you are” sleeved into a meat body and at the nearing the end of this iteration and I hear you saying “how could someone do this?”

      2. Do all marketing strategies qualify as assumptions?

        A marketing strategy is a marketing strategy. Of course, there must be a semblance of product to justify for it.


  6. Here’s another idea. For some individuals, even a path to failure will help get them to where they want to arrive, because they will have learned from the experience and thus be better able next time to take a path more suited to them. This has been the case for some (or many) Scientologists.

    In fact, any path will get you there – or get US there. The eventual rise of Spirit over the physical universe seems inevitable and obvious. Possibly not all “individuals” (assuming they truly exist as such) will arrive, but Spirit most definitely will. The winning of the physical universe game is bound happen. What matters is just the playing of it. That seems to me to be the whole point.

    Some people are still very much interested in the game, others are more in a hurry to reach the big goal, and this is why there are different paths. It’s all good. (IMHO :-))

      1. If you mean was that my personal goal – no, not in the big, general sense of “theta” conquering MEST. In the beginning I wouldn’t even have conceived of such a thing. But in the context of individuals – myself and others – playing a better game, yes, absolutely. That is still my primary interest!

        As a secondary one – after I was already interested in Scn as a means to a better game – I discovered the more esoteric things that were part of it too. And that truly put the icing on the cake for me.

        But wanting to hurry up and get out of the physical universe, as some do (or, heaven forbid, seek some sort of oblivion) – this is no where near my universe.

        Thanks for asking, Al. 🙂

  7. This blog post is largely a reminder to myself to never assume I know what another person want or should want or what the best path or methodology is for getting a person to that unknown place.

      1. Of course not. But when I see what I consider bad manners, I will call it and then I expect to see a change. I want friendly, respectful, polite discussions. That’s all.

        1. Thank you. I think humor is high on some level of understanding the Universe. Or said another way, the world is funny and when correctly communicated, that communication should be funny or at least wondrous.

  8. I hope you don’t mind my posting something slightly off-topic, but still on the topic of assumptions.

    When I started in Scientology, I took on the assumption that I am a spritual being, separate from my body. This was such a relief, “knowing” that I was going to live on after body death. It was easy to believe because it fit with my goals. Many of my experiences have “proved” this to be true for me. But still, I have had some nagging pieces that would not fit into the puzzle.

    Recently, I have been spurred on to learning about the brain because of my dad having Alzheimer’s, a close relative having brain trauma and another with OCD. I have discovered that the brain is way more than a “switchboard”.

    I do not have doubts on the matter of having free will, but some things have caused me to wonder whether the awareness that I call “me” might be something that is connected to the brain and that it will cease to exist at body death, a very depressing thought indeed. This is something I would have dismissed a year ago, but I am trying to confront all my assumptions that I am aware of.

    Thinking about animals and their spirituality (or lack of) has me wondering about the difference between humans and animals. Animals do not have free will. They operate by instinct. They always build the same kind of house, and they do not create poetry or reflect about themselves, as far as I can tell. They would not be able to respond to auditing, but they are alive so there must be a life force. Is there a difference betweein a life force and a spiritual being?

    Is there ever a baby that a thetan does not occupy? If not, why not? How can there always be a thetan for every body? Does the population of thetans increase to fit the growing number of bodies? Or are there millions or billions of thetans hanging around ready to grab a body?

    Is it possible that past life incidents are illusions? Tricks of memory?

    Awareness seems to deteriorate with brain damage. Personality changes dramatically. Memory seems to be connected with the brain because I see the loss thereof with Alzheimer’s and also some improvement when a brain-affecting drug is given.

      1. I read your article again and I was surprised to see that I had only one page of it before. So this was very good. Thanks.

        What is your opinion about animals and spirituality?

          1. +1. This seems so simple to me.

            Those points of view that assume that they are “in the know” or “have the answers” seem extremely radical to me now. I hold that we know what we know, but as individuals, we are sorely lacking in a general accurate knowledge of this universe. Why? Because it is too big and it is too small. If this universe contains any worthy trap at all it is this: Orders of Magnitude. Bit by bit, as explorers, we unearth bits of sweet knowledge that level our inconsistent thinking and give us courage to loosen the anchor chains of our minds.

            1. “There are gradient levels of awareness in a spirit. Some occupy animal bodies.”

              I was interested in this comment too. What you says seems right, just because I believe that increased awareness is carried on to the next lifetime. Is that the basis for your viewpoint as well? If not, please say what it is.

              It also seems that the physical differences in brain and other physical characteristics between humans and between different animals would be a factor.

          2. I just put this posting under your name,
            FREE WILL, do we have one? There are many variety- selection- assortment of everything available and which ones we settle for which will we have on the end?

            One is being led steered driven motivated directed by the strongest stimulation inspirations available at all time, as like in bee line we follow the stimulation as it flows and there is no choice in the matter. [ from item to item we go, follow the energy line ] Example: in restaurant, one choses from the menu the most stimulating dish, the most mouth-watering dessert which appeal to all our senses, we chose- select the car which we finds most appealing, as in color, style, we choses a pair of shoes a dress a suit the same way: Which item on the display has the strongest appeal; one buy the one which delivers the most affective stimulant.

            This goes with everything: where we go, take a vacation too: mountains or by the sea, we hand-pick fruit and vegetables which we buy one piece at a time: those once we buy which stimulate our senses the most.

            Even the partner we choose to be in our life, in or out of bed: will have to have the qualification the most stimulating, exciting person we meet, as in looks, stimulation as in sexually, and mentally has to be adequate, be suitable, be satisfactory in every passible requirements. [Parents choosing partners has been rebelled against for this reason, no stimulation of one’s own choice]

            We do not choose but we continually follow the most stimulating motivating exciting, inspiring energy flows which deliver the impact we need to experience in order to function; experience =feel being alive at all times[ when sex stimulation wears off, new partner is acquired or heavier stimulus: is being brought in to excite -enliven the senses again ] .

            We believe we have FREE WILL, but that is an illusion. The strongest energy flow- the most stimulation pulls us: as in selecting everything in “our life,” from buying a house as in what location and style, choosing a occupation: has to be as exciting, motivating, interesting: as in pay =as rewarding + worthwhile+ valuable. In other word: do fits in, satisfies, stimulates fulfils the right way, do achieve the needs.[ one always chooses the heaviest stimulation, example: a man choses a woman he know she is no good, a woman stay with a man who beats her= and delivers that heavy stimulation at all times which is required as in bed partner too. Too much stimulation or not enough causes divorces.]

            Just think, what kind of woman draws man like bees to the flower? What kind a man who pulls in woman by the dozens? Violent movies, news have lot of followers—heavy energy. Those who need to have the continual heavy energy flows to be stimulated, not likely read Fairy Tales, or watch “Sword in the Stone” by Walt Disney ]

            There is an interesting thing happens as children grow become teenagers: they insert-introduce into the family unit their own”NEED TO DO, MUST FALLOW” their own energy stimulation requirements and that causes the rebellion against the already established parental energy flows-lines which of course the parents do not want to give up.

            While one is in the MEST, is ruled by the energies of the MEST.

            This is my reality of course, as always and this topic has much more to it than I care to write about

            1. Hi, Elizabeth. What about you – choosing to audit. I’m not talking about in the past, but right now – are you auditing because you are stimulated?

            2. Marildi, i found your comment in spam with many otheres.
              One can only audit the stimulation.. That is MEST it self. If i would not be soloing -having sessions on what is being-existhing, stimulated how could I erase the mass?

            3. Marildi, there is much more to see and experience in the universe than ones own small creations-universe-space. The universe is big, lots of interesting things to see, experience and inquire in session, why, what and who has created- mocked-up those creations. it is not all about the “I”

            4. Marildi, the audition questions are applicable in every situation regardless what one would like to know and they work beautifully. The question I use 99% of time is: curious, desired, enforced, inhabited, and refused or no understanding. These simple question and their use are the key to understand the Universes.

            5. Elizabeth, I got what you are saying on these last comments and have no disagreement. My earlier comment was in disagreement with the post yesterday that said people ONLY do things because they are “stimulated”(as you put it) or we could say “REstimulated”. My point was that I don’t think you yourself are doing auditing for any other reason than you choose to – in other words, you were and are exercising free will. This would be an example of how – at least sometimes – people do have and operate on free will.

            6. I keep repeating and I emphasis “MY reality”, I was not waiting for agreement, how could there be any?

            7. E, “agree” was the wrong word. I’ll use “reality” – is it your reality that you have no free will and only do things, including auditing, because you are stimulated or restimulated into doing them?

            8. I never deny, that the MEST rubbed the hell out of me every possible way… It was hell all of it..
              Even now when no longer I solo on personal aches or pains etc.. The question are still addressing the MEST. therefor i am still useing form of MEST communication still I am doing soloing because I do not know and I want to know.

            9. Marildi, this is not a make wrong thing.
              I would be happy to see different reality so please give me one. I don’t mind being wrong, You see, every time I ask a question I only ask that question because I know what I know is not right and I want to know different. So I have been nothing more than wrong and that is the reason for solo auditing.

            10. Sure, E. My reality is that people can actually separate themselves out from the motivations or pressures or stimulations of MEST. And when they do that – separate from those things – they are able to make their own free-will choice. Some people are more capable of using their free will than others, but all of them have. It takes very little stimulation from MEST for some people, and a lot of stimulation for others before they are unable to exercise the free will that is the essential part of being a spiritual being and not MEST.

            11. Generalization is not an example as you describe. . You have not given on example of the “free will”.
              Give one example of action which is out of “free will” and not a motivation out of some other action to gain or not to gain something from MEST

            12. I would agree that all actions in the physical universe are related to other actions in the physical universe or, as you put it, “a motivation out of some other action to gain or not to gain something from MEST”. But I believe that at times there is more than one choice and a person can make up his or her own mind and choose out of their own free will. Even your auditing is an action, and maybe you started doing it because of stimulations from MEST and because of MEST goals. But I imagine that you got to a point where auditing became your choice – it was just one choice out of many that you could have made. I can’t prove that any more than I can prove any other example as being a free will choice. There’s no use in giving examples when all of them could be interpreted both ways – free will and no free will. This is why people keep discussing the subject – there s no way to prove it with examples. I would say it’s a knowingness that if and when you do have different choices, you can make one of your own free will.

            13. Oh, you do have choices, which item one finds more appealing or less appealing, more or less stimulating, getr more or less pleasure out of it. I agree there one has a free will. But usualy one chooses the more pleasurable item, again that leads one back to square one=MEST.

            14. It looks like we actually see it the same way, then. MEST definitely limits the choices, but some people think there is no free will – no choice about anything because there are no choices. In other words, they think that MEST tells you exactly what your one choice is going to be and that’s the one you are motivated (or “stimulated”) to “choose” but you aren’t really choosing. That is the viewpoint I disagree with. It equates beings with machines – no different as far as actions go.

              The other thing you said seems right to me too, that all communication involves MEST. To me, even thoughts and emotions that are communicated are in energy form and thus are a form of MEST

            15. our reality is just too different. Simly you believe there is free will and mine is there is no free will while one has the bank-operates in the MEST.
              Since operating with MEST through MEST while being there is no free will.You have not given one example.

            16. Take a simple example of driving down the road and coming to a corner and not knowing which way you’re supposed to turn. Let’s say there is nothing in the MEST universe or your MEST memories to motivate you in any particular direction – but you make a choice, just based on you own capacity to decide – free will. Or take choosing what to order off the menu when there are three things there that you like equally well. A computer in such situations would not be able to function – it can’t choose or decide (or consider or postulate).

              I did give you an example already – your decision to audit. Is it just a matter of the forces of MEST dictating to you to do it?

            17. Give one example of action which is out of “free will” and not a motivation out of some other action to gain or not to gain something from MEST
              “but you make a choice, just based on you own capacity to decide – free will”——-you make the choice from what you already “learned”. Things you should do in what occasion when it arises. Learned ability and what is that?
              “Or take choosing what to order off the menu when there are three things there that you like equally well.”
              You tell me what is the reason one likes or dislike’s things even if there are 3 items one can choose from? LRH has talked about that topic a lot: What causes ones like or dislike.
              You have not given me anything which show there is free will.
              If you want to talk about my auditing than lets talk about it. ASK……
              but we are talking of FREE WIIL WHILE ONE BEING HERE in the MEST universe.

            18. I was trying to make the point that there are times when you are not swayed one way or another – when everything has equal value to you (like with the menu choices) or no value at all (like which road to take) but you still need to make a choice. That was to show we do have the ability to decide without MEST being a part of it. Another example would be when a kid decides which career they want to go after, even when their parents and everybody and everything else is pushing them in other directions.

              But like I said earlier, it doesn’t matter what example is given for free will – the other person can always take the viewpoint that there ACTUALLY were MEST reasons for the choice. And there’s no way to prove it either way because there’s no way to find out all the factors involved.

              Let me ask you a question too. What is the reason that you believe there is no free will – was it MEST that gave you that opinion?

            19. Okay. But if ALL your thinking and actions were determined by MEST and MEST alone that would make you nothing more than MEST, the way I see it. You can say that IN the MEST universe it is only MEST that determines your actions but I believe that. If that were true, I think your decisions and actions would be different. I don’t think you would have been so dedicated to auditing because I don’t see that you have MEST goals in mind – and those are the goals that MEST pushes.

            20. “”Okay. But if ALL your thinking and actions were determined by MEST and MEST alone that would make you nothing more than MEST,’’
              I knew your last question was a loaded one and I let you have it to see just what you have come up to make me wrong.[ I am very good at telepathy, read others like a open book]
              Now that is out of the way, lets get back to the original subject Free Will.
              Example please, do come up with one, and without being personal about me… OK?

            21. I wasn’t trying to be “personal” – I was trying to give you an example that would be real to you. I believe that is the only kind of thing that will demonstrate free will to a person – their own experience. And not MEST experience – because free will isn’t a MEST thing. It’s a thing of the spirit. It would have to be or choice would of course be influenced by MEST since there would be nothing else to influence it or anything. This is why people who don’t think free will exists are usually the ones who don’t believe there is anything but MEST. But you don’t fit into that category so I’m surprised that you have this viewpoint.

              You keep repeating to give you an example when I’ve given several and did so only because you insisted – and I kept saying that examples won’t prove anything.

            22. Marildi, you and I we talked on the Phone many times, so i won’t get into where I am or where you are in the MEST Universe.
              You have studied scientology more than I have. Even that is beside the point.
              My postings are from cognitions nothing but cognition related and I have over 178 of those in my blog and most are basic-basic cognitions. I simply realized because of the mock-up of the MEST, the Bank=implant there is no free will while one operates in the MEST.
              My reality, my cognition. I don’t assume, I did not collect information-second hand, knowledge from cognition [ which hold no energy ]simply stated my reality, my cognition, that is all.
              Any examples which can be given, they can be given because they are presented in MEST, about MEST and they appear in MEST, they are implant generated.

            23. Is it my turn now to say that I have telepathy and knew you would get personal and come up with exactly that to make me wrong 😉

              But since you brought it up – yes, I do believe that second-hand knowledge is valuable because I know I don’t have all the truth and I think that other people have different parts of it and that they can share it. That’s why I read your blog, for example. And I believe that is your reason for having it – to share what you have discovered, even though that sharing is second-hand knowledge for the ones you’re sharing it with.

              But that’s beside the point in this discussion, because my reason for believing that free will exists is not that anybody else said so. And neither do I believe it ISN’T true because somebody else said it WASN’T so – that itself sounds like an implant!

              As I’ve already indicated, free will is something I have experienced – it’s an experience where you know you can at times be separate from a MEST viewpoint and not always and 100% at the effect of it. We do have different realites, but ARC too. 🙂

            24. “”””As I’ve already indicated, free will is something I have experienced”””” .. Wll, I but that.. hehehe.. well done.
              – it’s an experience where you know you can at times be separate from a MEST viewpoint and not always and 100% at the effect of it. We do have different realites, but ARC too. : YOU bet ARC we have.. this was fun and thank… you are a Grand Dame….

            25. Wow, “grand dame” coming from the “Grand Dame” herself. Love you too! 🙂

            26. In my humble opinion MEST is always a part in any choice one makes. Spiritual and physical are dependent on each other. None exists in isolation.

              There are no absolutes.


            27. Considering a single-reality-all-dimensions-are-known-universe, I would agree with you. Is that what this is? Or are there no absolutes?

            28. One wonders if the statement “There are no absolutes,” is absolute. It cannot be expressed through words. In my humble opinion, Looking may help.

              NOTE: I am not promoting KHTK.


            29. haha, yes, I see what you mean. But what do we know of this physical universe? For beginners, my opinion is that “physical universe” is a redundant statement. If I know you by your writing, I think you and I are on the same page here.

              The Universe is all-encompassing terminology. We try to know about it and then seem to get impatient to know all-about it. Then we make up goals which must be fulfilled before we know all-about it. To me it seems that hyperbola when talking about the fringes of what we know about is self-defeating. Conversely, when stumped; when answers to questions seem just out of reach, it seems likewise self-defeating to take out a roll of “caution” tape and mark the territory “unknowable.”

              People will argue to and fro about “free will” or “not” and other very important issues. But the bites are too big. I end up with a mouthful of fractals and the wad sticks in my throat and chokes me.

              The Universe is too big and it is too little. For me, my path of learning is sufficient. This is neither apathetic nor defeatist. To myself and in my own estimation, I am making progress and I am changing and changing and changing. This is satisfying. I am happy and I am not trying to be. I continue to walk the path of life and enjoy.

            30. In my humble opinion pure spiritual beings do not exist. There is always a MEST component attached to a spiritual component, because spiritual and physical are two different aspects of the same system.

              The latter part is also my humble opinion.

            31. Marildi I have not claimed I am outside of the boundary of MEST, I still have a connection to the body.
              Please give a example when doing something thinking of something and that is not a response to something. do give a example of free will.

            32. Elizabeth …

              ” The question I use 99% of time is: curious, desired, enforced, inhabited, …”


              Inhabited? Yes, I guess you could say that 🙂

              Thanks for the chuckles

            33. LOL 😀

              Dennis, nothing gets by you.

              Elizabeth – Dennis is teasing you because one letter in the spelling of that word was wrong and made it into a different word. “InhAbited” means ”having inhabitants”. Get it? 😀

    1. I’ve become interested in this area myself. You may find this article by Edward Feser interesting (along with Geir’s on free will):

      There’s loads of other great stuff about philosophy of mind on his blog. (Hope you don’t mind me linking there Geir)

      I’m currently reading his book – The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism.

      1. Thank you very much for telling me about this. I will definitely read it – article, blog and book.

        1. No problem, Grateful. I’d say the book is the best place to start. It’s had excellent reviews but seems oddly titled because it is so much more than just a refutation of the new atheism. It argues that when Thomas Aquinas’ arguments are properly understood (he says Hulme and others misunderstood them) it follows necessarily that a supreme being and spiritual beings must exist. It’s written for the layman which is just as well for me 🙂

            1. I’ve been reading the book in small chunks. It’s HARD. So far, the idea of animals being a different essence than humans makes sense to me and is the explanation that has the fewest inconsistencies. If animals (even a few) had free will, we would be seeing them do surprising things once in awhile, like building a different kind of nest than all the other birds, or deciding to migrate to a different location. I do not believe that they could be thetans, but I am open to being wrong. Also, I am looking at the idea presented that the human spirit is incomplete without body. This has inconsistencies for me, but I am still considering the idea. Maybe it is so until one reaches a cetain awareness. What was your thought on that?

      2. Thank you for this reference. Here is a quote from it:

        “Now such a stub of a human being is what a soul is, or a disembodied soul anyway. This is why Aristotelian-Thomistic philosophers often call a disembodied soul an “incomplete substance” — not because they are trying incoherently to fudge the difference between a Cartesian res cogitans and the idea of the soul as a kind of form, but because a disembodied soul relative to a living human being is like a legless, senseless, brain-damaged dog relative to a healthy dog. The severely damaged dog is in an obvious and natural sense an incomplete substance, and the disembodied soul is an incomplete substance in just that sense — it is an incomplete, damaged human being.”

        This goes along with the idea of a “seed”.


    2. Grateful: I also went through a crises like that. Then I read “My Stroke of Insight” by Dr. Jill Bolte Taylor. She describes what happened when she lost the entire left hemisphere of her brain during a stroke and her recovery. At no point did she lose a sense of continuity, but her experiences were radically different forced to operate only from the right-side. She did lose her sense of ego-separation and found that she was operating in a way that was very connected to everything. What she was not able to do until she had recovered was frame communication to those around her — they assumed that she was not cognizant, when in fact she was fully cognizant. It took her quite a while to rebuild the “switchboard” that allowed speech and movement. This is what she came to understand:

      “I am the life-force power of the universe. I am the life-force power of the 50 trillion beautiful molecular geniuses that make up my form, at one with all that is.” (Jill Bolte Taylor)

      1. Thank you. It is great to have this place to connect and get ideas for forward exploration.

    3. Grateful, you bring up many interesting points. On the one about animals and life force, I’ve looked at that too and the definition of 7th dynamic seemed applicable – the part about anything spiritual “with or without identity”. My idea (for now anyway :)) is that the life force in plants or microscopic organisms or individual cells may fit under “without identity” – i.e. theta but not thetans. Either that or there is no such thing as theta not referring to thetans and it’s more like what LRH said in some lecture – that with insects, for example, there may be many of them controlled by just one thetan.

      Maria’s comment about the woman who suffered a stroke says a lot about the influence of the brain on identity. I figure that animals are quite restricted in their thinking and memory and ability to exercise free will (though that do have it, IMO) due to the constrictions of their brains – which are simply not as advanced as humans’. Even so, many people have said that they are able to communicate with animals and in that sense they are beings, and as such would have identity.

      1. Thank you for these ideas. This would also bring up ethical issues about “right to life”. IMO there is something different about humans vs. animals, but what and why, I am not sure.

    4. Grateful, what you are saying seems to make sense to me.

      My premise is, “Spiritual and physical are NOT two different systems that are independent of each other. They are two different aspects of the same system.” So, I do not think that a beingness exists independent of the body. When the body dies, the beingness is snuffed too.

      I know this sounds horrible, but there is something else here. There may not be souls, but there is spirit. That spirit is unknowable.


      1. Vinaire: You used the word unknowable.

        In plain English, that is a dead-end street

        I think you may need to explain YOUR definition of unknowable.

        Why would anyone in their right mind seek a state that is unknowable

        You make some exact statements appearing to be fact when they are maunderings of the mind and theoretical.
        ” As far as our knowingness is concerned we can only know the considerations that appear spontaneously and randomly… from where… that is impossible to know.”

        “The core of beingness is unknowable. That core is not the apparent beingness. When we think of beingness we think of the soul.

        ” Whether soul dissolves into the unknowable is neither here nor there. Beyond considerations there is no time. So, whether one is “Unknowable” for a billion years or for just a blink of an eye. It is the same thing.”

        1. Correction:

          I said ” Why would anyone in their right mind seek a state that is unknowable ”

          I meant to say “Why would anyone in their right mind seek something that is unknowable “

          1. Right, it is an oxymoron. On the other hand, if you know what Vinaire is going for, then I guess we can tolerate that, can’t we?

            I am on another path at the moment. Within the knowable, I think there is room within the physics of this universe to contain everything ever imagined plus an infinite amount of things yet to be imagined, plus an infinite number of things which will never be imagined and there is still plenty of room left over which is growing.

        2. Ahh … my comment is awaiting moderation approval again …

          I must have been a bad boy 😉

      2. The concept “unknowable” seems to have become somewhat like “untouchable” on this blog.

        Please comment of the following from my blog:

        (1) We use this universe as our reference point to perceive, evaluate and understand things.

        (2) But we cannot understand the universe fully by using universe as our reference point.

        (3) To understand this universe fully we must use a reference point that is beyond this universe.

        (4) That point beyond the universe cannot be known from a viewpoint derived from this universe..

        (5) Actually, from the reference point of this universe, anything beyond this universe cannot be known.

        (6) “Unknowable,” therefore, means simply That, which cannot be known from a viewpoint derived from this universe.


        1. “The concept “unknowable” seems to have become somewhat like “untouchable” on this blog.”

          Not so. It is only that the last time I tried to discuss this with you, you didn’t address any of the criticisms I had of your points. The discussion broke down as it became a one-way street.

        2. Vin: ” (1) We use this universe as our reference point to perceive, evaluate and understand things. ”

          I view from my own universe. I perceive other universes including the physical universe. It is not my reference point … I am.

          You might liken it to ‘Find a point from which to view’.

          I do, however, understand those that believe they are part of the physical universe.

          1. You’ve hit upon the crux of this argument. You are claiming to have an exterior viewpoint to this universe and Vinaire is claiming that neither he nor you do, that your sense of self as a thetan is an identity formed in your mind within the confines of the physical universe.

            1. Actually, I was talking about statements such as this:

              ” I know this sounds horrible, but there is something else here. There may not be souls, but there is spirit. That spirit is unknowable. ”

              Like I said above, maybe Vinaire is using some other definition of ‘unknowable’.

            2. Tomayto/Tomahto – Vinaire is fervently looking for an epiphany that will give him certainty about the Unknowable. The Static.

              Looking as he does from a meat body and knowing that to resolve a system he must look at that system from outside, he is locked into a fixed condition and hence the absoluteness of Unknowable. I don’t know that he is wrong. I don’t know if he is right. What he sees and experiences within his own reality is for him and him alone, just as each of our experiences is for us alone.

              I am not really big on debating what is or is not or what should or should not be true for another. I’ve had this run on me and it is unpleasant.

            3. Thank you Vinaire, it is my current study of physics and then my auditing myself on my current study of physics which is opening my eyes.

              I am not currently respecting extant knowledge but rather questioning every single tenet. This is finally giving me traction. Whereas as a Scientologist, I used to feel that I had the answers; Now, as a goddamn independent non-Scientologist, non-anything, I am leveling my own inconsistencies from my own point of view even to the point of challenging what I just wrote and then leveling that as well. It is a simple all-embracing confront with love of the existence that I am experiencing. What I am doing falls within the subset of many disciplines including your KHTK, KG’s Zen, LRH’s TR0, and Christ’s “turn the other cheek.” I expect this might take a while.

              It is like a miracle cure.

            4. Speaking of your current study of physics, when are we going to see the goddamn article? 😀

            5. LOL Marildi! You are very correct to poke me. Let me update you. I had a couple epiphanies about possibilities about how physics is the way it is, and I got all enthused. Then I began to write. Then the writing exposed weaknesses in my arguments and I wasn’t pleased with my writing. Then I began to study to strengthen my weaknesses. I plowed into reading that had been recommended and a other couple books I stumbled upon. They made me dizzy and bent and moody and sometimes angry which I took as a sign of misunderstood words and lack of mass. Maybe oddly for some, I took to auditing to add mass to these very thin subjects. (Everyone get ready to guffaw at me:) Including my by now infamous ” ‘TV Snow’ Process.” I won’t bother explaining that again just now as anyone can ask me here or on back channel. But all the mental wrangling has moved my TA and shaken a few things out and I have for me some new understandings including a new title for a new article, “IN OUR SUPERSTITION, WE CALLED IT MOTION.” The title gives you my mental condition and attitude toward extant Newtonian physics, even quantum physics. A revolution in quantum physics is brewing on the horizon and because I see myself in that pioneer camp (as water boy) and because I plan to state odd things, I have felt that I should bolster my arguments with acceptable extant physics before I say stupid things. I also mentioned ambition to you. This is the ambition to have “one original thought.” So far I have been disabused of there being any indication that will come true, and yet I hope. I have one more ambition. In the shadow of the truly great minds, the giants of the 19th through the 21st century did their best works as young men. My other ambition is to contribute something noteworthy as a late bloomer who never got started until almost 60 years of age.

            6. Chris, great post! Seems like you are definitely ready to WRITE the moment you come to the “coalescence” of your ideas about what makes the universe tick. Also, that is a great-sounding title for the article. I feel the postulate! 🙂

              So what is this revolution that’s brewing in physics? I’m sure your data, original and otherwise, could add to the brainstorming that got started today. 🙂

            7. All my mechanical ideas build on the foundation of the universe being “discrete,” as in being created moment by moment and the short analogy is to compare it to a “flick” or movie which is not a “moving” at all except that its frame-by-frame presentation is at slightly faster “clock-speed” than our “eyes” and “brain” assimilate and thus appears fluid and continuous. This discrete concept is different than the “continuous” world that apparently EXISTS and slowly (or quickly) passes us by.

              In my analogy of “flick” the physical universe’s “clock-speed” is very very much faster than very fast. Ultra-High-Fast. Not instantaneous by a LOT but very very fast as compared to our usual, rat-race existence.

              In my paper I will call into evidence the speed of light; radioactive decay of matter; and also subpoena Albert Einstein’s various phenomena own Theory of Relativity as evidence for a discrete universe. Then as a wrap-up I will have Mr. Stephen Wolfram explain why simple computer code and by simple I mean 3rd grade simple, can be at the heart and soul of “heart and soul.”

              Only a couple twists are original or if not original then worked out by myself, and these have to do with answering the burning questions of “Why is the speed of light constant?” and “Why does mass vary with velocity?” and “How much time is there contained within 1 second?” and “Why should the universe’s expansion be accelerating?”

              But other than this, I have nothing to say.

            8. “But other than this, I have nothing to say.”


              So just tell me this, why should the universe’s expansion be accelerating? (In 25 word or less – kidding :D)

            9. I can do better! Its expansion is accelerating because of this blog! With every keystroke MEST expands to keep God’s head from exploding! haha

            10. But Geir WANTS his head to explode with this data!

              No sneak preview? Oh, well. 😦

            11. Geir is very far ahead of me on this one. After introducing me to the idea last year that the “discrete universe” was an extant idea of fringe physicists, it was like turning on the light in a previously darkened room. Discreteness knits together ideas of mine which previously looked to me like fantasy only. Then it began to knit together extant FACTS in physics which since my first brush with them in high school were so counter-intuitive as to defy a “normal” understanding. Hank Williams, Jr. wrote that “I think I know what my father meant when he sang about a lost highway.” And now, like Hank Jr., I think I know what Albert Einstein meant when he used the word “special” to talk about relativity. It is very special and counter-intuitive. Like the best and biggest Easter egg hunt ever. “Special points the way.” I assume there will be colored eggs if I continue to “look.” (for Vinay and all my rowdy friends here).


            12. That I have “Will” raises no paradox for me. Is that will “Free?” The paradoxes soar upward like the Himalayas. That I wonder about free will is not evidence that I either have it nor that I don’t have it. It is not even evidence that “free will” is anything more than a contextual maundering that has no particular validity nor importance beyond that maundering. I don’t yet see where this is leading. I just think that an accurate understanding of the basic mechanics of this universe is not only far from unknowable but necessary if I am to understand that “elementary clevis” which hooks my Will to the universe.

              “Discreteness” as a rudimentary postulate for a legitimate and workable Theory of Everything has not only opened my eyes to a new possibility of understanding, but closed them to the possibility that my previous assumptions about “what I know” were any more than mired superstition.

            13. I do not see any difference in Will and Free WIll – because the Will has to be free to a certain extent to be Will at all – or else it is deterministic or randomity and not Will at all.

            14. Ahh, good point.

              Well, I can observe myself to have will and to exert that will on myself and small things and in small ways. By this I mean that I can pick my hand up; I can lay my hand down. Today, I got a “green tag” (the go ahead) from the city inspector to pour the concrete foundation for my garage. I seemed to have something to do with making that happen and my wife seemed to have something to do with making me make that happen.

              I live out my existence assuming that the + or – 90 degree stereoscopic image in front of my face is external, and objective. That image seems to be operating on automation that I am only beginning to guess at how that works let alone what the Source of that automation is. I seem to have limited will with regard to this image. I seem to be able to act upon it successfully within carefully prescribed parameters. I can type on the keyboard using fingers; I can speak and get others to understand some of what I am saying.

              Others come into and out of my field of vision and they too have limited will and an ability to affect my field of vision within limited parameters.

            15. It has been a while since I read your very worthy article On Free Will. I think it might be productive using my newest understandings to review your work to see if I can shake out a new understanding for myself.

              You see, the maths and computer code are providing a beautiful new view and hope and possibilities for an inroad to a TOE. But the second edge of this leveling sword is the caveat that I must have courage and be ready to allow previous assumptions to be falsified. Even assumptions about who and what I really am. In this regard, my research has thrown my former self-image under the bus of doubt. But that’s okay. I can stand it. Occam’s Razor is not a safety razor but a double-edged sword and I feel I must be prepared to be cut.

            1. The physical universe is an extension of “I”. It is not separate from “I”. “I” is as much immersed in the physical universe, as physical universe is immersed in “I”.

              The “Theta-MEST” theory assumes that Theta and MEST are independent of each other. Is that assumption true? I question that assumption.

              To me, spiritual and physical are two different aspects of the same system. Neither is independent of the other.

              Those who take for granted the assumption underlying the Theta-MEST theory. are simply mocking it up.

              “I” is not independent of its mock-ups. It seems to me that “I” itself is a mock-up.


            2. I see two possible inconsistencies in Vinaire’s and Dennis’ statements here.

              1. Vinaire assumes he knows what the physical universe encompasses.
              2. Dennis assumes he knows that there is a theta universe apart from the physical universe and he knows what it encompasses.

        3. Vinaire says: ” (6) “Unknowable,” therefore, means simply That, which cannot be known from a viewpoint derived from this universe. .”

          Then you assume that you are able to make this claim while operating from a point within this universe? Or are you operating from a point outside this universe? Or who are you anyway?

          1. There is no claim here. There is only an effort to understand and express the unknowable.

            It seems self-defeating but the process is fun for me. It unearths all kinds of assumptions that one has taken for granted.



        1. Thanks, Grateful. I can learn good manners from you.

          In my view, it is attachment that is the source of all sorrow and misery.

          I think that the primary attachment is to self. But, self, in my view, is a mental construct, which is perishable.

          Who are you? or, who am I? is unknowable.


          1. I definitely am attached to me. I have been watching a DVD series on mindfulness meditation which explores these concepts, as well. The idea of attachment and impermanence. It makes sense to me not to be strongly attached to things. It has gotten me thinking, for sure. One thing I am not liking, though, is (and I may not fully understand it) the attitude that seems to say, “nothing is all that important.” I like to be passionate about my life and experience things in a big way and when I take on that viewpoint, I feel apathetic.

            1. Grateful, what is important to one is different from person to person. I find solving puzzles very important. This may not be of prime importance for anybody else on this board.

              So, what is important and what is not important is, ultimately, a consideration that one is carrying with one. Maybe it so deep that it is ingrained in the soul (electronic DNA). 🙂


    5. I do not think that there is any such thing as free will attached to some soul after body death, because, in my opinion, souls cannot exist.

      But there is something in common to everything; and that is spirit, which is undefinable.


      1. I’m not quite sure why you think souls can not exist.

        Do you mean that they can not inherently exist?

        Surely there are causes and conditions which arise which can sustain a soul’s existence. Such as consciousness, fabrications, mental objects, and perceptions – four of the five skhandas.

        Just as a plant exists because the causes and conditions of water, sun, seed, soil and carbon dioxide all arise and allow allow the plant to exist, don’t the causes and conditions for the soul also arise and allow a soul to exist?

        Two levels of existence, Vinaire: Ultimate and Relative.

        Not just ultimate.

          1. I’m rich!

            I’m going to take this +100 and put it toward a new microwave I’ve been meaning to buy at Sears.

            Thank you very much!

    6. Grateful: I too have lost a family members to Alzheimers, and so I found myself ransacking all kinds of information to do with the subject and the body/mind connection. Here are some of the thoughts I have had so far on the matter, perhaps they will be of help to you.

      “Awareness seems to deteriorate with brain damage. Personality changes dramatically. Memory seems to be connected with the brain because I see the loss thereof with Alzheimer’s and also some improvement when a brain-affecting drug is given.”

      It is my understanding that the brain / body / endocrine systems are actually filtering systems that provide focus and response to very specific wavelengths in the physical universe. For example, vision filters the spectrum of light, hearing filters the spectrum of sound and so on. We are bombarded by light & sound waves that fall outside of those filters. Anything outside the filter goes unrecognized. The mind acts (in at least some of its function) as another filtering mechanism that maps the raw input for association and interpretation. When filters are damaged or failing, response is impaired. Since habitual responses are the crux of personality recognition, personality does change dramatically when habitual responses are no longer available or functioning or they are stimulated in a way that activates dormant functionality or suppresses abnormal functionality — as in the case of drugs, bypass surgery, etc.

      “Is it possible that past life incidents are illusions? Tricks of memory?”

      It appears that they are similar to a memory of going to a movie three days ago, which is a collection of filtered abstracts of associations, interpretations and raw data integrated with past collections and future possibilities (imaginations). Memory is tricky, heavily interpreted and reliant on past maps and assumptions and in most cases very difficult to prove — just try reviewing car accident descriptions from several different people a few days later!

      “They would not be able to respond to auditing, but they are alive so there must be a life force. Is there a difference betweein a life force and a spiritual being?”

      What we see as a life force may really be only our apprehension of the animation of forms, forms we have resolved through our filters out of a massive bombardment of raw data such as particles and waves, constantly shifting as they interact and form relationships. If you take away the forms or the apprehension of the forms or shift the filters in some way, then the quality of animation changes. A spiritual being could be seen as a repository / continuum of apprehension/comprehension that continues to use established or habitual patterns of filters and responses either on a knowing or unknowing basis. The “ground” of being appears to be operating outside of the time/space continuum as it is not a form — i.e. it doesn’t move or change and has a fundamental state that is more like an ocean with the forms being the waves formed on the surface of the ocean. Its a poor analogy, but its the best I’ve figured out so far.

      The words apprehend and comprehend are both formed the root word “hend,” hendere, related to hedera “ivy,” via notion of “clinging,” and cognate with Gk. khandanein “to take in, hold.” Hend also means to seize with the mind.

      1. Thank you for this. The idea of filters make sense. I will keep looking a reading.

      2. This is interesting Maria, because words of a similar meaning in Russian have the meaning of “grasp”, take in, seize, and also extend to concepts of “placing attention on”, being mindful of.

    7. Really good and thoughtful post Grateful. Every point that you brought up is a valid question or concern. I encourage you to follow your predilection to know the answers to these things. It is the information age. What else you got going on?

      1. I appreciate that. I was going to say that I have NO CHOICE but to keep looking for answers. HAHA. Now I am going to say that I have at leat two doors: I can either keep searching and learning (which is sometimes very uncomfortable as assumptions that I hold dear fall away) or I can lessen my awareness and go on with existence, trying to forget. Guess I’m going with Door #1.

        I am very intrigued by your earlier posts about how you go about your discoveries. When you say that you audit yourself on your study of physics, what exactly do you do?

        I also liked what you said: “Whereas as a Scientologist, I used to feel that I had the answers, Now, as a goddamn independent non-Scientologist, non-anything, I am leveling my own inconsistencies from my own point of view even to the point of challenging what I just wrote and then leveling that as well.” especially “the goddamn independent non-Scientologist, non-anything” part.

        1. I am enjoying your posts. Give me a sense of your background in Scientology and physics so that I can try to form a cogent answer to your query.

          1. I am sorry. I just saw this post.

            I was a Scientologist from 1974 until 2008. I was a CL 4 org staff member in the 70’s and 80’s. I trained to CL 4, which included Standard Dianetics at that time. I have had many hours of auditing. No solo. Not much physics knowledge.

            1. Cool. You’re grooved very well into what I will say next. A year or two ago, Elizabeth Hamre turned me onto the idea of just picking up my emeter and beginning solo auditing on the rudiments. That’s it. How do you select items to audit? You just take up things that you are either bothered about or if you are well and happy and singing along, you just audit things that you are interested in. That’s it. Want to exercise your memory? You can use Self Analysis lists.

              The theory behind this is very long and drawn out. — NOT! It is this: ARC break = misunderstanding.

              You don’t understand something? — You have a session. See? very complicated — NOT!. Don’t turn it into something complicated. Don’t introvert. Keep it light. Like standard TR0 you just confront what is there. Nothing forced. No furrowed brow. Look at what bubbles up. What floats to the surface. See? This is completely simple. Your curiosity and passion to understand yourself is the only ethics handling you will ever need. Don’t feel like it today? Fine. Don’t feel like it again in a week? I dunno, maybe you give yourself a session on your reluctance. See? Nothing exotic. Give yourself a win and feel the control over your own universe. Puts you on top of the world, but its only your own world. This is your home universe and yours to do with as you please. No one can tell you what is there, what you should think about what is there, or what you should do about what is there.

              You don’t feel comfortable with this explanation? Let it rest. Don’t worry about it. This is only for you and only when you are ready. Who is to say if you are ready to look into your own mind?

              Have a freshly baked chocolate chip cookie. It will come to you. Soon you will feel right as rain.

            2. There is no such a thing since spiritual beings dont have feet. earlier I emailed Chris that In hungary when I was a child, growing up we were so poor that soon as the warm weather set in we had to take off our shoes to save it for cold weather. So there was I a bare foot spirit who walked from spring till fall with no shoes. fun memories.

            3. Hey, thanks! I may just get my Mark 5 out and start brushing up.

            4. I will be cheering you! soling is the greates adventures of all adventures one ever had, since solo auditing is new in the Universe, it never been done before [on any one’s track.]best.. Elizabeth

            5. I was wondering about doing things like grades processes that have traditionally been run by another auditor. Have you tried anything like that?

            6. I have not. But I see no reason to be shy. It is your own field of dreams. I have found all the fear and warnings about doing myself damage to be groundless and implanted worries to stop me from doing the simplest thing in the world which is taking a look at what I think. I have had no bad repercussions from from my illegal and insidious behaviour. Yes, I violated copyright law by transgressing my own mind… Today I find this laughable but not at first. The tension and worry that I felt when I took the screws out of my own emeter to get at the battery to replace it was palpable. The cold creeping fear that I felt as I set up my emeter, doing sensitivity checks — worrying about my immortal soul. I hadn’t thought about it until now even after reading Geir’s look into his own attitudes about doing everything just right for security on the OT levels. It could be the subject for a new thread.

              But tone arm action is TA and when you produce this result in yourself, it is more empowering than learning to swim or ride a bike as a kid. It was similar for me to learning to talk as a toddler.

            7. I know exactly what you mean about the fear. Just thinking about it, I can feel the thrill of my imminent criminality, adrenaline rising, senses on high alert. I am about to break into … who knows what?

              That’s very cool about empowering yourself.

            8. And if you “thought you were out” of the COS, doing this will exploit any lingering shred of tensor beam that you still have to the Church. You know that this is taking the red or blue pill. There is no going back and not many decisions in our lives seem to contain so much gravity.

              Of course, this is all bullshit for if you have a pocketful of money that you want to spend, you can buy indulgences back into the COS anytime. It only takes money. True, you will never be allowed on “confidential” OT levels, but you weren’t really going to be allowed on OT levels point anyway, you were simply going to be extorted for money. The sick part of my tirade is that I have more than a few friends who are in debt for life, bankrupt, and still not moving on the bridge and hoping to get some bullshit ethics handling done so that they can be allowed “back onto 7” or whatever. Once you take responsibility for your own case, once you watch your TA blow down by your own hand and thought and effort, this malarkey proffered by the COS just looks sillier and sillier. It would be laughable if it weren’t wrecking people’s lives. But then what I found is that I shouldn’t go around inviting others to take control of my life and wreck it for me. I am perfectly capable of wrecking my own life! hahaha

            9. You don’t need “OT Levels” to be empowered. Simple rudiments session is empowering. When you move your own TA, you will never think about responsibility the same way again. To discern on a regular basis “what you really think about things” is huge. Changes everything. Day to day rudiments? Handle that with a glance. Beautiful.

    8. Grateful, I got an email from Elizabeth on the subject of Alzheimer’s and got her okay to post it. It is yet another viewpoint for you on the subject, one Elizabeth got in her auditing.

      Alzheimer’s— Dementia

      Hi, I just saw something in connection with ”memory-loss ” I have soloed a lot on memory-remembering-forgetting, not remembering etc…in the past years and I have seen in sessions is in cognition the causes of Alzheimer’s and Dementia.

      But today I have realized that neither of them is a “DISEASE” but the mechanisms and the spiritual being’s disconnection at one point from the body and that dis-connection is not caused by sudden ending of the working mechanism as in “Death”.

      The Alzheimer’s is a disconnection – withdrawal going through stages, which develops over the years and the spiritual being becomes disconnected more often from the MEST because the reactive mind has not only one implanted machine but has many in existence; all of those machines have had automatic devices to stop the machine-body working. [invisible now of course but one knows their existence, since it is a part of the track still] to terminate the machine-body to stop working which is called here dieing or becoming dead, no longer functioning.

      Of course only the strongest device controls the body, but to some extent the others are working so the disconnection from the body as in Alzheimer’s comes in stages. Also there are thousand postulates and counter postulates to forget or not, remember or not and all are still in working order and influences the function of the being. Also the ‘life span=present life’ is running out unwinding: since the postulated reproduction cycle has ended.

      Alzheimer’s is not disease as in illness, but disconnection in many stages from the so called life activities. The body still goes on and functions, even part of the “memory-remembering is re-stimulated time to time so it seems, the being is coming back to present time, but that is only a mechanisms in restimulation from something in the being’s surroundings which have caused that. [I have seen my brother-in-law’s Alzheimer’s development for 17 years, and Dementia is very similar, but not quite. The difference between the two must be having different track-past life-implants agreements etc.]

      Having the Alzheimer’s condition the spiritual being skips out, disconnects from the implanted MEST=Bank and becomes free, that is very noticeable in their behavior.
      The being becomes happy, loses all the cares and worries, all problems fall away, no fears left or values or sense of time, automaticity is being lost slowly like feeding the body, talking, reading, understanding of language.

      One of the interesting factors I have noticed that My Brother-in-law’s body stopped ageing his bodies appearance have not changed in 17 years, that means he has become totally exterior to his track-time :considerations-agreements..

      In reality THE BEING becomes EXTERIOR TO THE MEST Universe, gets blown out by something, who knows what.

      I have noticed with my mother who had in her late years [late 80’s’] dementia, she was seeing things, past memory from this life with the so called ”fantasy-pictures-events’ ‘happenings from the track all mixed together. Her Universe has become liquid, beings were coming and going, the walls for her lost their solidity and the beings were moving through the walls freely and she recognised those beings and communicated with them.

      Those who do not know or believe in existence of past life of course don’t understand the “imaginary “pictures she had was part of her past life’s=track and the now=this life were all mixed up… the continuum — sense of time too has vanished for her.

      In my reality the person get very tired of the game here, bored to death, no longer care to play the game but can’t destroy or stop the functioning body, so he says, “Good Bye and good riddance,. I am gone, do whatever you want with that useless thing, not my problem anymore”. The spiritual being still has part of his ability to leave get exterior from the MEST at free will, just partially.

      So cure for Alzheimer’s never will be found, no matter how much researcher will go into it.

      1. Thank you to you and Elizabeth, both, from the bottom of my heart. Someone mentioned on another post about feeling kinship with people on the blog, and it is very true. I would like to give you a big hug.

  9. Geir wrote:

    Various branches of psychology serve to work toward less irrationality, less mental suffering or even more obedience.

    Which branch of psychology serves to work toward “more obedience”?

    And how, exactly.

    1. There were early psychologists promoting child upbringing to make sure the children became obedient. Many parents have this as their family goal – perhaps even against the will of their children…

          1. Did I smell an old false assumption from Scientology when you wrote that “branches of psychology” were used to work towards more obedience?

            Because one Nazi, and some abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union does not form a “branch of psychology”.

            Come on, Geir. Did I pick up just a whiff of one?

            1. Actually there is a current (and well represented) branch that does work towards more “obedience” although not necessarily in a bad way. They mostly work with children and they typically diagnose the children with disruptive behavioral disorders, ODD – oppositional defiant disorders and conduct disorder, to name the most common diagnosis. They use drugs, psychotherapy and behavior modification therapy to address the mental disorders.


            2. Al; Not at all any whiff.

              I pointed out the end result of obedience-related psychology. Valkov and Miraldi gave you the studies themselves.

              I could of course have pointed out that branches of Christianity worked toward greater obedience,or Islam, or some other religion, or Scientology in which case I bet you a fair bunch of monies that you would not object at all 😉

            3. Al; It is a bit odd that you would now disregard a branch of psychology that you only a couple of weeks ago defended the efficiency of – that of mind control techniques (the video link above)

            4. Sorry Geir.

              It’s just that reading your statement was like reading about a branch of mathematics that works toward killing people, or a branch of architecture that works toward imprisoning people. And when queried, you find that the “branch of mathematics” is the math used to program ICBMs, and the “branch of architecture” is the design of prisons.

              It’s an odd and idiosyncratic mischaracterization of the subject based on a very particular application of it. And it is a mischaracterization just like the one L Ron Hubbard made.

              And who said that the technology of mind control was a branch of psychology?

              Not me.

            5. This page shows the branches of psychology.


              There are many branches of psychology; how you split them up will usually depend on which part of the world you are, even which university or institution you were trained at. The following are seen as the main branches of psychology:

              Clinical psychology – integrates science, theory, and practice in order to understand, predict and relieve maladjustment, disability, and discomfort. …

              Cognitive psychology – this branch investigates internal mental processes, such as problem solving, memory, learning, and language (how people think, perceive, communicate, remember and learn). …

              Developmental psychology – this is the scientific study of systematic psychological changes that a person experiences over the course of his/her life span. Developmental psychology is often referred to as human development. …

              Evolutionary psychology – this looks at how human behavior has been affected by psychological adjustments during evolution. …

              Forensic psychology – this involves applying psychology to criminal investigation and the law. A forensic psychologist practices psychology as a science within the criminal justice system and civil courts. …

              Health psychology – also called behavioral medicine or medical psychology. This branch observes how behavior, biology and social context influence illness and health. …

              Neuropsychology – studies the structure and function of the brain in relation to clear behaviors and psychological processes. …

              Occupational psychology (also known as industrial-organizational psychology, I-O psychology, work psychology, organizational psychology, work and organizational psychology, occupational psychology, personnel psychology or talent assessment) – studies the performance of people at work and in training, develops an understanding of how organizations function and how people and groups behave at work. The occupational psychologist aims to increase effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction at work. …

              Social psychology – uses scientific methods to understand and explain how feeling, behavior and thoughts of people are influenced by the actual, imagined or implied presence of other people. A social psychologist will look at group behavior, social perception, non-verbal behavior, conformity, aggression, prejudice, and leadership. Social perception and social interaction are seen as key to understanding social behavior.

              Put simply, social psychology studies the impact of social influences on human behavior.

              More at link.

        1. It is not just early psychologists. There has been a dynamic tension between the two orientations for some time, since the 1940 or 1950s at least.

          Psychiatry’s orientation is “normative’ to this day, as the DSM manual is based on “normative” standards.

          From Wikianswers: “What is a normative theory in psychology?”

          “It basically is the philosophical approach which says that normalcy should be regarded as the working standard of what mental health really is. It forms the foundation for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (aka, the “DSM”) which is a core textual tool of the mental health industry.

          The DSM maintains that one of the key aspects of all mental disorders is their statistical rarity in the general population — and by the normative theory, that qualifies them as disorders.

          Critics of normative theory interpret it as a license to promote oppressive conformity, equating an emphasis on normalcy with conformity.”

          Many psychologists in the 1950s thought the goal of therapy was to produce or facilitate a person being”well-adjusted” to society”, “normal”, “conforming to social standards”, etc.

            1. No, one needs good manners to be allowed to post here. It’s my house and I require good manners from my guests.

            2. Yes sir.

              I thought I was applying a “hail fellow well met” set of manners to The Feral Russian.


            3. It is my blog and thus manners are according to my opinions in the main. It is my house after all, and I determine what manners pass for good.

            4. Correct. You cannot. It is my blog, and thus my definition of good manners is what constitutes the rules of the house here. You follow those rules or you don’t post. Very simple. Over at your blog, you are the master of the house. Also very simple. Agreed?

            5. Of course, manners are certain considerations. You want to impose them here.

              I must not have riled you enough lately, that is why I am still allowed to post here.


            6. As long as you remain polite – to others and to me, you are allowed to post here. You have been threading a very fine line and I will accept very little disrespect from you. Point taken?

            7. I asked you if you got the point about being polite on this blog. Did you? It is a very, very simple question. You have been “in-your-face” with several posters on this blog several times. I have even given you a vacation from this blog because of it. You have proven to be one of the most disrespectful, impolite contributers on this blog, often preaching rather than engaging in sincere communications. I have told you that you have been treading a fine line, and thus I require an honest answer from you on this very simple question; Will you be polite on this blog?

            8. Vin, do you need to know more exactly what is meant by blog manners?

            9. I am afraid that if Vinaire does not know by now (some 18+ months posting on this blog and dozens of corrections) what is meant by good manners on this blog – there is no hope for him.

            10. I know, you have a valid point, totally. Maybe it just needed to be made even more clear, like you have now done, IMO, and he can make his choice on the matter. Possibly a short vacation, even of his own volition, will give him the space to think it out and decide if it’s an exchange that’s worth it to him. That’s basically what it is – an agreed-upon exchange.

            11. One thing I can see is that Geir is in a unique position as the blog host – when you thumb your nose at him it puts him in a very awkward position. As he says, this is like his house. Imagine how it would feel if a guest in your own house started treating you with less than simple respect – it would be quite insulting. Respect is what a host is owed, just by virtue of being the host. You just have to look at it from that perspective and you’ll be able to think with it. From there, you can decide what is suitable in comments to other posters, keeping in mind what effect it has on the blog overall. I think everybody would like your participation but would also like it to have a more positive effect.

            12. Yes Al, the Feral Russian is still kicking, occassionally. You must forgive Geir. He means well, but with his emphasis on being civilized he doesn’t always understand the pride I take in being Savage, and in having it acknowledged.

              Remember, the First Postulate of those guys was “I am a Scary Viking, unmatched in Savagery!” The Second Postulate is the one we see, driven by the First – “I am a Good Civilized Boy.”

              (I hope I am not creating a monster here…..) 🙂

            13. Anyway Al, I definitely took it as a well-meant greeting, np buddy.

            14. Geir is probably a little gunshy from past experience with us and doesn’t want to be forced to moderate heavily if we run amok like we used to. He has been relieved to let this blog run itself and I respect that a lot; doing heavy-duty moderation has got to be a big drag.

              Anyway, I think we are (mostly) past that, aren’t we 🙂

              Here’s another verse from Russell Salamon’s great poem:


              Time comes from a laugh
              and when I have killed you
              or you have wronged me,
              it comes from a laugh
              we share over a long drink
              of universe, an aside
              in the home-bar where we drink
              lightning and call it sunlight
              and seeing sunlight we call it

              Mirth dances wild,
              dhow me your laugh and
              I’ll show you mine.

            15. I rather like the term “the Savage Valkov”. In Huxley’s “Brave New World”, The Savage was the sane man among the effete denizens of the brave new chemically adjusted and controlled society(speaking of the psychology of adjustment).

      1. It is a slippery slope for a parent. As a parent, I “make” my children obey a few things. Then there is a crap-load of freedom as well. On those few things that they MUST do, I am pretty tough. On the rest of it , not so much. The more responsible they are, the more freedom they enjoy. The only conflicts that I can remember about raising children were as a result of a disagreement between these two ideas of responsibility vs freedom.

  10. Assumptions create expectations. They are very powerful. Unless they are fully examined, two people can be doing the same thing for totally different reasons and never even know it.

    Even worse, a person can be given an assumption that is false.

    Then you are really screwed.

    1. To me, assumption is a consideration held by one that has not been examined fully by that person. If that person would examine that consideration, he would find it to be inconsistent with reality.


  11. Dear Geir,

    This discussion is very old hat. We had it in the early 80es when I and my friends left Scn and SO. Since then, no one has started any auditing intensive without stressing the question: “What would you like to work with (handle) in auditing”? Like when you ask: “Where does it hurt”? Now-a-days we audit the person in front of us. It’s his auditing, he pays, then why should I then decide what to run him on or which goals he should follow? Makes no sense, and the auditor who doesn’t handle the case in front of him is in fact trying to handle his own case. That’s how I see it.
    Best wishes

    1. This discussion is much wider than the subject of Scientology – it covers any ideological preconceived goal for an individual or any preconceived methodology to achieve that goal. Scientology is merely an example where this can go astray.

  12. Today, my 12 years old son and I were commenting on the origin of the universe as stated by the cosmologist Stephen Hawking where he says that at the begining of it there was just a timeless small mass and which, suddenly and without the free will of any god, exploded in a bing bang creating time. My son told me that he thougth it to be incomplete and wrong. So here we have the two most basic assumptions about the existence: the existence of a free will creator and the existence of random and wild matter and time. It is my opinion that one needs to start with one assumption on these and then follow that path to a goal and why. I FEEL my son is right and from there I follow a series of natural assumptions as for the why and the where we go. About proof, I think Stephen Hawking doesn´t have any either. Intuition and insight are the tool to advance.

    1. Human beings assume that events must mean something, or have a purpose.

      This assumption can cause you to reject anything you can’t find meaning in, like a “MEST-oriented” theory like the Big Bang.

      There’s is a lot of evidence supporting the theory of the Big Bang.

      You just haven’t supplied its meaning yet.

    2. This is of course interesting, although somewhat Off-Topic as the OP is about what someone assume when they try to help another (assumption of what they want and the assumption about how to get there).

      What you post here can be a nice Off-Topic sub-thread.

    3. Two of the few principals that I teach at home are for my children to “know what they know” and to “not know what they don’t know.” I feel this sets them up to learn and sets them up to proof them against false or misleading data as a poka yoke.

    4. Chris, good poka yoke, I wonder what would happen if this tool were used in hot subjects of big interest like the reality of memoires on the scn 2nd returnees or pt exteriorization phenomena ( no faith allowed ).

  13. Here is my take:

    There are so many different religions, therapeutic practices or ideologies with different goals providing so much variety that one can always find an activity which resonates with them.

    This is a good thing.


    1. I fully concur.

      And if each and every one of them would stop assuming that they are the ONE Truth, the ONE Path, then they could be seen as the tool in the greater toolbox that they actually are.

      1. Only Semitic religions seem to assume that they are the ONE truth, ONE path. I do not see other activities doing that.

        Science uses the scientific method and welcomes further investigations. That is the case with Buddhism, KHTK, Idenics and many other activities.

        That was also the case with Scientology too when it started, but it veered toward being “ONE truth, ONE path” with KSW policy and the way that policy was implemented.

        You just have a general assumption here.


        1. I think that I am going to end this conversation here because this seems to be your standard response when you feel cornered in an argument.


          1. It is not an argument. It is probing of realities. It is not a question of who is right or wrong. It is about trying to find out more – although even that should be validly questioned.

        2. Vin,

          There are other religions or branches that also look at views being the ‘One truth or Path’ – some in Christianity (look at the Southern USA), LDS church to a degree, Scientology …

          It is not just Semitic religions


            In a religious context, the term ‘Semitic’ can refer to the religions associated with the speakers of these languages: thus Judaism, Christianity and Islam are often described as “Semitic religions” (irrespective of language family spoken by their adherents). Manicheanism and the Mandaean religion also fall within this category.

            The term Abrahamic religions is more commonly used today. A truly comprehensive account of “Semitic” religions would include the Ancient Semitic religions (such as Mesopotamian religion and Canaanite Religion) that flourished in the Middle East long before the Abrahamic religions.

          2. Maybe my use of the term “Semitic Religions” is confusing. It has been confusing to many others too on other boards.

            What I really mean is “Self oriented” religions. These religions look at God having a self. This is not the case with religions like Vedas, Hinduism and Buddhism. These eastern religions use personifications for abstract ideas. But essentially they don’t look at God having a self. They look at God more like “unknowable.”

            Aesop’s Fables is an example of this personification of abstract ideas. Aesop’s Fables came originally from Panchtantra of Hinduism.

            Buddhism tends to be more abstract than Hinduism, but both are dealing with the same abstract ideas.

            From now on, instead of the terms “Semitic” and “Vedic” religions, I shall be using the terms, “self-oriented” and “non-self oriented” religions.


            1. I admit that there are seemingly “self-oriented” sects in Hinduism, especially in Bhakti Yoga tradition, but in those sects, also, “self” is ultimately considered to be an “illusion” or something impermanent even when applied to God.


            2. Vinaire –

              Another way to slice religions is to divide them into the route to “salvation” that they offer.

              Some religions offer a route to salvation based on faith.

              Other religions offer a route to salvation based on knowledge.

              Usually, the faith-based routes to salvation require faith in a god or a savior – what you might call a “self”.

              But knowledge-based routes to salvation do not require any self to pray to, entreat, or have faith in.

              This division between faith and knowledge routes to salvation was first presented to me in Elaine Pagel’s excellent book “Beyond Belief”. She was talking about the different Christian, Jewish, Roman and Greek sects scattered around the Mediterranean before 300AD. She showed how the Rome-based “Paulines” in Christianity eventually won out over the other gnostic christian and platonist sects because they had one list of books – the canon – which they were able to now enforce through the orthodox power of Rome when they converted the Emperor Constantine. The Paulines favored the writings of the Apostle Paul, which is why his books and his particular interpretations of faith-as-salvation in Christianity are considered the whole of Christian teaching today.

              There were a lot of knowledge-as-salvation Christians and platonists and even jews around before 300 AD. But their books were banned from The List (canon) and so anyone who still used those books were deemed “heretics” (meaning They CHOSE which books to study and call sacred rather than being TOLD by the bishops of the time). Those “heretics” and “pagens”, and their books, were burned and otherwise eradicated for the next many centuries by the “Paulines” who became the Catholic Church.

              And so we see here Geir’s point about assumptions:

              One route assumes faith.

              The other route assumes knowledge.

              That’s how I like to slice the religions I find, rather than “semitic” or “self”.

              This understanding also clarified for me my reasoning for picking Scientology over all the other organized religions around me in my early 20’s in the cornfields of the mid-west. The only really organized knowledge route available to me was Scientology. They had 2 missions with staff each within 50 miles from me. I had no real idea why I was picking Scientology over Christianity – I just thought that faith was not my bag, I’d rather go the knowledge route.

              So another assumption I had was that knowledge was my route to salvation and Scientology contained the knowledge necessary for my salvation.

            3. Alanzo, thanks for the excellent information. Hinduism recommends four paths – Bhakti (through devotion), Karma (through action), Raja (through mind), and Jnana (through knowledge). I have always preferred the path through knowledge. These is a very good way of slicing the routes for spiritual enhancement. But none of these paths in Hinduism stress self as basically important. Personification of God is used, especially in Bhakti, but even there God is considered to be something abstract.

              There are the paths of devotion and knowledge in the West too as you mentioned, but as you know God is looked as being both in a devotion based religion, such as Christianity, and in the knowledge-based religion such as Scientology.

              I find the root of ignorance to be the focus on self. It is great for improving the physical aspects of living, but it is not so good for enhancing the spiritual aspects of living, in my opinion.

              India was once a great nation in terms of both physical and spiritual standards. Everybody seems to be beating a path to India at one time. That is how Americal was discovered. India went into a decline both physically and spiritually, as it was invaded again and again by foreigners. But it did impart its knowledge to the foreigners bringing positive spiritual changes in other nations.

              So, I would like to differntiate “self-oriented” religions from eastern “abstract” religions.


            4. I keep getting the picture of India being raped, over and over.

              Is that your picture or is it mine?

            5. Uhhhhh, wasn’t India in decline long before it came in contact with “the West”? In fact India wasn’t particularly unified for much of it’s long history, was it?

            6. No they don’t Vin. Your Eastern religions have exactly one jillion gods, so far and counting.

              It is natural for a “human” to personify his gods, and that is what he does whether or not he is from India.

              If you are looking for a religion that doesn’t personify their god, maybe try Islam which prohibits the creation of “likenesses” as an abomination of Allah. Now Islam is a Western religion but they have a god which is unknowable except through the translations of The Prophet.

            7. Chris, I think Eastern religions are just Eastern religions. They do not belong to anybody. They are not mine for sure. Any idea of belongingness is just an assumption.

              In my view, gods in Eastern religions do not have the same meaning as God in Western religions. According to the Hymn of Creation of Vedas, even the gods were created later. How, where and by whom, is left to imagination.

              The issue here is not the personification of gods or God. The issue is fixation on the immortality of self.


            8. @Tor — thanks — I was aware of that as I do have an ancestry on at least one side of my family that comes down the Anglo Saxons, to the Danes, and to the Icelanders. Our family was supposedly Christian. In reality the women had brought the traditional religion on down the line in a somewhat Christianized version. Eg. Christmas was always a very very big deal throughout our families but it was more Yuletide than Christ-mass. And no way would my family celebrate without a tree.

          3. Vin caught me out and I had to bone up on Vinnie’s meaning of “Western” religions and now “Semitic.” Religions with Abraham as their father are both “western” and “Semitic.” Popular culture culture means Jew when you say Semite. However, a broader meaning allows LDS to also come under this heading as does Islam.

            1. Chris, I don’t see those as “Western” religions anyway. They are “western” only relative to the Vedic traditions and in terms of geography there are religions farther east like in China and Japan, Mongolia etc.

              I see the “family history” of the religions Vinnie talks about as being on a chain of transmission that goes something like this: Vedas/Buddhism travelling West and generating local adaptations like Christianity and Islam as the Vedic ideas and practices merged with the existing Abrahamic tradition based in the Kaballah. I believe the Kaballistic is an independent tradition about as old as the Vedic, being about 6,000 years old itself, as the Jewish calendar runs back close to6,000 years.

              They are all “Eastern” religions as far as I’m concerned.

              Considered “Western” might be whatever the Celts anciently believed, and more recently Scientology, which is quite Western in origin although it has an Eastern flavor in some of it’s basics.

              But that may be because truth is truth, no matter how it is colored by language and culture to seem different from one place to another.

            2. Valkov: I think you are right about your analysis — the Western religions were that of the Celts, and also of the Anglo Saxons. You can recognize the influence and traditions of those religions by examining western holiday traditions, for these were the original celebrations and ceremonies of the Celts and Anglo Saxons — the solstice celebrations, sympathetic magic, the world tree, and so on are actually Northern European. The virtues of heroism, individualism, and self-reliance directly come from their world view and sense of religion. There’s a short, but well written essay on it at:

              “Northern cosmology describes nine worlds, representing states of being rather than physical places, which are grouped around the axis of the World Tree. When this cycle of existence is completed, they will be destroyed so that a new world can appear. Midgard, the world in which we live, is part of this hallowed whole.

              The shape of a person’s life is determined by the fate (which might be seen as the interaction of heredity and environment) established by the Norns at birth, but each person is responsible for his or her actions, and the way in which this wyrd is played out depends on the individual’s free will. After death, the human spirit lives on with the gods, or in the earth, or with the ancestors, and may choose to be reborn. But the emphasis is on life, which should be lived for its own sake with courage, integrity, and joy.”

            3. That’s right. That’s how I thought about it as well. Then when I looked it up I was surprised to find:

              “The term Western religion refers to religions that originated within Western culture, and are thus which historically, culturally, and theologically distinct from the Eastern religions. The contrast between Western and Eastern religions largely pertains to the distinction between monotheism and polytheism, respectively, and the term Abrahamic religion is often used in lieu of using the East and West terminology.”


              Eastern Religion

              especially check out this map:

            4. @Maria : Nice really … You may be aware that the Åsatro (OK, that’s supposed to be the scandinavian a with a circle above …) is an official religion at Iceland … It literally means “belief in Æs’er” where these are kind of gods … … there is actually some people as well claiming Åsgård is denoting Asov (by the Black Sea I think) and the Æs’er were people from there going north via the waterways as the roman empire got a bit too uncomfortable as a neighbour …

            5. Well folks, a few weekslater, I am now reconsidering the “Eastern vs. Western” religions thing. Instead of looking at them from a geographic point of view, I have been looking at them from a “genetic”, linguistic point of view. Well, it appears to me now that everything from Hinduism(Vedas) on down can be looked at as “Western”.

              How so? Because of its Indo-European origins.

              Looking at it that way, what makes more of a difference than geography, is Time or age. It appears to me the “older” religions are more Animistic, whether they are Eastern or western. There are holdovers of Animism East of India, but of the earliest Western religions we know little, largely because they were effectively suppressed out of view by Christianity, which saw itself as such an “improvement” over the “old ways”.

              I’m not sure where the Celtic beliefs fit into this time-continuum way of looking at religions. Or,for example, the old Norse beliefs and cosmology. What were the original beliefs of the Basque people? Or the Welsh, who are apparently genetically related to the Basque, although they long since lost any language they had in common with the Basques.

              Even the original beliefs about life and existence of the early Slavic people are largely lost, suppressed and overlaid by Christianity, although a little information survives.

              I suspect here is actually a wealth of knowledge of about “non-Aryan” beliefs recorded in Russia, because of the large number of “non-Western” ethnic groups existing in Siberia, some of whom may be ancestral to the Native Americans. And what do the Mongols basically believe? All of East Asia had their “old ways” before they were overlaid by Buddhism, Hinduism,and Islam. What were their original beliefs?

              This is actually very muddy water, much like the questions of “race”and genetics, and the classification into “eastern” and “western” religions is looking like a vast oversimplification based on dominance of numbers and little else.

            6. I find it interesting that the old Barabaig religion (of Tanzania/Kenya) resembles to a large extent that of Christianity/Judaism. That was well before those religions were formed.

            7. This is quite a good post Valkov. We know so little about our ancestral people as to be laughable. When a history – for whatever the accuracy of that history is worth – is lost, we call the knowledge of those cultures pre-historic. Then we “teach” our children with sketches that show “prehistoric” wild-men with unkept hair and crude fur clothing standing next to mastodons and fighting sabertooths with sticks.

              In fact, this seems to be the worst kind of dub-in. Our ancestral pasts were cultures that were well-developed and rich with knowledge of Nature. Not too far from here, in New Mexico resides aboriginal ruins in “Chaco Canyon.” The elaborate architecture at this site demonstrates not only knowledge of the movements of the Sun but also of the Moon which is much harder to follow because its cycles last years longer. This ruined site shows no signs of permanent residences but appears to be a “convention center.” People seemed to have traveled great distances to congregate in Chaco Canyon to simply meet and interact only to depart to their real homes elsewhere. At a point, the site was “closed up” and deliberately abandoned then never used again.

              We assume that extant civilization is the pinnacle of civilization which man has achieved to date. That our knowledge is senior knowledge. That knowledge of “lesser developed” species is inferior knowledge. That newer knowledge, by virtue of its newness, is senior knowledge to older knowledge by virtue of its oldness.

              There must be a word to describe this. A word which describes man’s inclination to see older knowledge as inferior and his fascination with “new things.”

              Spiritually, mankind is not making improvements, is it? Mankind remains fascinated by the spiritual but his spiritual “knowledge” becomes more and not less superstitious. Hubbard had us convinced that technology such as psycho-electro-meters and a “science” of the soul would make the long awaited breakthroughs.

              Possibly these “breakthroughs” (to the other side) have routinely been made through the ages? Possibly these breakthroughs have simply been so counterintuitive as to seem too weird to us? Too different than our assumptions?

            8. The “Eastern vs. Western” religions issue is certainly not geographic. To me it is Brahma vs. A-brahma (Abraham). “A-brahma” means “not-Brahma” which views God as a being, and seems to reject the process of “net,neti.”


            9. Although there is a plethora of other religions or beliefs not falling into that dichotomy.

            10. Geir, how old are the Barabaig and their original religion?

              The calender of Judaism extends back continuously about 5,700 years…. That’s pretty far back.

              As far as “Abrahamic” goes, there have been currents of Monotheism in Hinduism/Vedic teachings for a very long time, too. I think Monotheism is perhaps one of the “archetypes” of the human collective unconscious, dormant in some people, active in others.

              I am thinking the oldest religions on Earth tend to be Animistic.

              Chris, very good post there. In fact, this notion of “Our culture (including our religion) is the most evolved ever” is a strong tradition in the West AND in the East.

              It was the basis of the imperialism indulged in by the British Empire and other European empire builders.. The occupation and colonization of other continents was overtly described as an obligation, the “White man’s burden”, which was to “civilize” all those “heathens”. It was the British, I believe, who coined and used the term “wog”, referring to those of other cultures.

              To this day, some Christian writers(apologists?) proclaim Christian Monotheism as the pinnacle of religious evolution. I think in the recent past even American school textbooks reflected this kind of view.

              In the East, this kind of chauvinism is commonplace. Each cultural group speaks of itself as superior to all others. The Chinese are notorious for this kind of attitude, but in fact the Japanese, Koreans, Mongols etc express the same kind of sentiments – “Anyone who is not of our cultural group are Barbarians!”

              It’s so in Africa, too. Any tribe is liable to consider itself superior to all others.

              Speaking of imperialism, Christianity has been used to spear head the subversion and subjugation of native cultures the world over, particularly in the USA.

            11. They are an African tribe and I don’t think there is any exact dating – but it is an old African tribe…

            12. Currently I am working in an explanation of religion from a quantum viewpoint. may be any religion has a true bit of the truth. Like in the double slit experiment, there is a dual nature in the existence. There is the intuitive and statistically accountable aspect of the existence and there is the probabilistic reality with his counterintuitive component ( but understandable once the rules of that creation are known ), just pondering…

            13. Chris, thanks maybe someday will be complete, but by now I can tell that it makes more sense to me the probabilistic handling of events by God instead of the empiric one. What is good or bad depends of the probability of the action to cause harm or aid 🙂

            14. A quick word about Animism – this is largely and simply the belief in spirits (or thetans), and that they are largely responsible for things that happen.

            15. Chris, I tend to think this: The “other side” is always present, it’s always right here and now, but we have made ourselves blind to it (or have been made blind to it by implants). The old teaching is that Man is “asleep”, aware of the “apparency of existence” (samsara, maya, illusion) but not of it’s actual reality. Thus Buddha, “I am awake”. What is unstated is that the Awakened One could see beings(spirits, thetans), not just bodies, and communicate with them. It’s really simple hypnotism, what LRH calls “control operations”.

              Agreements such as that MEST objects are more “real” than mental creations, thoughts postulates, “imagination”, etc. can easily be implanted by any common hypnotist.

              This teaching goes back to pre-Buddhist, Vedic times and possibly beyond.

              Before this, there was a greater awareness of the presence and activity of spirits in everyday life, perhaps the curtains of illusion had not yet fallen as deeply over the eyes of humanity as they have since.

              Incidentally, I find all this right there in LRH’s lectures, but it is not easily accepted by Western minds, and is usually glossed over one way or another, or lampooned, ridiculed, or otherwise invalidated.

            16. Good post. I won’t ridicule it because I agree with it and it is currently the subject of my own research into free will. Yes, I am confident that this universe is plenty large enough to contain anything including “the other side” and that right up next to us and laying on our shoulder and sitting on the bridge of our noses. There is room for a trillion trillion universes to shuffle in between and around the tiny bit of space that we use.

            17. Scientology assumes that man is degraded and becoming more degraded. LRH used technology and space opera to “prove” his point that man is on yet again another dead end cycle.

              Evolution and spiritual evolutionists posit that man is evolving ever higher. Technology is cited as being a reason to believe this.

              Your thoughts?

        3. Actually Vin, you kind of seem to do that with harping about the need to align with Buddhism, Vedic poems, KHTK, etc.,. these disciplines may not require it, I don’t know, but you sort of do.

          1. Well, if I have failed to convey it clearly what I mean then it is a failure on my part. This may be because it is an ongoing process for clarity for myself as well.

            At this point I am looking at the immortality of self to be an assumption. All Semitic religion seems to be based on that assumption, whereas, the eastern religions do not seem to make that assumption.

            This is where I am at.


      2. “then they could be seen as the tool in the greater toolbox that they actually are.”

        Yes, I agree with you here. There are many tools one can use to forward a particular purpose or effort or desire. Using a tool suited to the purpose or intent facilitates. Using an unsuitable tool does not and can have unexpected or unwanted outcomes.

        There are those who seek absolute truth, some seek oblivion, some pleasure, some learning, others look for comfort or ease, still others just want to make enough money to feed their children, and on and on it goes. Finding suitable tools and developing skills and comprehension to facilitate the intent / effort is what is valuable to a particular person at a particular point in time.

      3. I actually think that with the translations of all the religious texts from around the world begin to make their way across our greatly expanded communication lines (media publishing, internet, travel, etc) that a new “religion” is being born.

        It is a religion that was not possible before.

        It is a collective religion which includes samples from any and every religion and sacred text ever written, and the latest discoveries of science too. In fact, I took a picture of my religion.

        Here it is:

  14. I understand the breadth of what you are aiming at with assumptions, Gier.

    Here’s a good description I found for assumption.

    An assumption is something we take for granted or presuppose. Usually it is something we previously learned and do not question. It is part of our system of beliefs. We assume our beliefs to be true and use them to interpret the world about us. If we believe that it is dangerous to walk late at night in big cities and we are staying in Chicago, we will infer that it is dangerous to go for a walk late at night. We take for granted our belief that it is dangerous to walk late at night in big cities. If our belief is a sound one, our assumption is sound. If our belief is not sound, our assumption is not sound. Beliefs, and hence assumptions, can be unjustified or justified, depending upon whether we do or do not have good reasons for them. Consider this example: “I heard a scratch at the door. I got up to let the cat in.” My inference was based on the assumption (my prior belief) that only the cat makes that noise, and that he makes it only when he wants to be let in.

    Assumptions can color your whole view of life.

    I think unexamined assumptions are not worth living.

    1. Yes, Alanzo — and add to this the phenomena of the person who “sees” a snake out of the corner of their eye and freaks out. Upon examination, the snake is really a bit of rope. Or the person thinking of buying a red volkswagen suddenly noticing that there are a LOT of red objects and volkswagens all over the place, more than there ever were before! So it can be a factor of vigilance or hyper-vigilance.

        1. No Alanzo!!!!!


          I am helping you with your assumption, and if I do a good job, you won’t need that big brain of yours — you’ll be in Heaven blissing out!

          🙂 🙂 🙂

          assumption (etymology)
          c.1300, “the reception, uncorrupted, of the Virgin Mary into Heaven,” also the Church festival (Aug. 15) commemorating this, Feast of the Assumption, from O.Fr. assumpcion and directly from L. assumptionem (nom. assumptio) “a taking, receiving,” noun of action from pp. stem of assumere (see assume). Meaning “minor premise of a syllogism” is late 14c. Meaning “appropriation of a right or possession” is mid-15c. Meaning “action of taking for oneself” is recorded from 1580s; that of “something taken for granted” is from 1620s.

  15. I do not think that any of these religions, therapeutic practices or ideologies, etc., are making any assumptions. They won’t have been there, or even have gotten started, if there no popular support behind them. So I question the premise of this essay.

    In a broad sense, all considerations are based on postulates, and all postulates are arbitrary assumptions, This makes all reality to be based on assumption. So, not all assumptions are dangerous.

    So, what is dangerous? I would say that the dangerous thing would be to close one’s eyes to inconsistencies, and not resolve them.


    1. See my answer a few comments up.

      As a side note; Please do not promote your own work as anything superior without the proof of such.

    2. Please see my answer to your answer a few comments up. Your premise is not correct. It does not apply to all activities as you are assuming.

      As to your side note, please do not assume what I write here is a promotion of my work being superior. I am simply clarifying the principles that were first enunciated by Buddha. It is not promoted as “ONE truth, ONE path.” Anybody is welcome to contribute to that effort. I do not own it. It is totally free. It does not make any money for me.

      If you question my presentation of Buddha’s work then that is fine. You have a right to do that just as I question your work on your blog. That is simply a matter of discussion. No need to get huffy-puffy about it.

    3. Vin: ” I do not think that any of these religions, therapeutic practices or ideologies, etc., are making any assumptions. ”


      What about a basic assumption of many religions that there is such a thing as ‘God’

      This for many is an assumption; for some, they claim to ‘know him’ .

      It is not a matter of right or wrong, nor that a person believes what they believe.


      The OP above states: ” The point I am getting at is that such assumptions can be dangerous. An assumption about what the person wants can lead him astray from himself. An assumption about what is “obviously” the best path to a goal that he truly wants can lead him into missed opportunities or even into the woods. Assumptions are the hallmark of failures.

      What is often missing, is the assessment of what the person himself really, truly wants. And no matter how convinced the therapist, friend or random-person-wanting-to-help is about the “obvious” goal, it may be completely wrong. Or if the person’s goal aligns with a certain methodology’s goal, that path may still be the wrong path ‘for that person’. ”

      Assumptions are part of life … one judges by previous experience, education, etc.

      Even Scientology could be looked at as knocking out erroneous assumptions be they identities, considerations, or …

      Each has his own path to discover – assuming that Scientology or KHTK or anything else has a lock on every bit of knowledge needed to rocket a person to his spiritual end, to me is a definite set-up for missed opportunities.

      Even LRH mentioned ‘rubbing elbows with all manner of men’. In a broad sense, one has to discover for himself.

      But the basic assumption is that there IS something to discover.

      1. Any therapy should simply address a person’s confusions and help that person sort out those confusions.

        If there are confusions, pain and suffering then there are confusions, pain and suffering. There is no assumption there. That is the is-ness.


            1. Exactly – so an assumption that the person wants to handle pain, suffering or confusions can lead the person away from what he really wants.

            2. There is nothing wrong with forwarding a solution to pain and suffering. People can exercise their choice to go for that solution or not.


        1. The ideal therapy would be one that a person can do by himself or herself. Such therapy would be free. Guidance would be avaiable if the person wants it.

          Vipassana (KHTK) aims for that ideal.


          1. I believe in a multitude of goals, of paths – all free, all changeable and adaptable, where everyone is free to set his own goals and use the tools best suited for the correct path according to the person himself.

            1. I disagree. If you want to conclude that any path that does not require “looking” is invalid, then be my guest. Just don’t impose that conclusion on others – as others may decide to take advantage of other paths.

            2. Your disagreement is noted. I am not concluding anything. I am not imposing my conclusions on anybody either.

              What is IS. People are capable of looking at is-ness. I am simply providing my observations. No need to get upset about it.


    4. Vinaire said: “So, what is dangerous? I would say that the dangerous thing would be to close one’s eyes to inconsistencies, and not resolve them. .”

      Yes, I was balking at the dangerous comment in the OP but not sure what I wanted to say about it. This resolves that for me.

  16. I like the idea of religions being ideologies with goals. I had thought of them as being kind of distortions of truth, if you believe that religious claims have actually positive truth values.

  17. Here is a procedure that is designed to gradiently take care of all assumptions.


    You do not have to click on this link if you do not want to. Nobody is forcing you. 🙂

    This is not intended to be a promotion. It is simply presented as a comment to t the OP.


  18. IMO, a soul exists just the same way that any idea exists.

    It exists in the mind. It is part of a theory. A theory may be improved.

    I find the theory of spirit (atman) to be more consistent than the theory of a soul (self bereft of body).

    But, ultimately, even atman is extinguishable per Buddha.


    1. Alanzo said:

      “Surely there are causes and conditions which arise which can sustain a soul’s existence. Such as consciousness, fabrications, mental objects, and perceptions – four of the five skhandas.”

      Of course. 🙂

      I am simply pointing out what appears to be an inconsistency to me.

      I believe that spiritual and physical are two different aspects of the same system. When name and form are destroyed for the body upon death, it is destroyed for the self too in my opinion.

      The “body and self” may get transformed into part of some universal spirit.


        1. Not at all! Vinaire hopes for help from the Unknowable as fervently as anyone — he just hasn’t found a way to know about it yet and admits this to himself.

      1. “When name and form are destroyed for the body upon death, it is destroyed for the self too in my opinion.”

        It may be true that name and form are destroyed for the body and “destroyed for the self too”. However, consider the notion that what is not destroyed is an awareness of oneself as an existence that is not connected to a body or anything else.

        The simple phrase – aware of being aware – says it succinctly. For me, that seems to mean aware of oneself as oneself. And that particular awareness – specific, precise and unembellished – would need no connection to anything physical to exist as a pure awareness.

        Can you conceive of that possibility, or at least that idea?

          1. Happy Sunday, Elizabeth!

            Thanks for the ack. That is my own personal “sense” of it, separate and apart from all the thinking and reasoning that can be done on the subject. Vinaire himself said in a previous comment:

            “3) To understand this universe fully we must use a reference point that is beyond this universe.

            “(4) That point beyond the universe cannot be known from a viewpoint derived from this universe.”

            From the above, it seems to me that his viewpoint about whether or not the soul exists should be only that it is “unknowable”. For him to say anything else is being inconsistent. 😉

            1. Marildi, he has my total agreement on 3 and 4. The only confusion he enters here, if there would be no existence of the soul, than how have he arrived to such a conclusion of #3-#4?
              Who would be doing the “looking” and knowing what is the meaning “from here to there and there to here? We know what is here, but what is there, can he describe that through experience, from experience, or only have assumption of such a concept “beyond this universe” or the knowingness of such? From where those thoughts originated from, have been read, or experienced? Writing on the wall is just that, writing on the wall.

            2. You have stated exactly what I meant too. And lIke you, I agree with his 3 and 4 – but then his statements about no existence of soul contradicts the fact that he would be able to make such a statement. That’s why I said he is being “inconsistent” (ouch :D).

        1. Is there awareness of still being a specific personality package that was part of the body which died?

          I doubt that.


          1. Vinaire;”In my opinion, the demand for “who, what, where” results in dub-in for unknowable.

            PS: If you thinking on the line that “God” is the unknowable, than here is a bit of news for you. “God created man in his image” If that is true, than we surly all know God because we are created in his image, and we sure know lot about human nature through asking the question “what, Why and Where, than there is no unknowable. Your thoughts please?

    1. Since you are posting so many at a time, it is the only way I can assure that I address the points you want me to address. If I am away and more than 9 comments have been posted, it’s a drag to find them among the discussions.

  19. Does Vinnie really want you to address any of his points? You are doing an heroic job of trying to create and maintainTwo-way Comm with him. Or the illusion of such.

    Whereas I tend to view him as talking whether or not anyone is listening, a la “getting stuff out of his head” to make room for the additional stuff that just seems to keep crowding in from somewhere….. Perhaps he just needs to keep on making his head bigger to make room for it all? 🙂 heh hehehe

          1. Vinaire: “In my opinion, the demand for “who, what, where” results in dub-in for unknowable
            NO Vin, Asking those questions which contain the WHO, WHERE, WHAT, Do eliminate the Unknowable.. but of course only if one dare to use those words, but i am sure you have just done that otherwise you would not do puzzles, you would not be a engineer, even dressing up would be impassible. without those words there would be no electricity and there would be no suspenders to hold your pants up, for fact you would be not wearing any.. but most all, the knowledge would be not yours what ever you have accumulated by reading—learning. So Lets see, what is the unknowable? existing only which you have not explored so far, looked into through those helping words:where, why, who. I my reality there is room for expansion at all time into all direction for everyone. So what you say?

          1. Okay, but that consensus reality portion of it – is that expanding per se, because of new creations?

            1. I believe so.

              I am also pondering whether it is possible to think a thought in this universe without it also then being created by everyone involved… radical.

            2. It doesn’t seem radical if you consider the fact that thoughts are really no different from other physical universe energy, other than being of higher wave lengths – in fact it seems more consistent, less radical from that viewpoint.

              And it would make sense that that particular increase of energy – thought energy – is why the universe is expanding, assuming scientists are right about “’physical universe energy” not being possible to create or destroy.

              I have been pondering more about whether thoughts are created out of the quantum wave field, using that basic (possibly theta) source from which to coalesce new thoughts/postulates. And maybe the highly evolved beings are creating more of the wave field (theta?) as needed.

            3. This is an interesting direction. Nut to entertain this direction, we at least need to dispense with the impossibility of creating new energy. That wouldn’t be so odd after all, since the law of conservation of energy really hinges on “no destruction” as it has never been seen in any experiment that energy has “disappeared”, That does not mean that it cannot – only that it has not been observed in any experiment. The “no-creation”, on the other hand should prove much more elusive to try to validate or invalidate.

            4. Glad you said more about the science viewpoint about energy conservation. It didn’t seem right that thought energy could be created but not so-called physical, but I figured that was a matter of agreement, somehow…

              When you say you are “pondering whether it is possible to think a thought in this universe without it also then being created by everyone involved”, what do you mean by everyone “involved”. I missed that when I first read it.

            5. I mean Everyone – everyone that is creating this universe right now; You, me, every spirit, aware or not, entities, all.

            6. This topic brings up an earlier confusion. You have expressed that the universe is created upon observation. That seems contradictory since the meaning of “observation” would imply something already there to be observed.

            7. I think that is a general misunderstanding about “observation”. I believe we create what we experience and experience what we create – At The Same Instant. Frame by frame. And everyone is creating this universe – frame by frame. How Will hooks into this exactly is what I am pondering.

            8. GEIR:””I mean Everyone – everyone that is creating this universe right now; You, me, every spirit, aware or not, entities, all.””


            9. Isn’t there is a “probability range” (or however it’s termed), which may be relatively narrow but within which one can exercise free will as to what one decides to create? Or have I missed what you mean.

            10. This is part of the question – exactly what one can “will” and how one “wills” stuff. It seems that “will” collapses wave functions – but to what extent does collapsing wave functions change the scene for everyone and how fast, and how much and how fast does this ripple, if at all?

            11. I would like to add that regarding these fundamental questions, I love to have people like you and Maria and Chris to play ball with. And I would love to have Vinaire pitch in regarding this as well – without reiterating his already reiterated viewpoints – to really play ball. That would be nice. Also for everyone wanting to look into exactly how we create, how we exercise our will and how everyone comes to observe-create-observe this. Or to rip apart my ideas on this and change my viewpoints into something better. Just like you’re doing – instead of chess-playing who’s right and who’s wrong – to explore new viewpoints, new vistas of understanding. THIS is what I really love about blogging.

              Time to go to sleep. Nite 🙂

            12. Okay, keeping it real for me, let’s say a guy chooses (exercises will) to take a right turn instead of a left. Would that mean that he has collapsed all the many, many wave functions involved in that decision and action, i.e. all parts of the physical universe so affected – his own car, other cars’ movements in relation to his, etc? Assuming there is indeed a level of connection among beings, all of them everywhere would know about it on some level and some people would see him driving down the road that he took while others might much later see the tire marks he may have left.

            13. Geir I think there has to be some degree of probability involved with almost anything, depending. Take the example you sometimes use of placebos – we know that the mind itself can change the statistics (probabilities) for a given ailment just because of the placebo effect. Hasn’t that been proven even by science and hence the double-blind tests?

              But the main principle, I figure, is that where free will comes into play it is involved with postulates, i.e. decisions=choices. Postulates and free will seem to be two sides of the same coin. I’m not sure if this relates directly to wave collapse – maybe it is just a phenomenon higher on the fractal sequence and the exact probablilites become complicated by many complex factors.

            14. It may be that probability is merely the combination of all wills – i.e. that the randomness is simply an illusion.

            15. Oh wow, “combination of all Wills” seems like the basis of everything I can think of – could it be the single assumption for a theory of everything? What doesn’t it explain or data doesn’t it fit?

            16. Agreed. This could be. Also there may be an illusion of will . . . The epiphany, or sudden “levelling of inconsistencies” may also come under heading of illusion . . .

              I can imagine KG saying that just because we are only illusion doesn’t also mean that we aren’t real. haha

              What I would like to express in some way is that in a universe of infinite possibilities, there would inherently be infinite possibilities… (I really hate it when people explain their statements with a repeat of their statements…especially myself)

            17. Geir, I’m hoping for some feedback from you (if you’ve gone to sleep, then tomorrow) and/or anybody else that’s interested, because the more I think about it the more I like this idea you posted just above – that “It may be that probability is merely the combination of all wills.” To me, that seems to align everything – both physical and non-physical.

              Looking at it in a smaller scope, I remember the discussion we all had a while back, on the question of what would determine whose postulate would take effect when there were several people making conflicting postulates. In the end, it seemed to me that it would be the postulate that contained the highest amount of energy or force – not just in relation to the postulates of the others immediately involved but in general, which would even include all the energy of agreements (postulates) that determine the laws of the physical universe. With that idea in mind, it’s easy to see that a postulate that conflicts with basic physics would have no chance (other than with OTs who operate outside this system) of sticking, i.e. manifesting in the physical universe.

              Simply put, considerations – which obviously involve the Will of one or more beings – govern the whole energy system we call the universe, and the greater the number of beings putting a given reality there with their postulates=intentions=will and the greater the sum of the energies, the more likely a particular effect will be manifested. At the same time, any particular individual, if OT enough, could break with those general agreements, thus breaking their link with other beings – and then, no longer entangled, would be able to make things disappear as regards their own perceptions – the kinds of things Dennis, Maria and Elizabeth have described on this thread alone.

            18. Marildi:”on the question of what would determine whose postulate would take effect when there were several people making conflicting postulates. In the end, it seemed to me that it would be the postulate that contained the highest amount of energy or force ”
              The postulate which contains the highest amount of energy-force is the list affective, since force-energy is MEST, two of same cant occupy the same space. Force-energy can destroy-alter other solid item. Force-energy is Mest, its only over powers: I am stronger than you are, bigger than you, in that line, My army is etc..

            19. Thanks, E. I probably didn’t state that correctly but here’s what I was trying to say. The more agreement there is the more solidity, as in the case of the physical universe which has great agreement and great solidity.

              Agreements are basically considerations, which are continuing postulates – agreements/considerations/postulates are ways of saying thoughts – and a thought does have energy, just of a higher, finer wave length than the energy in the physical universe. My understanding is that the higher or finer the wave length, the more force it has – i.e. the more powerful it is.

              So my idea was that since this is a universe of force, the force that will predominate or prevail will be the greatest force – and it will be superior, not in non-physical realm of static (or as you say “intangible”) but in the world of energy which includes thought. I may be off in this line of thinking due to the fact that I don’t understand physics well enough, or well enough to describe this correctly.

            20. higher, is less… when it comes to power-force.

            21. Okay, let’s consider a situation where you have several people all postulating that their name will be pulled out of a hat and they will win the prize. Whose postulate is going to work?

            22. the one who is cleaner- more OT? since his postulate has less barriers to overcome.

            23. I’m thinking that someone who is “cleaner” has fewer agreements left in his bank that would conflict with whatever he is now postulating – probably including an agreement that it isn’t really possible for him to simply make a postulate and have it work. Or he may have a consideration in the bank that he is unlucky, or that everything is just by luck anyway and you only have to await your fate.

              There are no doubt many kinds of counter postulates (his and those of others) in the way of the current one and those old ones counter it somehow – how? My idea is that the laws of energy are at work because the items in the bank are all composed of energy. Even a postulate reads on a meter because it is made of energy.

            24. that is what i said, postulates is energy-force. But who has less mass as a being less force-energy-power [because much has been as-ised in session] than he has less counter postulates therefore has more chance of winning.

            25. Yes, thanks! 🙂 I was sure it came down to postulates/ageements but your explanation makes much more sense – and it fits into the laws of physics, which is still how I’m seeing things.

            26. only can be OT, when no longer have the same agreements. In fact, no agreement, considerations have existance regarding the MEST, than there is no MEST. That is theta.

            27. Marildi, Who postulates what and why only matters when there is individuality, =”self the I” is existing, as by agreements of course, therefore that brings an ownership. Soon as the “I” is entered than you have the game condition: mine yours, theirs. Who has postulated what, MEST game

            28. I do hope you don’t mind me putting in my two cents here. If there is no such a thing in the spiritual universe as “I, Self, Me ” than your line of thought is correct in my reality, No idea what belongs where and who created it since there is no who, where or why there are no thoughs, no separation, since there is no indentities established. Creation IS.

            29. I think one can indeed have source points of creation, of will – but in that each of the source points are intimately connected (perhaps even emenated/ing from the same common source {God}), then each creation from any source, any exercise of will would come into play in what we know as our universe, hence created by all that can experience the effects of that thought, that exercise of will.

            30. Geir you are 100% right. When first time encountered the knowledge of no identity therefore no ownership, that has given a shock, I just set in the chair dumbfounded, totally thoughtless. That reality was difficult to accept yet it has brought great happiness? There is no such a thing as Elizabeth Hamre, or I have no idea just how many believes that they are that person. If there is such person, I have no idea just how many who or where is that believed and don’t matter for one second
              In reality, my true reality I have no idea what belongs to whom, why and where. Since I own nothing and in fact I have no such a desire to own, have, or be.
              It is a most satisfying reality that I am nothing, therefore I can freely experience whatever and who has those same experiences? OH, the Unknown factor there you go Vin!
              I write very slowly, about 2-3 months back I last all the mind-memory thing, I have great difficulty re-constructing communication with words plus writing them down. The past or future is none-existent. I even had difficulty speaking, i am relearning how to function.

            31. E, I get what you’re saying and I’m seeing that viewpoint as a higher level of awareness. I agree that it fits in with what Geir said, just looking from a higher awareness or point of view.

          2. isene says:
            2012-04-10 at 00:21

            I believe the universe IS our mental creations.


            This is what I am thinking too at this moment.

            If, as per some upper level data, one’s body is a mass of pictures, entities, etc., then why not the physical universe.

            As an EP (and I would think it is an intermediate EP), one’s body goes invisible from one’s own perception. I have experienced this myself.

            Then, it could follow that this can be so of one’s view of the physical universe as well.

            This, again, is from one’s own perception.

            1. No wonder the email dont reach you.
              Invisible you say? hehehe, what MEST, what body? the words you read here, are projected from nowhere,

            2. I can see your words!! Amazing!!

              Hehe .. Hi there sweetie,

              Email … I thought I did email you with my update … we moved.

              My email is very similar to before … here it is:


            3. I had over a dozen emails coming back. I will do it again. later, but I prefer telephone. Writting with one finger, picking out the words is like the chicken eating. takes a hell of a long time to write, the problem is I dont have thought chains. I am relearning, how to communicate, when i hear the sound of my voice it is better, the communication flows easier, since I can anchor into the other person.

            4. Dennis i see a line under your email, i never be able to do that. Email me first That way the computer will hold your info. add your phone# too. mine is still the same. I know you can see my pictures my communication.. i wont undress. hehehe..

            5. Elizabeth,

              Not to worry about the line … it makes no difference. Sometimes the Internet Explorer or Firefox or other web browsers have a setting to UNDERLINE LINKS … no problem, they still work the same.

            6. when i think of you i only sense space, indigo… sparkle flare up here and there, that must be your laughter.. since you love to laugh, joy of having..

            7. Vinaire; I approve this comment of yours but will from now await your commitment to being respectful and polite on this blog before I approve more of your comments.

            8. Vin,I dont think you realize but payed me a compliment, a great compliment in fact.There are many view points attached to one thought-item so it depends on how one sees the source or the receiving end and how it is viewed, and come to the conclusion by the exemenation through -why-what-and who. I see two, a stab,which is good since you only give back which you have received from me and the other you hit the nail on the head by recognizing the fact.By saying bingo, hehehe, great fun you are and thank you… I wonder just how many occasions we ordered in the past ‘Off with his head”. this only implies we dont die, since we are still at it.

            9. Hi Dennis,

              Without us using explicit terms ;), can you say more about the inivisible stuff – what can you relate to it that would explain how and why it happens?

            10. Marildi,

              Here is an analogy which I hope communicates:

              Let’s say one is aware of this form. He can feel the outside edges, the shape, the texture, its temperature and believes it to be him. It gets poked, he feels the prodding – directly. He feels trapped in a sense – an odd feeling – he moves, it moves – direct connection.

              A bit of auditing (substitute your own practice 🙂 ) and he starts to loosen up – a bit more space and a feeling of being separate but still intimately he feels this shape part of him.

              As a bit more auditing occurs, he becomes aware that this form is a glass jar around him … he is very aware it is there – at times a black hue or cloud, heaviness, and on his good days, very light.

              A bit more auditing and he starts to feel a real separateness – he now can reach out and ‘feel’ this thing – he still considers it surrounds him.

              A bit more auditing and he addresses a section of it and it leaves – there is a hole – he can poke thru it – real space on the other side – a nothingness. The hole seems to fill up again, but there is more of a general looseness within this jar.

              He continues and recognizes that he truly is not the jar and slowly takes it apart.

              The jar disappears.

              As he walks, he is aware of air flowing ‘thru’ him – there is no resistance. There is no sensation of the jar there although he catches a glimpse of this thing in his area. He puts out a beam to move this object – his handling of it is somewhat sloppy … he realizes it is a jar – the same jar – after all it was him, wasn’t it?

              He didn’t know he wasn’t it.

              Now he sees it as a tool to use, or not.

              He controls of the jar

            11. Wow, Dennis. As I was reading I thought to crack a joke about it being some Twilight Zone episode, but by the end I was like… wow, awesome. Well told! Very well expressed!

              What more can you say about how that relates to the physical universe in general, or relationships between beings – or, you know, any of the nitty-gritty subjects that have come up today and on other theads. You are another “eye-witness”, like Elizabeth and Maria.

            12. Marildi,

              Yes, it does seem a bit out of Twilight Zone – there were a couple of episodes where a person was moving about doing various things, then the camera (he) backed off and here he was looking at a mirror of this person he thought was him. So at first he was a participant and then later watching a body(his) participating.

              In the case of the jar above, it all appears at the time that the jar is gone – which it is. I now have to feel that jar first and then I can move it. Whereas before, I had a great number of automaticities set up to operate it. They worked very well. But now, *I* have to do it.

              Could I set up more automaticities or circuits to do some of these things? Yes. But I choose not to.

              Are there still automaticities I have set up that I’m not aware of? Very likely so 🙂 It the same old jar thing except there’s another freekin’ jar 🙂 Sooner or later, I’ll get to the othe rside of the last jar hahah

              Oddly, I am never 100% certain of what I see in front of me because I have walked out of session too many times in a row to be certain that I am REALLY seeing what I am seeing – it can change in a speck of time.

              This is all good but I have fooled myself too often into believing things with such certainty that it has cut off the fruits of observation at times – now I don’t cut them off as I realize I am constantly changing how I view things and I excitedly do so. It may sound wishy-washy, but there are still underlying certainties that continue to ring true. The cognitions after realizing these underlying basics simply enhance what I ‘know’.

              But, there again I have been fooled – especially when I blow something I didn’t even know was there. Almost like that jar which started as invisible as I thought it was me, changing so I noticed it as something other than me, and continuing to a point of where it was something controlled by me. I still believe there are many things invisible to me that I will become aware of and blow. But I feel my basic beingness is somewhat unchanging … I’m simply re-gaining control of what impinges on me.

              Even that may not be 100%, but it sure is a helluva lot different than before – light years. It is amazing how well I socked myself in 🙂

            13. Dennis, “I realize I am constantly changing how I view things and I excitedly do so.”
              yes, the view points do change with every session and we retain every one as reality, so there is no solidity left as when the being is stuck in one reality only. Because we gain so many different view points on the same subject their value too vanishes and holds no importance.

            14. Elizabeth : ” yes, the view points do change with every session and we retain every one as reality, so there is no solidity left as when the being is stuck in one reality only. ”


              Yes, this is how I see it … less solidity and an ever-evolving reality – it’s quite exciting !

            15. The anticipation what is yet to come is the burning fire, that is the only anchor point left in MEST holding me here suspended and so far that fire never lessened since my first session in 73.

            16. Ha ha ha! Now I’m getting Carlos Castaneda. 😀

              This line hit me: “The cognitions after realizing these underlying basics simply enhance what I ‘know’”. Say more about the “underlying basics”?

              As per the OP, this one hit my “assumption” buttons: “But I feel my basic beingness is somewhat unchanging … I’m simply re-gaining control of what impinges on me.”

              Another thing – what do you say about “Oneness” and mutual creation of the universe and telepathic connections?

            17. total reality on both, gone, as-ised. when that has happened the so called “mind-memory bank, thoughts, all automatically created things too vanished. I thought I had a stroke on incident since the body is 72. Since i has difficulty finding words, speaking. I went to see a doctor, had test done, the body is in total health. My ability to speak has comming back but writting is very difficult. concepts come and go like a flash,they just vanish, for writting them down I have to pull them back somehow and reconstuck but to make sense i have to go over and over the whole bloody mass. Hehehe, not easy to be without the automatic in the automatic universe. Invisible.. right, the only dress i can put on is invisible, but the stars look good as decoration. yes?

          3. Geir wrote:

            I believe the universe IS our mental creations.

            I used to agree with you. Then I practiced a form of meditation on selflessness that changed my mind.

   has monthly retreats. These are teachers who give four lectures over four weeks. The one I mention here was by a guy named Rodney Smith, and it is the retreat titled “Selfless Practice”.


          1. Your smilies were well received! 😀

            Seems this subject has struck a chord, and I hope you will share your thoughts and experiences if the spirit moves you. 🙂

            1. I have the same sense as Dennis — he describes it so well, even down to the doubt of it all. One day I was walking and the world was swirling into form as I walked and for a stunning moment I saw it as this flowing process all around me moving into focus — it was a shift in focus but not in location. Its so hard to explain but it was so very, very real — more real than any other reality. Another time I saw that all the events in my friends and family’s reality had no real substance — it was all created, every bit of it and the meaning was added. Real as all this was to me, I am diffident about it all as I am so quick to dismiss it. But even as I dismiss it, it never goes away any more. It’s like I woke up from a dream yet the dream continues but I never sleep unaware of it any more. Dennis, Elizabeth, Geir, everyone who speaks of this brings tears to my eyes because I never thought anyone would ever speak of this impossible yet unbelievably real state of affairs. I wish words were better.

            2. Maria, thank you! I really did get a sense of it. I got your idea that mechanics get created (like the events in your friends and family’s realities) but, as you say, to those the MEANING is added.
              That would make total sense because meaning/understanding obviously have to be supplied by and exist within a conscious source.

              It’s so great that you and Elizabeth, Dennis, Geir all share your realities – believe me, the words do communicate! And just like any other knowledge they can boost a person in the direction of the reality being described. Never be diffident! Truth communicates, IMHO. 🙂

            3. @ Maria “One day I was walking and the world was swirling into form as I walked and for a stunning moment I saw it as this flowing process all around me moving into focus — it was a shift in focus but not in location.”

              Your description of reality at that point bears semblance to an anecdote told to me by a returning NOTs preOT in 1981. This preOT’s story was that while waiting in the HGC lounge she saw another preOT reach for something on a table only to have her hand pass through the table. That preOT smiled, shrugged and said “That just keeps happening.” Quite a story and one I could not fit with the model of reality I’ve had until becoming more familiar with quantum mechanics.

              What that story and your story indicate to me is that there is a continuous cyle of action in the universe going between solid and non-solid (particle/wave) and that the thetan can have an incredible influence on that cycle.

              I mentioned on Geir’s TOE thread a possible explanation for the time-continuum of reality:

              1) in a particle/wave duality concept, particle = solid phase; wave = a “superposition of probable states” phase

              2) the last cycle of condensed state (solid) likely affects the next probable condensed state. That means that out of all the possible states in the “superposition of states”, the next condensed state is more likely to be a duplicate of the last state than a fluctuation to a random state.

              The consequence of that would be that would be that if different pieces of matter were fluctuating through the solid and wave phases at exactly the same rate (but opposite in phase), it might well be that one piece of matter could pass through the other piece of matter as each piece of matter would only be seeing a wave state in the intersecting piece.

              While the “sharing of same space” is defined by affinity, would being in an opposite phase state be the equivalent of “going out of agreement” with mest being real and solid? Could it be that the thetan had agreement with the solid phase enforced with something like an implant? What would happen if the thetan could causatively take on a state of disagreement with solidity? Walk a body through walls?

            4. When lecturing on ARC the old man said that a person has to come into total agreement with MEST before he can successfully disagree with it. This seems to agree with your description and theory.

              I am trying to understand if my “clock speed” can be accelerated or if this is necessary or even an accurate analog.

            5. @ Chris “I am trying to understand if my “clock speed” can be accelerated or if this is necessary or even an accurate analog.”

              I would expect that the requirement for adjusting your clock speed would be:
              1) having an understanding of the clock (wavelength?)
              2) understanding the quantum event you are going to influence
              3) be willing to be cause over it
              4) postulate the change
              5) hold the postulate

              In the case where a preOT does something that defies material description, sometime huge has obviously keyed out. Possibly something on the order of an implant commanding solidity or a mechanism the thetan came up with to enter and maintain contact with a universe. I would expect resonances are involved and some theta machine is holding them active. The question of interest would be if such a machine was the thetan’s own creation or an implant.

          2. Here is one Maria, walking on the street and everything become transparent, even the ground, I could see through everything, other time a man walked into my vision, but there was no body just a skeleton moving, and as I stared at this phenomenon, he looked at me and the face, the bone mouth opened up and he smiled at me all his teeth showing, other time I was looking at this pregnant woman, she almost become invisible, but I could see the baby inside her in the tiniest detail, the veins, the coloration, the beating of the heart.
            Over the years there were many others incidents, like driving the car on the road and suddenly there was no road, nothing there. I really had to re-establish myself to be there on I5. These things are happening more often because the solid objects have lost their meanings, different reality takes their place, those realities were earlier creations from other place and other time; I have on my ottoman a large black jade turtle, it communicates like you would, for not one second I have any doubt of this beings existence, to me it is a proof, that one do not need a meat body in order to be anchored, this being is ‘Alive’ as I am and being able to create and experience, he is totally beautiful…
            yes, words are not good enough any more..

            1. Elizabeth, this was quite good: “These things are happening more often because the solid objects have lost their meanings, different reality takes their place, those realities were earlier creations from other place and other time.” That is good data!

              You’ve told me about the being in your black jade turtle before but it was wonderful to hear about it again. 🙂

      1. Well Chris, perhaps as the universe expands so do our heads and bodies. Like in the old sci-fi stories, as the speed of an object approaches that of light, it’s mass approaches infinity….

        So, is the universe moving?

        BUT, relative to our thoughts, our heads remain the same size. Therefore to accommodate more thoughts in our heads, we need to make our heads larger, because our thoughts grow larger in proportion to our heads, right? Assuming we have it all on automatic. Or, we could store our thoughts outside our heads. I don’t see why that would not be possible. External storage media like thumb drives etc are really just dramatizations of what we have been doing with our own individual data, lo, all these eons…. aren’t they?

        Sorry to be so concrete in this wave-functional conversation! But in fact, until the wave function collapses, there is nothing to talk about, is there?

        1. Hey Valkov,

          I think this storage outside is quite a good analogy … one big thumb drive and you call up the data as needed, and presto! It appears

        2. haha Dennis! How would we find out if our rulers were growing? Compare them to our – – – – – ? oh, dang! You really bring out the scalawag in me.

        3. Hahahaha Valkov! Yes! all personal computers are dramatizations of our minds . . . very astute.

          “So, is the universe moving?” Chris says that it is iterating….that is all. haha

          “wave-functional” hehe funny. Nope! Nothing to talk about until the wave function collapses or until the chickens come home to roost… tomayto/tomahto. haha

          1. Thinking of the computer analogy, in computer game design, the character always has the point of view and stays within a range on the screen. The scene maps around the character so that the character stays on the screen — i.e. if you walk your character to the right hand side of the screen, the animation will continually shift the character to appear to be in the screen so it never goes out of view, walking right off the right hand side of the screen. So the character never really moves out of that field. Every shifts into view around the character.

      2. Is there any reason to think the universe and everything in it expands uniformly at the same rate throughout?

        Besides, isn’t the universe supposed to be “infinite”?

        1. haha good one Val. I love to discuss this assumption! One of my cognitions when solo-ing a few months ago (personal revelation – not necessarily for everybody) was that the words “finite” and “infinite” are flip-flopped in our thinking and in our language. Finite and infinite both refer to MEST. Outside of MEST is probably something but it is outside the “set” of MEST and so it is not MEST and it would be something NOT manifested within MEST. It would not be a something. It would be a no-thing. (I don’t try to be pedantic, it just seems to come out that way when I am trying to pave this road.)

          For me, MEST is a created thing. By whom? or by what event? I dunno, don’t care just yet. I just think it is created. This gives it a start. The fourth dimension of time brings it forward to the present which gives it a “finish and a finish and a finish and a finish.” Therefore, I think that the mathematical SET of MEST is FINITE. It has a start and it has a finish, repeatedly. I currently adhere to the idea that time, and I hereby coin the term “True-Time” is infinitesimally short (again with that word – infinite.)

          Here I begin saying even stupider things. INFINITE exists and it exists within the entire set of FINITE. Fractal mathematics teaches me and shows me the relative truth of this. There is nothing infinite outside the finite as there is nothing “out there.”

          Now does the universe expand at the same rate throughout? This is completely puzzling to me. When the physicist says that the “universe is expanding,” he means that the “galaxies” (groupings of stars, like our own Milky Way) are flying apart from one another. Not only flying apart but accelerating. Within each galaxy, the stars are not flying apart from one another. Forces that I don’t understand but maybe am not even familiar “at any level” are at work, or maybe they are forces that we are familiar with but coming into action in a counterintuitive way.

          And this morning, I am pouring and finishing a concrete driveway. God my life is fun and dynamic!

          1. Chris,In the current physical cosmology theories, there is one explaining this accelerating effect of galaxies and the existence of something outside the mest universe limits. It is supposed that the cosmos is like a Gruyère cheese where every hole is a universe in itself ruled by the acceleration of his own dark matter and energy, so it can be visible or not but still existing. and what is the purpose of this Gruyère cheese, if any ? 🙂

            1. Hey Rafael SN, Interesting idea. Does this concept level an inconsistency for you? Does this answer a question that you’ve been thinking about?

            2. Chris, yes, this Gruyère cheese theory breaks the cosmological basic assumption that there was a single basic mass exploding in a bing bang. Now we have may be an infinite of big bangs in the same space 🙂 . Created by themselves …. ?

            3. That theory can go a long way to explaining things: if every point in space is represented by a zero-point mass, then essentially an infinite number of zero-points can occupy an infinitesimally small space. Just a fraction of those zero-points flipping into the dimensions we call 3-space would have set off the big bang and could account for all matter in this universe.

              One of the implications of this is that zero-points are in another dimension and yet can interract with the mass in this universe. Perhaps that interraction is what we are calling the Higg’s field.

              As to what set off those zero-points that (perhaps) became this universe, I can see a mechanism whereby theta could have done it. Theta as a static, or damn near, would have been at the right wavelength to be able to effect an interraction with those zero-points.

          2. @Chris
            A decent thought proof of the finiteness of the universe. The envelope (edge boundary) should be defined by the distance light has traveled since the big bang (~13.75 billion light years), slightly more than the most distant viewed galaxy (13.2 billion light years),

            A question: If the Higg’s field is continuous and uniform throughout the universe, has it been expanding since the big bang or was it there before the big bang? I can see the Higg’s field as the medium that determines the speed of photon propagation (speed of light) in this universe, and likely the root of the Planck length and Planck second, and I think there may be an analogy that could even describe how it contributes to the phenomenon of mass:

            Consider two guitars, one a real guitar and the other an air guitar. Which one causes a pick to provide a sensation ofmass to your fingers as you strum the two guitars? The real guitar, of course, and it is the interaction of the pick with the strings that provides the sensation – PROVIDED that there is a proper alignment of the pick to the strings (the pick must be more or less at right angles to the strings. If the pick is “flat” compared to the strings it won’t interract with them.)

            How does this apply to the Higg’s field? This analogy shows two things: 1) that something we define as matter (the pick) will interact with the field (the strings) to produce the phenomenon of mass, and 2) the degree of interaction of matter with the field is determined by a dimensional relationship. That may be why neutrinos are nearly massless.

            Just one more point: if the Higg’s field originated with the big bang, then it’s intensity should diminish as the inverse of the cube of distance from the epicenter of the big bang. By definition the Higg’s field is uniform and continuous and must therefore precede the bang.

            1. Thanks for nuthin 2ndtransformer. Send me off on another research project. Fine, I’ll see what there is to for me to be even more confused about the Higgs field. (wry smile and shake of head.)

            2. Thanks for the post. I tried but couldn’t follow. Not your comments but the physics seems circular to me. I have a long way to go to understand physics. Maybe you could explain your premise some more and maybe look at my questions.

              — Do you think the consistency of the undiscovered Higgs Field proves that it predates the Big Bang?

              — Do you think that because of the Higgs Field that the extant universe contains unlimited 3D km’s of pre-existing space filled with Higgs Bosons?

              — What do you suppose is between the Bosons?

              — What do you suppose gives mass to the Bosons?

              — Does the Higgs Field mean there is no envelope to an eternal and never ending universe of the Higgs Field?

              — Otherwise, would you describe the extant physical universe as a mathematical subset of the Higgs Field?

          3. OK, that’s pretty deep, Chris.

            I am wondering if you are not reifying the mathematical SET of MEST?

            I have the feeling that when some posters say “MEST” they have solids in mind, masses. However the S in MEST stands for SPACE. When the physicists talk about galaxies flying apart, they are referring to masses and energies. What about the SPACE itself? Is that the “nothing infinite” you are referring to?

            That’s why I have never gotten down with Physics. Physics appears to me to be a study of Mechanics. But if it is true that “Considerations take rank over the Mechanics of Space and Time”, then where does that leave us?

            1. If I am reifying then that is a mistake on my part. My intention is to take the tangible MEST and understand it better. To make our words mean what they really mean in a tangible and not an abstract way. If I am not doing this, then I am missing my mark.

              I refer you to the Mandelbrot Set on YouTube. This is the most famous of the fractal graphs. Understanding the nesting, self-similar, and recursive nature of this graph in the complex plane is the reference for my claims about finite and infinite. Finite is on the outside and infinite is on the inside of the set.

              If you want to apply Scientology to it, then I refer you to LRH’s “orders of magnitude.”

              Reification? Not intentionally. My purpose is to show that infinite is not an abstract concept but a real tangible physical universe construct that we CAN wrap our minds around.

              My current research shows me that one drop of this universe is both infinitely large and infinitely small. Mathematics can accurately describe this to us, computers can easily graph it for us. Orders of magnitude.

              Simple computer code can hold the “DNA” to describe all the wondrous parts of all the wondrous existence that we can perceive. Computers can iterate this code sufficiently to allow us to see it with our eyes. We no longer need to imagine this in abstraction only.

              I am interested in your thoughts on subjective vs objective. These are starting to blur for me. Possibly I don’t believe in the usually agreed upon reality anymore. Perhaps I think of it as a 4D view that we zoom in and out from to view more and less closely. If you meditate on that Mandelbrot Set, you will see what I mean. Then you may be more certain of my craziness. Rafael S. (not Rafael SN) has already called me out on this and outed me as crazy and I used to agree but now I really agree. I think it takes one to know one. Sorry I wrote so much flotsam and jetsam. I am tired and nonsense is pouring out of every . . . goodnight.

            2. Not as a cliche’ but as tangible fact, can you give an example of “considerations taking rank over MEST?” (not a snide question but a real one for discussion) This would be another good thread Geir. Or would we dare? LRH said it, I believe it, but does that settle it?

            3. Well Chris, I’ll have to go slow here. For subjective/objective, in practical terms subjective is what I perceive that cannot necessarily be verified by others or does not have their prior agreement as existing. Something like that. The objective is what we all agree on perceiving, like tables chairs rain, sky sunlight, whatever. It is what can be perceived by the commonly agreed upon senses. Although there is no broad agreement about how many senses we actualy have, or what is perceptible and what is not.

              These are practical terms like Newtonian physics is based on, perhaps.

              I’m not into fractals that much, and it’s been 50 years since I was into any kind of math. However, I have seen the fractals in motion with my own “eyes” back in the 1960s when I experimented with psychedelics. How did I “see” them? With what set of”eyes” did I “see” them?

              All good questions. I have no answers, but they (the fractals the universe seemed to consist of) were clear as day and just as “real” to me as the world I saw when not high. They were in motion and 3 dimensional. I was the only stable point in all that motion, except perhaps other beings. Oddly enough, although nothing in my physical environment was recognizable to me at the time, I could still navigate, walk around, sit, stand, eat, drink, talk(very little talk, actually) and perceive other beings, if not their bodies very well. I walked on fractal ground that appeared to be largely empty space, but with lots of color and motion happening, like walking on a continuous fireworks display. My entire environment appeared to be composed of empty space and blossoming fractals. Trippers commonly referred to these as “the patterns”. “Did you see see the patterns?”

              So at least many of my automaticities were still working, as I could navigate around at the same time Did I mention that the experience I am referring began with me going straight up out of the top of my head? So after that, perhaps I was not perceiving with the body’s eyes but in some other way.

              An experience I do not recall having is that of seeing reality as still frames, although Buddhist meditators have referred to having this kind of perception in the course of their practice. That’s in the Buddhist literature.

              About considerations, I have had experiences of controlling events as a result of my wishes to do so, and of having my postulates come true, but in some cases it is hard to say whether the result was due to my postulate, or due to my use of energy rather than by postulate directly.

              Most of these examples are laughably trivial and of course impossible to prove, so the “scientists” would have a field day laughing them off. I also have had a few experiences of communicating in various ways with other forms of life which are real to me, and have given me reason to appreciate the Buddhist viewpoint of abstaining from harming other lifeforms as much as possible.

              These are all things that LRH would classify as “para-scientology” at best, and scientists would
              not give much creedence to. They are “subjective” experiences as far as most people are concerned.

            4. What about “SPACE”? Is “space” quantifiable, does “space” itself expand, apart from any of it’s contents, those being matter and energy that is? Does space have boundaries? How and why does “space” exist? Is “space” the same as “nothing”?

              Those are to me the key questions.

            5. I see Space as quantifiable – otherwise the creation of space would have to be infinite. Infinite creation requires infinite attention, and as such does not jive with anything finite in nature (how to derive finite from infinite? – that would be a corollary fundamental question)

  20. Marildi, dear friend, i dont wish to correct or make wrong, so please dont get offended. There is no levels, lower or higher just different, since there is no scape, separations for the spiritual beings,Separation would mean individuality, as in solidity-bodies than with that one would have idantity-location, That iswhat MEST is.
    Example Geir is in Norw. you in LA, me on BC. yes the bodies are on those location. But we dont have location.

    1. Not offended at all, my dear. I meant a different thing from what you are saying, which I think I do understand. I was just talking about different individuals having different levels of awareness or reality as regards their understanding of what you are talking about – or their viewpoint of it.

      1. Marildi, that what I said too, individuals just having different reality, but I have eliminated the word “levels as in lower or higher”

        1. the stars are brighter to night as we play, Maria, beyond which star I will put something for you to find? 🙂 fallow the echo of laughter.
          No,I am not fair, just look for it, just look, in that instance you will see.

            1. you all ready have it but you wee ”see it” when looking up. let me know what you have perceived. I found this most ammusing. we get it instantly than we put it into the MEST, we give location, space, we color it, shape it give it size in comperison to other object. what a production! than we communicat, have you got it, you say i got it…we create continiuum…

            2. Every time I look, a white glowing horse races towards me with a mane that flies in the wind, coming out of sparkles of white light against a deep blackness. I am very shy about telling you this, I hope I focused on what you put there for me, but even if I didn’t, it was very wonderful. My universe is full of such creations, rich and full of beauty, I think this may be the first time I have ever communicated about it to anyone.

            3. I put there , not the horse but the darkness and from it’s dept the light-sparkles to come toward you, your invisible face to be kissed by millions of tiny explosions of joy. Beautiful universe we can create. thank you…

  21. Geir,”” I think one can indeed have source points of creation, of will – but in that each of the source points are intimately connected (perhaps even emanated/ing from the same common source {God}), then each creation from any source, any exercise of will would come into play in what we know as our universe, hence created by all that can experience the effects of that thought, that exercise of will.””
    Great, but who is to determine, who has created that point? Let say there are 100 beings believe in every thought I have and experience those in the same moment of creation. Should I believe that I am the source, than that would make me a individual with “will power”, I would not be in the Spiritual Universe which is void of mass. So we all can say, and claim I have created I am the source? Again with that, we are heading back to the MEST universe.
    I guess, I like the reality that I have no will, there is only creation-experience… yes, happy with that.. Love the reality, having no identity.

  22. Vin, old pussy cat,”This is your ability to knowingly visualize coming back. Well done!” Thanks, but I never lost it, I am on artist, since you are on engineer you have a developed logical side, mine is the right side, which is artistic-spiritual. My IQ is so high it is not measurable, yet, I cant make out a simple manual how to program my telephone. The learning side is missing. It can be a problem while one is here in the MEST.

  23. On the subject of Assumption, Geir points out:

    What is often missing, is the assessment of what the person himself really, truly wants. And no matter how convinced the therapist, friend or random-person-wanting-to-help is about the “obvious” goal, it may be completely wrong.

    On understanding Miscaviage, María posted a reference of Lawrence Wollersheim:

    If you subscribe to this page, you get a free e-book from Wollersheim entitled “Discovering your true Goals” which aligns remarkably well with the subject of this thread, and mentions a very interesting phenomena which is very real to me and also relates to the subject of creation of this universe:

    The formidable and inherent reality-creating power of a goal which is true to you and which aligns with what seems to be some noble or universal-spirit ideals.

    Here is a relevant part:


    Part of finding and managing your true goals is understanding exactly what goals are and how to set them for maximum success. A goal is a very special type of thought and decision. When the GOAL THOUGHT is made correctly, it becomes one of the most powerful thoughts a person will ever have. One correctly made goal thought could contain more power to change you and your world than the power potential of a hundred nuclear reactors.

    A correctly made goal thought can be thought of as planting a very sturdy and hardy type of seed. This type of seed will always produce the desired fruit if it is planted and cultivated properly.

    A correctly made goal thought also has a magnetic power for ATTRACTING the necessary vehicle
    and resources to obtain that goal.

    “Concerning all acts of initiative (and creation), there is one elementary truth, the ignorance of which kills countless ideas and splendid plans: that the moment one definitely commits oneself, then providence moves too. All sorts of things occur to help one that would never otherwise have occurred. A whole stream of events issues from the decision, raising in one’s favor all manner of unforeseen incidents and meetings and material assistance, which no man could have dreamt could have come his way. I have learned great respect for one of Goethe’s couplets:

    Whatever you can do; or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius, power and magic in it.”

    – W.N. Murray. (The Scottish Himalayan Expedition, 1951.)


    As a thought, a goal gets its maximum empowerment and actualizes the maximum of your potential when it is based on:


    The highest personal happiness is directly linked to the intelligent pursuit of worthy goals. Goals based on worthwhile purposes have much more reality-producing power to energize and “pull” the creator of that goal to its realization than do goals of frivolous or destructive purpose.

    “It seems to me we can never give up longing and wishing while we are thoroughly alive. There
    are certain things we feel to be beautiful and good, and we must hunger after them.”
    – George Eliot.


    Goal-setting is not a minor life issue. The formidable and inherent reality-creating power of a goal can help give you what you want, or, if you have evaluated your goal choices poorly, WHAT YOU DON’T WANT! Evaluate every major life goal BEFORE starting, for its feasibility, “costs,” requirements and attainability.

    3.) FREE WILL

    Goals you choose with INFORMED FREE WILL to be YOUR OWN TRUE GOALS are far more powerful than goals suggested or enforced by others or by the environment. In fact, in the long run, it is usually disastrous to your mental, physical or financial well-being to continue to operate on goals that you have not determined to be your own.


    “High aims form high characters, and great objectives bring out great minds.”
    – Tyrone Edwards.

    When it comes to releasing your MAXIMUM empowerment and potential, there are good, better and best ways. Goals that serve you are good. Goals that serve you and others are better, and goals that serve you, others and some noble or universal ideal are best.

    Goals which benefit both you and others tend to be easier and quicker to accomplish. The environment creates less back-pressure if it benefits from your endeavors. With mutual benefit goals, more help and support will usually be forthcoming.

    Goals that serve self, others and some noble or universal goal empower the finest in YOU. They can release abilities and potential within you that are capable of producing the most remarkable results – results that are far beyond what you have ever been capable of doing before. When you look to the lives of great individuals, you will usually find normal individuals living at peak empowerment because of their clear goal visions, which embodied the service of self, others, and some noble or universal ideal.

    1. Rafael, since you never left I can’t say welcome back.
      I have read your thoughts this morning and that assisted me to assess what I really wanted to achieve, what was the reason my purpose being here learning through sessions. What I have gained “the knowledge” is secondary has no importance since my reality my goal never have changed it remained the same: very simple, I have no other desire but to return to the magical universe, the wonderland of the theta… In reality I cannot return to somewhere which I never left. I am home, here you always had the welcome.

      1. Yeah, Home universe is for me the place, the position from which prime (original, truly creative) postulates are made.

        Once we fall away from it, (or believe, as you appropriately describe, to have fallen away) we seem to reduce severely our creativity.

        1. I thought about reduced creativity too.. but in comparison to what and where? Here? If we compare it to here which contains nothing but jammed together millions of pictures-creations. Or let say one creation which is so beautiful in every possible way and it is timeless, just think how many times a rose is being admired yet that admiration not lessened the existence of the rose, it still hold that same beauty which captivates the soul.
          When I look at a Forget-me-Not, than there is nothing else exististing.. there no time or space, there is nothing but the perfection

    2. Rafael says: “A correctly made goal thought can be thought of as planting a very sturdy and hardy type of seed. This type of seed will always produce the desired fruit if it is planted and cultivated properly.”

      Chris says: Good post. “Seed” thought / goal thought aligns with iteration aligns with new direction or purpose. Factually, this is what a seed is, a re-iterator. We are still aligned and within the scope of a discrete universe.

    3. Rafael and Chris, the quotes from that article resonate with me too. I’m looking at all of existence as a fractal sequence that originates in basic physics and extends to postulates, which in fact are the basis of creations.

      It seems to me that a “sturdy and hardy type of seed” is a postulate which has the least counter-postulates of one’s own as well as others. And such a seed-postulate would have to be very basic and aligned with many of one’s other postulates, which would make it “a goal which is true to you and which aligns with what seems to be some noble or universal-spirit ideals”.

      Where it stated that this high goal has “a magnetic power for ATTRACTING the necessary vehicle and resources to obtain that goal”, I again see the laws of physics in operation. Even with regard to “the moment one definitely commits oneself, then providence moves too”, there can be an alignment with physics in the sense that one’s basic purposes are pulled into action. This is the principle of “First Postulate”.

      Seems to me everything falls back to postulates AND how they interact with each other.

      1. “Seems to me everything falls back to postulates AND how they interact with each other”

        Yeah, same here!.

        1. Cool! Well, you are a better physics student than I am, Rafael – can you align this idea with physics principles?

          1. So far there may be an alignment with computer code. Physics? I don’t know how that works. Just looking for patterns right now… (picture “A Beautiful Mind” with the little shed with hundreds of scraps of notes pinned to the walls, got it? Not quite that bad, but bad)

            1. I think of digital physics as nothing but computer code. Are we in sync on that? 🙂

            2. Kind of. In this context, when I wrote code, I meant information and then when I wrote physics, I meant the mechanics of delivering this information. I was too cryptic.

              An example of of “seen” information would be human DNA. About 800 MB of information is stored in the human DNA. The physics of DNA would be its chemistry – like lots is known about that but it is pretty esoteric.

              So in my thinking, I am using code as information and physics more as the structure of things which came about through the use of these codes.

            3. Okay, code is data storage and physics would be how it’s shuffled and shifted around, computer style. And to those two we could add metaphysics, which would be where the meanings and understanding of the symbols of information (code) exist – i.e. consciousness. Thanks. 🙂

            4. Kind of. We didn’t get to the unseen information yet and the unseen structure yet. Also, I am currently not using metaphysics as a term at all until I find something beyond physics. Also, sometimes I am writing “physical” universe for clarity to the reader, but to myself, I am not thinking beyond or in terms of anything but “universe.” It is a perfectly good and stand alone term by itself.

              Remember how big and small the universe it? In our laziness, we want one-shot answers. We want to understand enormous amounts of information instantly. This is where the universe balks us and this is the secret card up the sleeve of the universe that it will not give up easily. 😉 truly.

        2. p.s. As for “providence moving in” – that would be where the postulates of others come into play to work with your own and support it – because of entanglement or the “link” between beings..

          1. Exactly, I see it also as in communion with the Universe-spirit or the prime postulates of this universe.

            In physics it would be an alignment of vectors or harmony of waves which coalesce into an harmonious reality. 🙂

            1. Yes, the part about vectors I had the concept of too. Then you said “harmony of waves which coalesce into a harmonious reality” – can you amplify? Very interesting!

              The question Geir is asking has to do with how Will (free will) and wave collapse fit together. I haven’t got much of an idea on this. What is yours?

            2. Several vectors or forces (or postulates) aligned, add-up to a bigger vector or force, several waves can add-up into a bigger wave also, which we can consider more and more real.

              Free will might turn pure potential from infinite possibilities into one vector or force or wave, which then can align (or not align) with others……and so on, the hard part to prove is the step which goes from the universe of ideas into the MEST universe.

              Yesterday I was sending thoughts to the members of this blog assigning a number to each one, (Trying to connect my universe with theirs, as in a first step to direct creation of reality) but with no luck so far…:-(

            3. Have you tried staring at the TV snow yet? I do this with no expectation to see what I can see. Why do I do it? Because I conjecture that the snow on the TV is random dots for the perception of my mind. Then I let that input just input. Then I take some LSD or was that LDS?. . . well, never mind that part. Just stare blankly at the dots, maybe in a darkened room. Allow the dots to just be the central input and then just do nothing with the dots. Observe what comes up. You might notice shapes or whatever begin to materialize sort of like in the way that the dots on the 3D images turn into shapes… Difference here is that there should not be a deliberate message coming from the snow on your TV (except of course those message from the space aliens and also the Devil) anyway, I find my mind of its “own will” (no I’m not quite sure what I mean by that) finding images in the dots.

              Why do I think this is important? Well, it is an exercise in observation and it uses as a prop a field of random input. I postulate that this random input provides raw material (such as the wave-function does?) for the mind to observe and then to collapse.

            4. OMG, Rafael – I have become interested in telepathy too lately! So okay, in keeping with the principles you described, if one is trying to connect one’s universe with another’s universe it might be a matter of putting attention on the considerations or realities you are aware of that relate to that other person – that attention then increasing the vector or force of those realities – and this might then “resonate” with that person, thus establishing a link. Seems like it might be something like that.
              I don’t see the problem with the step that goes from the universe of ideas into the MEST universe because I see even ideas as energy at the high end of the spectrum.

            5. Chris: Have you tried staring at the TV snow yet?

              Rafael: Chris, you are crazy. I did it just because I´m crazy too. Started to see patterns and flows of particles, then I perceived intentions and thoughts…I was putting life into it!!

              I like it, it´s a good prop as you say, and useful as a marker of a zero line which can be used to tune-up our minds. I can find things to audit with it…!!

              If used intelligently, I believe it might help to see more clearly the mechanisms by which the mind collapses things into reality, and then gain some control over it………..If I don´t end up batshit crazy of course Ha ha ha!!

            6. Marildi: Ron says you just have to find the wavelenght of the other person. I guess this is still above my level of reality…:-(

            7. Rafael, by “wavelength” of the person, I guess you mean their tone level? I have a friend who has used tone level as the successful action for getting into telepathic communication with animals. For example, he had a cat one time that he got very good at communicating with telepathically – he matched the tone level of the comm with the cat’s tone. He said that humans seem to be much better at blocking out or tuning out telepathic comm, and that would make sense on the face of it.

              As I’m sure you know, the way to get good at tone levels would be to drill mood drills, including the very low ones, (the low ones especially if you’re going to practice on animals). Those drills improve the ability to both spot and match tones.

              This friend was very interested in your comment as he has never seen any LRH reference on telepathy, and both of us would really like to know that one or any other reference on the subject. Do you remember?

            8. Marildi assumes she doesn’t know the wavelength of another person?

              haha Not so. Marildi is quite empathetic in my opinion — very good as picking out and assuming another’s viewpoint and tone. This is a high ability and she should be complimented as it comes after years of work and attention to details. And her TOLERANCE level is very high. This is intentional on her part and gives her a wide scope of reality. Having known quite a few “OT’s,” I believe I can speak from experience that Marildi is quite OT and should celebrate her many fine abilities and qualities as I do.

            9. Aw, Chris, thanks for that. You know, you just put there as a reality something I can better see and thus better be. That was a true gift, from a big-hearted guy. Thank you! 🙂

              Today there seems to be an especially high “alignment of vectors or harmony of waves which coalesce into a harmonious reality”. 😉

            10. Chris, I had another session staring at the TV snow and discovered a basic automaticity which keeps looking for patterns and meaning in whatever I place my attention on, and even if I place it in something at complete randomity, it will manage to create a pattern in it and give it some meaning. That visualization becomes real to me, and begins to have a life of its own.

              It seems to go as deep as my own imagination. And grow out of control very, very easily.

              Beings seem to be basically fields of infinite posibilities, and when we judge them as something with fixed characteristics, it tends to solidify them, at least in our perception, and very easily will tend to damage our relationship with them.

              Also, when we give ourselves a fixed characteristic, it sooner or later will become our own trap if we become attached to it.

              As a corollary, it is funny how somebody else could agree to a description we are making of him and become trapped to it.

              We the people trying to give meaning to our lives can become prey of those fixations very easily.

            11. Wow, amazing what you discovered – the automaticity of creating patterns. Whoa…an automaticity… Incredible research, both of you guys.

              Indulge me in interpreting your findings. Those “fields of infinite possibilities” may in fact be the wave field of quantum physics, parts of which are Beings themselves, who are source points of that energy and who have will and the power to postulate and create. And where you talk about creating patterns out of the field and solidifying them, it may simply mean either postulating or running an (already postulated) automaticity – thus collapsing wave functions into patterns that are solid, i.e. no longer waves but particles or particles arranged into certain forms which have the meanings you’ve endowed them with.

              Further, to the degree we become attached to those patterns, they become our reality. And agreements about them between beings result in shared realities – and this goes on all the way from bringing particles on up to normal, every day perceptions of reality. (How much have I mis-interpreted? ;))

              That part about things going out of control, reminded me of the movie with Mickey Mouse and his broom. I got an eerie feeling about it even as a kid. (Maybe you guys are sorcerer’s apprentices? :D)

            12. Whooooa! Slow down! hahaha . . . Maybe Marildi got more out of this than I did! haha.

              A while back I was wondering about the frickin’ wave-function and trying to imagine what it is like and I began to think about my environment and how it is not easy to locate something “random.” Most everything in my reality is well formed, or sort of “wells-up” well-formed. So later I was reviewing some stuff about big-bang, etc., and was reminded about the background radiation that shows up on our TV sets on channels with no corresponding “well-formed” transmission. On an impulse, while laying in bed, I turned on the TV in my darkened bedroom (my wife is sooo patient with me), turned the sound off and just lay there looking at the snow. I had no particular goal in mind, I was just curious to see whatever I would see. Very soon I began to feel a sense of detachment from my mind. Maybe detachment from the image that my brain was saying was there. I began to be still. I was mindful of being still. I was trying to be still and not interfere with the input of what I considered was a “random field of dots.” Within only a minute or two shadowy shapes began to appear and disappear. They welled up and drifted or dissolved and other shapes appeared and drifted across the screen and back and forth or rotated. Familiar geometric shapes like squares, cubes, circles, spheres, and shadowy indistinct forms and some anthropomorphic forms. Also, crystal clear focus on individual pixels and then patterns of bars of 3 pixels in a row flashing on and off.

              I did my best to control that the field of blinking dots were random by dismissing the possibility that there were any actually transmitted images being formed by the television set. I did my best not will anything to happen to the dots. I did my best to do nothing to the dots and the only goal I had was to view what happened.

              My sense is that the mind is loaded with cached information, then through some type of programming like “face recognition software” it makes predictions of identification of objects in the environment.

              I am trying not to conjecture too much about what any of this means but rather I am thinking about the process and wondering if there is any scientific method in it at all or if the whole experiment is flawed with my illusion of objectivity. If I have a desire with regard to this it is to buffer my personal bias away from my perceived results.

              Thank you for your enthusiasm as it is catching.

            13. Wow, Chris, this seems like a rorschach inkblot test, or Maria’s relatives who put all the meaning into their lives and pattern it themselves. And maybe when you felt you detached from your mind it was an exteriorization (one way or another) from the constrictions the brain imposes – as we know, both Maria and Elizabeth have found perception to be entirely different when they’re exterior. The cached information you mentioned might be largely stored in the brain itself, but you could also have “stepped aside” or “outside” that cache in the mind –i.e. the “face recognition software” in both the brain and the bank. You may be doing a more scientific job than you think at “buffering personal bias away from perceived results”. Yes, I’m enthused!

              As for randomness, seems to me that it exists in the “environment” and is flushed out with postulates – at least as regards instances where the intended outcome is possible within the limits of the rigid laws of physics and other heavy agreements (such as historical fact). In other words – in cases where there is no predictable or pre-determined “materialization” there is, within a tiny range of probabilities, the choice to decide (postulate) something that would become reality.

            14. Marildi said “As for randomness, seems to me that it exists in the “environment” and is flushed out with postulates – at least as regards instances where the intended outcome is possible within the limits of the rigid laws of physics and other heavy agreements (such as historical fact). In other words – in cases where there is no predictable or pre-determined “materialization” there is, within a tiny range of probabilities, the choice to decide (postulate) something that would become reality.”

              Chris reply: This is a link to the online book A NEW KIND OF SCIENCE. The book is ponderously large to carry around but it develops the idea that “random” patterns can be the result from computer code. This is a fairly new idea and builds on earlier works in fractal math and also cellular automata. Dipping into this book, even a little bit is for me something akin to taking the Red Pill. Would you like to see how deep is the rabbit hole?

            15. p.s. I left out a couple words. After “bringing particles” should be “into existence”.

            16. Marildi, I don´t have references for telepathy, but I´m sure Valkov is your man for it.
              Your interpretation of my last post is just exactly right…. And now you´ve got me completely immersed in Mickey´s role, you hit that one on the nail too!! Seems perfect for my Avatar 🙂 ))))

            17. What, I got it right? Wait a minute – did you send me that telepathically? 😀

              Seriously, my thoughts have been along those lines and what you said yesterday about “alignment of vectors or harmony of waves which coalesce into an harmonious reality” seems to also describe how we are all connected and in agreement about Reality, just from another angle. I can’t help but think that the whole of reality can be described in simple, mechanical terms – i.e. the physics of energy – plus the x-factor of postulates. (I know so little about physics, however, that I risk showing just how little it is by even talking about it – but my woman’s intuition tells me it’s all there ;))

              Yes, you are right about Valkov being the man and I should have thought of him immediately. But you know what – after I posted that question I saw where he already posted a couple of links about telepathy yesterday, and it’s just below this exchange. Somehow I missed it. You should listen to those lectures too! (Thanks, Val!)

              And thanks, El ratón Miguelito. Or is it El ratón Rafa? 

            18. Ps I mean, I don´t know if it was sent telepathically, but we sure understand each other!
              That is what I meant by being in the same wavelenght 🙂

            19. Chris Says:
              My sense is that the mind is loaded with cached information, then through some type of programming like “face recognition software” it makes predictions of identification of objects in the environment.

              That seems correct to me.

              Now, what I see as the potential problem is the optimum size of the cache and the pattern recognition program. It is an iteration, and if they grow too much, the inflow of reality could start losing ground.

              Kind of like looking through filters, as Vin says, they can detach us from reality when the process becomes automatic and after some time the problem becomes: What the f**K is reality?

              And maybe, and only maybe, to begin with, it´s simply our creation, and we just lost control of it to the cache and the software recognition program, at a higher or lesser degree.

            20. . . . or “I” is the running subprogram of a greater program or greater consciousness? And if so, How many layers deep can this go?

            21. That came across possibly as rebuttal, I didn’t mean for it to come out that way… tired and going out the door to work. More later.

            22. Rafael says: “Now, what I see as the potential problem is the optimum size of the cache and the pattern recognition program. It is an iteration, and if they grow too much, the inflow of reality could start losing ground.”

              Chris reply, And we DO see this happening, don’t we? Doesn’t our RAM memory fill, then the virtual swapping back and forth from RAM to hard drive and everything grinds down? Do we need to eliminate things to think of more things or can we grow our cache?

            23. Rafael says: ” Now, what I see as the potential problem is the optimum size of the cache and the pattern recognition program. It is an iteration, and if they grow too much, the inflow of reality could start losing ground.”

              My mind’s growing wad of considerations gets thicker and heavier and more dense through time. I look at and focus as the iteration grows smaller and smaller and smaller. I am creating these views of existence until there is no more computing power left. This is the cache problem that you speak of. Both Geir and Maria had poignant opinions about sleep and death. I wish they would repost them here. My own mind needs to reboot every few hours. Sleeping does this for me and I am fresh and almost brilliant (I say to myself) upon waking. Usually in that moment of twilight between unconsciousness and waking that problems unravel with simplicity.

            24. There is the other interesting point, if consciousness can ever be understood then it could be created, the “I” would be some kind of software and computers would take over……..Noooooooo!!!

      2. We agree. One beauty of this thought is that the seed came from a previous iteration. Each seed contains within it all the code needed to allow a form to grow to fruition, where it will take each bit of its accumulated knowledge and place a bit of it in new seeds which will fail or prosper based upon those bits. In turn, the iteration will repeat.

        1. You’ve just described both biological evolution and the evolution to higher states of awareness – but in much more poetic terms! (as is your wont).

          Just tell me one little thing – how does wave-function collapse fit in, other than on a level of double-slit? You, know – daily life somewhere.

  24. Rafael:
    About the POWER bit…. Most fun… that power can’t be compared to anything since it would be compared to solidity=size shape, amount. True power it’s meaning is not comprehendible, when one wants to describe it with words. Since here the power is measured what it can do-force against force=solidity.
    At the beginning and all through all these years of soloing, I have searched for the power, the meaning of what is..
    Oh, that subject was loaded, heavy. I wanted it all that elusive intangible, now I have none, no power, identity, nothing, yet now I have it all.

      1. Yes, pure potential.
        here is a bit on space what creates such a considerations-agreements.
        Extraordinary but by not having body nearby – adjoining, one can truly have affinity in totality, since the body and all considerations-agreements in connection to, do separates – divides, segregates, isolates because the body acts as medium through which everything is channelled – directed, but without such a barrier, obstacles and complications one shares universes in entirety and home we are.


  25. Marildi: “At the same time, any particular individual, if OT enough, could break with those general agreements, thus breaking their link with other beings – and then, no longer entangled, would be able to make things disappear as regards their own perceptions – ”

  26. I agree totally. Thats why I resigned. Individual purpose and goals do not count in SCN.
    It was too much effort and wasted time to convince regges ppo´s and all those who allocate tons of work/backlog and messed up situations for handling four times a week.
    They did not stop, they hammered it every week into my life, 25 years.
    I wanted to do other things in my life than the church/orgs wanted me to do. I haven´t even had time to create a family.
    Already 8 years ago I swored that I face the music of only those situations WHICH I CAUSED
    in my life. Simply to be forced to align my whole life in terms of a course schedule is absurd.
    SCN is a prison camp, and Hubbard has been hammering into every SCNist mind, that only in his prison camp one can achieve TOTAL FREEDOM. *looool

    1. Well done, just remember you still have those dreams and no one can take that or taken it away. Have a wonderfull life. Elizabeth

      1. Thanks ELI 🙂
        Just annother story “……….we need a little bit help in our CF………all hands………just a few hours
        …..” I entered the CF and there were 65000 files mess. fulltime job until pension *gggg

        This is Standard SCN kidding.

        1. Well, I wouldn’t say it was standard scientology but, YES, there were constant CF all-hands in every org I was in.

          It is amazing that they could not be brought up to date once and then kept current.

          It is a simple task.

          1. ok, I said “Standard SCN kidding”.
            Always hiding the game conditions, and once you agreed you are the fool, when you realize what the real mess you have to handle.

  27. I believe I have an excellent demonstration of the main points that Geir brought up in the OP.

    “A Dangerous Method” is a movie recently out on DVD by David Cronenberg that is an outrageous example of ASSUMPTION at work in attempting to help people. It is about Carl Jung and Sigmund Freud in Vienna and Switzerland at the beginning of the 20th century.

    In addition to the obvious craziness of each character involved (not just the crazy woman played masterfully by Keira Knightley) look for the ASSUMPTIONS on display by each character as they “reason” with concepts like “The Id”, sexual repression, and other touchstones of psychotherapy.

    And whatever you do, do not compare anything in this movie to Scientology – especially Jung’s E-meter and his use of listing and nulling!

    Really – for anyone who has been involved in Scientology, this movie is hilariously outrageous. And it’s not a comedy!

    1. Lots of assumptions but that too could be considered research and a possibility until proven otherwise.

      Btw, he wasn’t doing listing & nulling at all … that was word association

      1. You’re right. I misspoke.

        It was actually a form of assessment using an emeter to find the most “charged areas”.

        The trailer doesn’t show the “leads” she was hooked up to, or the “dial” that was being used to record the “read”. You did know that Jung used the first emeter, right? Well his emeter is in this movie. Your jaw drops when you see it.

        Did you see the movie?

        If so, did you see the scenes where they were discussing what were the causes of someone’s behavior and they began with concepts such as the “Id” and then started making conclusion after conclusion, based on the assumed truth of the Id. It’s hilarious. It reminds me of two C/Ses sitting in a room, talking about what process to run on some pc, never noticing that there is no such thing in real life as a “reactive mind”.

        The abuse of patients under their care. Their own craziness. All filmed in a kind of stark, matter of fact kind of lighting that makes Kiera Knightly’s dark unibrow and jutting jaw give you the willies.

        David Cronenberg really is a good director.

        1. Al, you may not have a reactive mind, but I don’t think you can generalize from your own individual experience that no-one else has one, or that such a mechanism does not exist. At best, it does not exist for you.

          1. Actually, no.

            When we are talking about real life, concrete, objective things, the reactive mind is only part of a model for the mind. It does not exist like a rock or a tree exists. Just like the “Id”, the reactive mind was always just a model, never supposed to be real, like a car or a building.

            Scientologists (just like in the movie, psychoanalysts) engage in a profound fallacy of reification when they believe that the reactive mind is real, and treat it is a real thing, like a cow or a poodle or a baseball bat.

            Reification (also known as concretism, or the fallacy of misplaced concreteness) is a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete, real event, or physical entity.[1] In other words, it is the error of treating as a concrete thing something which is not concrete, but merely an idea. For example: if the phrase “fighting for justice” is taken literally, justice would be reified.

            Another common manifestation is the confusion of a model with reality. Mathematical or simulation models may help understand a system or situation but real life always differs from the model.


            1. Al: ” Scientologists (just like in the movie, psychoanalysts) engage in a profound fallacy of reification when they believe that the reactive mind is real, and treat it is a real thing, like a cow or a poodle or a baseball bat. ”

              Generality as usual.

              Ever been sick Al? Had a heavy mass come over you, feel tired, sorta sickly, headache, sinking pit in the middle of my stomach?

              It may not be a baseball bat, but it is a result of something and it has mass.

            2. Actually, Al has a point on this. Even with scientifically recognized models, a good scientist never forgets he is only working with a model which could be very close, or not so very close, to the exact description of something. If he ever forgets it, he closes the door for greater understanding.

            3. It was said as eval & inval.

              It would be just like me coming up with a goofball statement like ‘the reason Al doesn’t believe in a reactive mind is because he is sitting in it’

              It would be eval & inval – simply not ok.

              Plus he uses the same ‘Scientologists’ in his statement (which is really opinion) – like all Scientologists are some lesser state.

              The statement is made to make less of someone.

              A discussion is fine; inval & eval are not.

              Who am I to judge whether someone’s idea of a reactive mind feels like a baseball bat or not?

              It is their perception.

            4. Exactly and specifically, Dennis, where is the generality in my post?

              I’m looking for it and I don’t see it.

              Do you mean it is when I used the plural form of “Scientologist”? That can’t be it. Because the full phrase is “Scientologists (just like in the movie, psychoanalysts) engage in a profound fallacy of reification when…” and so when I use that word “when” it clearly specifies when Scientologists engage in the fallacy of reification.

              So please specifically point out the generality in my post.

            5. Dennis wrote:

              It was said as eval & inval.

              I’m sorry Dennis if I insulted your religious beliefs.

              But the fallacy of reification is the fallacy of reification.

              Understanding this can make you a better Scientologist. Understanding this can make anyone into a better anything, especially if they have been engaging in the fallacy of reification.

              Watch the movie. Watch the psychoanalysts talking about “the Id” as if it were a real thing. It’s quite enlightening.

            6. Rafael,

              Just to give you an idea of some other ‘choice’ statements:


              ‘Scientology is an extremely insidious brainwashing cult. It introverts people and keeps them introverted in order to control them.’

              Scientology is about CONTROL

              “And so its technology is all about gaining control over YOU.”

              “To answer your questions, the source of the moral concepts in Scientology is MONEY.”

              “This simple fact is why the Way to Happiness is a PR propaganda book, and is not the basis of Scientology ethics and morals.

              How L Ron Hubbard Tricked You: Scientology: A Whole New You!

              The Scientology auditing he is getting is hypnosis.

              “Scientology offers a personality shift to a whole new “you”!

              He has become an artificial, implanted personality, made up by L Ron Hubbard for the purpose of gaining greater control over his thoughts, feelings and behavior.

              In other words, he has become a Scientologist ”


              Same crap … different forum.

            7. Dennis wrote:

              Ever been sick Al? Had a heavy mass come over you, feel tired, sorta sickly, headache, sinking pit in the middle of my stomach?

              It may not be a baseball bat, but it is a result of something and it has mass.

              When I feel tired, sorta sickly and headachey with a sinking pit in the middle of my stomach, I no longer believe it has “mass”, nor do I tell myself that this is a result of a “reactive mind”. The reactive mind exists just as The Id exists – as a part of a particular model for the human mind which assumes many other things – all of which do not exist in reality like a tire iron or a bowling ball.

              This reactive mind model is a mental construct (a model) only. It is actually a religious belief of yours. And you have every right to it.

            8. ” Watch the movie. Watch the psychoanalysts talking about “the Id” as if it were a real thing. It’s quite enlightening.”


            9. I think Rafael is pretty aware already of my views on Scientology, Dennis.

              But my views on the movie “A Dangerous Method” as a demonstration of Geir’s OP is more on topic.

            10. ” Rafael,

              Just to give you an idea of some other ‘choice’ statements……….”

              Ha ha ha! I see your point Dennis…..

              But in this post, Al presented his case, from my viewpoint, cleanly, and touched a subject wghich I consider very important:

              Not only Scientologists, but a lot of people, tend to consider ideas, as if they were absolute realities and become entrapped in them. They stop looking and keep thinking only inside of them.

              It caused great hardship for me when I was “inside”, and, honestly, I consider Al made a brilliant presentation, and it is a point which we should keep clear in our minds at all times.

              And I hope this does not come out as an inval towards you, or anyone else, but I was thinking, regarding recent comm troubles here in the blog, that we all should try to see each other every day in a new unit of time, we are growing and changing and helping each other to look at things differently; and the diversity of viewpoints gives a beautiful richness to this blog….

            11. You are into a tricky area of philosophy here, Al.

              Does “mind” exist, in the same way that a cow or a house exists?

              Which comes first, mind, or your idea of a “mind”?

              If mind is a construct, is it not a “mental contruct”?

              What is the relationship between a mind, and it’s contents?

              Can a mind exist without any content at all?

              The other factor involved here is “perception”

              You perceive a cow. Do you perceive a mind?

              People speak of “objective reality” and “subjective reality”.

              What do they have in common? It is that both are “real”.

              Both exist.

              The difference may be that one is considered easier to perceive
              than the other. But that may be not so in reality, but an enforced
              or inhibited agreement, as in “Of course YOu can’t perceive MY thoughts!”

              Is this necessarily so? I don’t think so.

              But the idea that another can see their thoughts scares the shit out
              of some people. Thus our social conventions about “privacy”, not staring
              at people for too long etc.

              Cows are real and easily perceivable, but even so one person’s
              idea(construct) of a cow, based on limited experience, can vary
              widely from another’s. Eg, “Cows are black and white with small horns”,
              versus “Cows are brown with very long pointed horns”.

              The fact that a person has a mental construct he calls “the reactive mind”,
              does not mean there is no such thing as “the reactive mind”.

              The existent of the construct in no way implies or indicates the objective
              non-existence of the thing the construct refers to.

              Thinking that “there are only constructs” is kind of solipsistic, ya see?
              It’s saying that only the “map”(construct) exists, which doesn’t refer to
              any “territory”(objectively existing reality).

              The other thing is, all language consists of constructs, so Duh! Does that
              mean that no objective realities exist? Of course not.

              Mental constructs are often attempts, like scientific constructs for example,
              to more accurately perceive and describe realities.

              But I still don’t believe in bosons! (I operate on much grosser levels!)

            12. Just a very concrete question Alanzo, do you by “fallacy of reification” mean that they mistakenly (in your opinion) are considering a phenomenon as a “physical thing” ?

              Reason I’m asking is that this term is new to me … 😕

            13. Hmmm, it might be easier if we agreed that there are different approaches to whether things are physical phenomena or models and that those approaches are highly dependent on belief experience etc. What seems ridicolous to one seems obvious to another etc.

              Personally I belive that there exist a “mind”, I even believe that I am posessing one, but science as far as I know do not have this as physical idea in any way … That may be why they struggle understand out-of-body- or near-death-experiences …

              However I will not state that I KNOW anything of whether a mind is physical or not, but I will still use it as a concept/model/idea … … as an engineer I’ve learnt to consider whether a model is useful or not (predicts the right answer compared to real world experiments), not whether it is right or wrong …

            14. … and I forgot, Rafael I agree with you… … those things we take for granted and never want to reconsider … spooooky …

            15. Tor says:
              However I will not state that I KNOW anything of whether a mind is physical or not, but I will still use it as a concept/model/idea … … as an engineer I’ve learnt to consider whether a model is useful or not (predicts the right answer compared to real world experiments), not whether it is right or wrong

              Rafael says:
              I´m completely with you on that one Tor. Reminded me one of my favourite quotes from LRH:

              “Let’s take the subject of Scientology………. it is a method of thinking about things. AND IS JUST AS TRUE AS IT IS WORKABLE. AND NO TRUER. And is not, in itself, an arbitrary, fascistic uh…police force to make sure that we all think right thoughts. It’s a servant of the mind, a servo-mechanism of the mind, it is not a master of the mind. Scientology will decline, and become useless to man, on the day when it becomes the master of thinking. Don’t think it won’t do that. It has every capability in it of doing that”. – LRH, PDC #20

            16. Valkov –

              All your questions are very good ones to ask, and to examine the answers very closely which come from Scientology, and which come from other ideologies like psychoanalysis. The reason I suggested watching the movie “A Dangerous Method” is because you can see people treating “The Id”, from psychoananytic theory, as a real thing.

              Is how they are treating this ASSUMPTION of “The Id” proper? Is it likely to produce sound reasoning, valid conclusions, and good clinical practice when applied to people in the real world?

              Geir made some great points in his OP about assumptions and helping people.

              These are all important points to consider when you have an ideological model for the mind, like exists in Scientology and psychoanalysis, and you are trying to apply those ideological models to real people in real life.

            17. Tor asked:

              Just a very concrete question Alanzo, do you by “fallacy of reification” mean that they mistakenly (in your opinion) are considering a phenomenon as a “physical thing” ?

              Yes. They are treating “The Id” in their discussions as if it were a physical thing. They are committing the logical fallacy of reification. If you watch the movie “A Dangerous Method”, you’ll see what I mean. It is a great example of it.

              The reason I bring it up here, is because Scientologists often commit the same error in reasoning with their concept of “The Reactive Mind”. Hubbard himself, in later lectures and writings, very much treated his model of the reactive mind as a real physical thing, and taught Scientologists to do so as well. Standard logic and critical thinking, and its disciplines, are not taught to Scientologists, and Hubbard even told them that if you read a book on logic you would go quite mad trying to figure it out.

              The reason this is important is because Scientology has had some spectacular failures resulting in psychotic breaks and even death. Lisa McPherson, Noah Lottick, Jeremy Perkins, and many others which you can google shows what can happen when this kind of sloppy reasoning is allowed to be used on real life people with real life problems that the ideological model does not address.

              As an engineer, I am sure you are aware of the public health consequences of building bridges using ideologies rather than real science with physical measurements. The same problems occur here. Very unfortunately.

  28. Note to myself : Remember to schedule time for reading Geir’s blog, so that I HAVE those TWO hours I usually spend while I am at it …

    Reading through this post was really strange, it was one big wow, or rather one big WOW (please imagine this is written with 24pt font) ….

    I realize my ideas on assumption were wrong and that they were actually about this other term I picked up – inference …

    But let me bore you with a quote as usual :

    What you teach is not what you preach but what you take for granted …

    Somewhere above it discussed whether one can follow a path without looking. Well IMHO one can, or at least I think I DID. It’s all easy, really, just close your eyes and take one step forward, and then another one and another one … Remember to keep your eyes when you stumble or to be sure you won’t be looking – blindfold yourself. Then take another step, rise again if you stumble and take another step again … Somewhere along this line you lose the sense of direction …
    But keep walking, one step at the time …

    If (or rather when) you actually do stop and backtrack your steps you will see it’s a path you have made … It might be yours only or walked by a zillion others, it might have brought to a place you wanted or not …

    it’s still a path …

    This is actually very sincere for me, I have the feeling I did this kind of for years … and years …
    until for some reason found that I was somewhere I didn’t want to be …

    This is where the inference comes along …

    In a complex situation one might look and make some (OK OK OK) assumptions (inferences) about direction. I believe that in that direction somewhere is where I have should been …
    I don’t know, I just think, believe, infer, whatever …… then I start walking again with open eyes …
    Every now and then I stop, reorientate, reconsider direction and walk on … … I (don’t know if the term makes sense) cross check my inference …

    Another thing discussed above here is the intention (I think) behind someone imposing something on someone else …

    This is for me a flashback to the open mind discussion … … and also that everlasting joke about how many psychiatrists are needed to change a lightbulb …

    You see someone, believe something about this person, and act accordingly … … at least you may think so …

    This has happened to me quite a few times, last time was a girl sitting down at my table in my local pub and started talking while doing these weird handmovements on the table … … and suddenly she bursts out “You see I am manic depressive …”
    So I tell that I can see that such a thing cannot be easy, and I think she realizes that I DO understand … a little bit at least … I do not and think I cannot tell her that I have seen might be the size a stamp compared to her blackboard sized experiences …

    So I have been thinking about what I have a right to do in such a situation. I think I have a right to at least be kind to her, talk to her, treat her like I would try to treat anyone else …

    … but apart from that … if not for her statement, how would I have known THAT she needed anything (and yes I have met these kind of people as well), and how could I know WHAT she needed …

    Again I think I am allowed to do two things : To care and to infer.
    Get some idea, be kind, see if I can affect in some direction, reconsider … etc …

    But always care I think …

    At last very much NOT btw, can anyone explain what is meant by mailing back channel ? 🙂

    1. Hi Tor Ivar,

      That was a thought-provoking post and shows that you are thoughtful, in all senses. 😉

      NOT btw :), I think back channel just means by email, as opposed to the open “front channel” of blog comments.

  29. I am just amazed at the discourse here – the exploring and questioning and really searching for truth. Even the torching, or at least challenging, of long-held beliefs. Thank you, Geir for making this available and thank you EVERYBODY for contributing. I am in awe.

    1. High praise! Thank you Grateful. But just hang around and contribute. You are welcome here. The more amazing parts are what you can come up with yourself when you push.

  30. Rafael S.N. says: “Chris, good poka yoke, I wonder what would happen if this tool were used in hot subjects of big interest like the reality of memoires on the scn 2nd returnees or pt exteriorization phenomena ( no faith allowed ).”

    Chris reply: Good point. I learned that principle in my Scientology studies as a definition of integrity. Applied to my own memoirs? My “past life” memories seem the same to me as my “this life” memories — just memories. Assumptions about life and the meaning of existing that I’ve taken for granted from each course of study in the past don’t always seem relevant in present time. Exteriorization for me is a separateness sensation between my body and my mind. The sensation is real to me. I have two remote viewing “experiences.” The experiences seem quite real to me and the memory of them is substantial to me and filed normally as any memory of any experience is filed. The memories are neither distressing nor exhilarating. They are to me just memories. There is no objective evidence that I can think of which would help prove my experiences to be real outside myself. And for that matter, 99% of things I remember just as a course of living would have little objective evidence outside of my memory.

    Each “frame of reference” would have its own integrity. Building and building codes, religious practices, personal interactions with others all have their own integrity. The frames of reference which are personal to me have integrity to me. These are not viewable by others; however, they seem important enough to me to have a great influence on the way in which I view the qualities of myself to myself. This inward view has a great effect on the way in which I interact with my outward view.

    So we come back around to the dichotomy of inward and outward views. I am trying not to make too many assumptions about these, but rather I am trying to be mindful that the curtain between, if there is one, is fragile and for me right now there is not a clear distinction. That is my current integrity and assumptions on the point.

    1. Back in the 90’s, I went to Phoenix (this life) to investigate past life memories I got from my Scn auditing. I wrote about it in a story I called “3 Days in Phoenix” soon to be a major motion picture. (just kidding)


      Anyway, I did learn some very interesting things about “this life” vs “past life” memories. The biggest thing I learned was how much your sense of self identity – who you tell yourself you are – is influenced by your memories. Especially by “past life” memories.

      When you tell yourself who you are, all day every day, and then you actually go investigate who you have memories of having been in a past life – actually walk around in the physical space as who you are now, thinking about who you were then – the differences between the two “selves” cause a real clash in your mind. That clash is right up in your face.

      How can you be two completely different people?

      It requires a lot of very strong faith to believe that my “past life” memories are actually real, and not just memories that I created in order to please my auditors or become more and more of a Scientologist.

      The process of creating an identity is very very interesting. I think you simply glue yourself to some memory-stories, and de-glue yourself from other memory-stories.

      1. Alanzo, I think I follow you. Slippery slope this memory + identification.

        I have gone around boy-hood haunts and tried to find corresponding physical evidence to my memories such as “name carved in rock” and found that frustrating. Said another way, it can be hard to correlate this life memories to this life physical evidence. As a result, I came to think of Hubbard’s MISSION INTO TIME to have been a fruitless waste of time, and especially fruitless since he did not go with the “Away Team” himself but sent missionaires.

        Alternately, to be confounded by multiple identities because of changing bodies seems unnecessary. I have been many different persons this life alone and I can prove it by simply showing you my photos. The boy I once was cannot easily be recognized as the adolescent that I became. That adolescent cannot be recognized at all as the old man that I am now.

        Technically? Because of the “fact” of quantization, I currently view myself being technically a completely new and different person each and every Planck Second or 5.39106 X 10^44 times per second. This is a lot of “new me’s.” I do not currently see a reason to doubt this. The “continuity of life” is quite the elaborate illusion and this is because the quanta of action are very, very small in comparison to everyday human experience, but quantized nevertheless. This is to say that REALITY IS NOT CONTINUOUS BUT EXISTS IN SMALL PIECES.

        I believe that the “drift of reality” as espoused in the Laws of Thermodynamics support the notion that there are simple computer code at the heart of “reality” which when continually re-iterated brings about this drift. Or said another way, “things change and they sometimes change in ways which appear to be random.” Stephen Wolfram’s monumental work, A NEW KIND OF SCIENCE, discusses how cellular automata can be used to demonstrate that mathematical reiteration can generate “randomity.” This is no pipe dream.

        I am dumbfounded by the revelations in this 10 year old book. I am just cleaning house as never before and throwing out my assumptions as soon as they become apparent to me and hold them all out for falsification as never before. It is a heady “religious experience,” as intense as I have ever known. My days are filled with the “out of body experience” and my nights are filled with dreaming. I sleep but I feel awakened.

        1. Chris asked:

          Al, How do those past life memories seem to you today?

          I have learned that CERTAINTY is not knowledge. CERTAINTY is an emotional state that can make you quite delusional when it comes to the truth. I have learned that DOUBT is a much more valuable state because it generates alternatives and new possibilities.

          I do not claim to KNOW what I was looking at during those auditing sessions. Some of the things I ran in auditing are probably complete bullshit fantasies. But some things, a few things, I ran don’t seem to be.

          I don’t pretend to KNOW any more. I am just a human being with limitations on my knowledge. I hold all possibilities and examine each one with doubt and skepticism, which generates new questions, and shining new futures.

          Hubbard was very wrong when he wrote: “And not necessarily maintaining a skeptical attitude, A critical attitude, or an open mind.” This was probably the most damaging thing he wrote for the continued growth and evolution of Scientologists. But because his philosophy was such a contradictory mess, he could not afford for Scientologists to have these. So he took them away from them by writing this in a piece he ironically called “Personal Integrity”.

          Skepticsm, critical attitudes, and open minds are the most positive, uptone and freeing things you can have in life.

          Don’t ever let anyone take them away from you.

          So as far as my past life memories from my auditing, I can say with utter delight and optimism, I don’t know.


          1. Good points Al. Regardless of past life truth, do you feel that identities that you perceived; glued or de-glued; other experiences during auditing have been useful / not-useful; constructive / deconstructive; helpful / harmful to you; etc., looking back now from present time? Asked another way, how did your auditing change or not change your life?

            1. My auditing changed the way I saw myself, and it changed who I told myself I was. In other words, my auditing changed my self-identity.

              For instance: When I did my FPRD Basic list right after my Scientology Drug Rundown, I began running incidents as a secret agent from outer space on other planets. I was involved in all kinds of intrigue and political assassinations, blowing up star fleets, etc. I began to get the idea that I was a whole track covert agent, having arrived lately here on this prison planet, and that’s when I started working for OSA fighting the “enemies” of Scientology.

              See my 4 part write up as an undercover agent for OSA beginning here:

              Memories contain the stories you tell yourself you are. So when you start to dig up “memories” or fantasies that are supposed to be from past lives, then you are going to start seeing yourself differently, and informing yourself with those memories as to who you “really” are.

              Auditing does change your self identity. Here is another example of that I have written up:


              By the way, brainwashing and mind control techniques all target the person’s self-identity. If you can get the person to tell himself he is someone who has the goals, problems and masses that will benefit you – if you can get him to change his self identity into something more amenable to your purposes – then you have “brainwashed” him.

              Conclude what you will about auditing. Whether fantasy or real, the things you uncover in your auditing change who you tell yourself you are.

              Toward the end of my stay in Scientology, I got sick of becoming so many different people all the time. It was very unstablizing and de-powering. Auditing no longer appealed to me. I had had enough and I no longer craved it as some kind of key to the mysteries of life.

            2. That is a very close and personal look at auditing. Thanks for providing it, Alanzo.

              To me just the idea of running out past incidents is an invitation for dub-in. It is a sort of creating visualization to sort out some inconsistency that concerns the person. What is happening is that the inconsistency is not being viewed directly.

              One need not tackle every inconsistency in the form of pictures. Inconsistencies may be tackled as thoughts, ideas, feelings, emotions, sensations, efforts, etc, directly. It is tackling whatever is there. If a picture is there then fine, one should deal with it as a picture. But there should be no demand for an incident or visualization. An inconsistency need to be viewed as inconsistency. That is all.


            3. And after 16 years, I had certainly not become the person I wanted to be through auditing.

            4. This question assumes that one should want a beingness that is relatively fixed.

              IMO, one should not be fixed on having any particular beingness.


            5. No. Al said he didn’t turn out to be the person he wanted to be. So, he wanted to be a certain parson. I simply asked what that was. I wasn’t assuming anything at all.

            6. If I interpret Alanzo correctly, it seems to me that Alanzo didn’t find answers in Scientology that could satisfy him. He just wanted to be happy within himself. I don’t think he was looking for any particular identity.

              I know my interpretation is different from yours. I am not interpreting Alanzo literally.


            7. vinaire says:
              2012-04-16 at 18:37

              This question assumes that one should want a beingness that is relatively fixed.

              IMO, one should not be fixed on having any particular beingness.


              Good point Vinaire,

              I am after no beingness with the ability to assume or create beingnesses as I choose.

            8. Yes, it seems that way to me too … any must have or can’t have is not under one’s control.

          2. “Certainty” is certainly an interesting subject and fodder for another thread.

            The craziest nonsense can be preached with certainty. I get what you are saying about it being an emotional state. Certainty can be a glue of confidence that holds together assumptions.

            I need certainty to walk or ride a bicycle. I need certainty when reading a blueprint and using a tape measure. Yet I see the fallacy of using certainty as a type of measure of truth.

    2. Chris, thanks for your attention. The out of the body experiences are very common, outside and inside of scientology. These experiences seem to be usually very un-real and are useful mainly to religious avatars ( i.e. jesus christ resurrection ) as a mean to show ability to communicate from his dis-embodied spirit to his embodied parishioners and in doing so, validate his teachings as a way for spiritual redemption. Even LRH mentions his try on this in one of his last Ron´s journals from Creston ( have anyone of you heard of LRH lately ?, from himself of course!).

      1. Thank you for the kind words Rafael-SN. From my own reality, I came to understand some present time conditions by dipping into identifications with past life experiences. From these understandings I feel that some present time inconsistencies leveled and I then moved on with my mind in a “calmer and happier” frame of mind. I would not tell another what to do in this regard. I am only relaying something which exists in my mind as something which is real to me.

        I am not extrapolating an assumption from my subjective experience what is or what should be the correct reality for another. This is for the religionist to bark. I am only trying to work out to my own satisfaction “What is reality?”

        I would say this, I do not assume LRH spoke truth when he said that he is the first and the only One to have “made it” to have “risen above the bank.” I believe that this has been routinely worked out by explorers of the mind and spirit. I also believe that the resolution to this may be so counter-intuitive as to defy conventional understanding and so the “secrets” routinely die with the explorers, whose life in this temporal existence is too short to use to do anything far-reaching with the knowledge. Or possibly, there is no helping another with this knowledge and the path is only one person wide and so it is for each of us to work out to our own satisfaction and that is all.

        What do you think about the idea of a solution for all?

      2. Chris, I understand the basic dianetics operation of dipping into identifications of past identities with the purpose of understanding postulated or agreed upon inconsistencies, in this process the e-meter is a vital tool. But it is not the only way to get yourself freed of those false assumptions, there is the present time observation of the existence enabling you to do the same operation and get the same outcome without dipping into your mind energy flows. This is the traditional spiritual handling done and teached by the religious avatars and leading to the true spiritual redemption without psichotic breakdown risks in the process.
        Why the religionist bark ?, because it is in the very nature of the enlightened person and can´t do anything else. In the same way a cell in your body can not be without the rest of the body in a minor scale or a society can not be without the rest of the society, we are seeing the life nature at work here.
        About the ” rise above the bank “, it is my opinion that the “secrets” don´t routinely die with the explorers but remain as religious texts, usually not-ised by the spiritually blind person. So the solution is to teach the person how to properly look.
        About the life-span, you don´t need an eternity to learn the basic lessons to move on to a higher condition, if you approve the grade then you shouldn´t go thru it again. This is why I say, if LRH really did make it and rose above the bank, he will never be seen on earth again.
        About the solution for all, the door out is in front of each one of us, the problem is, do you really want to open it ?.

          1. Vinay, yes, right now I am investigating this mechanics. It seems that the buddha to come (metteyya ) knows them better than Gotama buddha. Do you know some thing about this ” in one day enlightened buddha ” ?

            1. “I hope I am not being impolite in putting it here on Geir’s blog”

              I don’t think anyone ever said that posting one of your links was impolite. But I thought your saying that (that you hoped it wasn’t impolite) was polite of you. 😉

            2. Thanks for that. But I have been accused of promoting KHTK here, when I thought I was simply talking about my ideas. There is no charge for KHTK, you know. It is completely free.


            3. It was never about money or charging for anything as you know, It was about how many times you rererereiterated a point. Promoting the same idea in many, many threads in many, many different angles is akin to spamming. That was the point.

            4. Vinay, I have read your KHTK 1A,2A,3A and can offer a recommendation posted in your blog as KHTK 3A seems to be out of gradient with open eyes at first and closed eyes in the second place, thanks for your link.

            5. Thanks for your recommendation. Just to let you know Looking is not the same thing as TR0. Here, with eyes open, one is not fixedly staring at anything, but comfortably looking around, just as one does with eyes closed.


            6. Vinay, thanks for the clarification, I will read and practice these exercises accordingly. By the way, I like your new edition of the KHTK series in your KHTK blog page, they seem more direct, practical and easy to use for an average person without diving into questions and confusions, eventually some photos or drawings could be interesting.

            7. Thank you for your feedback, Rafael. The new KHTK series is the result of better understanding. The discussions here and elsewhere have helped me greatly. Also, I am entering the phase of testing out these materials very closely.

              The ideas of photos and drawings is quite interesting. At the moment I have no idea how to go about developing them. Any help is appreciated.


            8. Vinay, I am testing this vipassana version and seems to detach mest symbols from the consciousness, a good option to avoid boredom is what I can say by now. On the audiovisual aids, these can be like your cambodia photos or pariyatti drawings with some tags on them illustrating a specific step of the procedure.

            9. Vinaire: ” Thanks for your recommendation. Just to let you know Looking is not the same thing as TR0. Here, with eyes open, one is not fixedly staring at anything, but comfortably looking around, just as one does with eyes closed. . ”


              Fixedly staring is not TR0 either.

        1. Hey Rafael SN, I may have wrote simplistically about my experience above but I did not do that nor direct that at you as though you needed it explained that way. I know enough about you from the blog to know that you are an experienced Scientologist. I wrote that way to convey my most basic understanding of my own experience. I try to never write in Scientologese because I don’t think it is helpful to the reader nor to me as a writer because it makes me lazy and lets me make Scientology assumptions about results that “need no further proof.” I am not a Scientologist nor do I beat the drum for or against Scientology. Neither do I abhor using a Scientology principle. I am only interested in results and my attention is on attempting to pave a road where the results can be clearly understood. As you so clearly wrote above, my path is personal. I try not to have too many expectations of others beyond simple civility. You have this quality in abundance.

        2. Chris, I Try to have civility, if any time you see any different please tell me. I am not a scientologist but know the subject quite well as I was a very dedicated S.O. scientologist. Now, for me, any data on scientology is open to analysis and evaluation. In my view, to call oneself scientologist is compromised if you aim spiritual integrity and redemption. For me there are useful things in scientology and some very dangerous too.

          1. Agreed. As to spiritual integrity, I feel that it is neither made nor negated by the brand-name. People must work out their integrity for themselves. Your manners are always very good — no complaints.

    3. Chris, I am sincerely happy for your spiritual advance and cleaning of false assumptions, I understand that it is a self-determined process and outside evaluation is not needed as it is your very personal chosen path and I respect that. About past life memoires, coming from wogs and scientologist ( 2nd returnees included ) seem to be un-real too, as to be useful. I mean, if someone is a good singer, he will be a singer forever life after life. Here I don´t see any spiritual advance.

      1. “I’ve always been a singer; therefore, I will always be a singer” would be in Scientologese a “computation.” This type of consideration can have aberrational value. The Scientologist hopes to uncover these “computations,” become aware of their hypnotic force and change.

        It is my reality that we fix considerations and these can tend to rule a part of our lives. Sometimes we forget that we made these considerations. Uncovering the consideration we made in the past can help level an inconsistency that we are suffering in the present. This WOULD be a spiritual advance, wouldn’t it?

        1. Chris:

          ” It is my reality that we fix considerations and these can tend to rule a part of our lives. Sometimes we forget that we made these considerations. Uncovering the consideration we made in the past can help level an inconsistency that we are suffering in the present. This WOULD be a spiritual advance, wouldn’t it? ”


          Definitely a spiritual advance.

          The Grades and various other levels cover quite a bit on knocking out considerations or prior postulates.

          Even walking down the street and realizing that you had made a decision based on some prior incident can change the way one views his current scene.

          It’s all good. 🙂

      2. Chris, you say ” Uncovering the consideration we made in the past can help level an inconsistency that we are suffering in the present. This WOULD be a spiritual advance, wouldn’t it? “.
        Yes, I think so. The problem here is that e-metered uncovering has become a mess and personally don´t have faith this scene will ever recover ( save may be counted cases of goood will and competent auditors ). I consider healthier to stop using LRH brand tech and develop new un-metered spiritual tech based on the workable principles observed on the subject. As for future embodied lifes, I see it not like a prize but like a bad note. why not to do it right in the first place to get a better condition.

        1. Good points, Rafael SN. Well the world is our oyster, is it not? Each of us describes our own path that makes sense for us to walk. Possibly this is your predilection, to walk this path of helping others and describing a better helping therapy? Have you reviewed Vinaire’s KHTK processes? He has put in quite a it of work on this and is always asking for help to better the processes. These are meter-less and gentle processes which I believe have value. Possibly there is a view or a forking branch to consider?

          1. I instructed a person on KHTK today. We met at the local library. I simply went over KHTK 1A and KHTK 2A with her. I answered any questions. Then she started on the practice of Looking. Boy! It went beautifully. I had to give her my handkerchief. After 1 hour she was beaming.

            Now she can study rest of the KHTK issues and follow them herself. I shall instruct her further as needed on phone or through email.


          2. I would call my action of yesterday as initiating a person to Buddha;’s Vipassana (KHTK). After the initiation the person is pretty much on his or her own.

            It was interesting to note that after yesterday’s initiation, this person (“A”) started to talk about how these principles of KHTK existed in Christianity too, but were not recognized fully. She talked about her experiences in the Christian Church and how Christ was being misinterpreted in many ways. She ended up expressing her view that all religions are the same at the core.

            It was very interesting listening to her.


            1. I had this same talk with my wife last night. Basically saying the same as you just expressed that I might have come full circle in my thinking about the underlying Nature of humanity and Life as it expresses itself. The sense that there is a universal truth to the nature of things is strong within me and while this is no evidence to present to another, it remains that I perceive a deterministic universe governed by simple rules. I seem to act within these rules with some small leeway, and yet that small leeway to me contains the fact or illusion (can I tell which? will it matter which? is it up to me to determine how much it matters to me?) of free will.

              My abhorrence of an anthropomorphic god concept has quelled. That I seem to be aware of being aware is either evidence to me of my spiritual nature or else it is the perfect illusion.

        2. Rafael,

          Prior to the meter, auditing was done by indicators and knowing the tech. It is quite easy to do once you get the hang of it.

          1. Dennis, I like the unmetered auditing by indicators as done in the objective processes, purif rd, clay table processing, word clearing,etc. and my pc´s like it too. I can agree on this.

            1. Rafael,

              Yes, try it on other auditing too.

              I think you’re statement on having a competent auditor is also very important.

              Yes, metered auditing can seem like mess if used badly or with an untrained auditor.

              Years ago we used to match up a slower or new pc with a slower or new auditor – worked very well – they were comparable and with lots of practice, the auditor would become better & better.

              It’s not that metered auditing is necessarily a mess; it’s the lousy auditors that make it appear that way.

              Auditing is a help flow – with or without a meter.

            2. Yes, too bad it’s been a real hit & miss inside the church the last few years.

              Well, there’s the independent field and some very good auditors out there.

            3. Oops .. spelling mistake:

              ” I think you’re … ”

              Should read ‘ I think your … “

        3. Chris, well not quite an oyster because inside it we have up tone communications with creative persons and a lot of interesting things to look. It would be good to freely communicate that way with the clams too :-). A better helping theraphy would be great using the concepts of ” person ” and dichotomies. About Vinay´s KHTK, I guess these processes are a good light start but to me they are too much subjetive and can cause introversion if done in excess. A good continuation could be adressed to the interaction and familiarity with live persons and groups as a mean to gain a condition I call of ” FAITH ” ( not in any god but of common and armonious movement ) with respect to certain parameters of a dichotomy ( as dictated by ethnics ). May be there are more to add ( TWTH ?) but this would be a start.

  31. It also works to dilute one’s own message if it is repeated too much, ironically.

  32. One of the basic assumptions in the Scientology and Dianetics’ method of helping people is that “YOU HAVE A REACTIVE MIND”. And this operates on the assumption that the way to help you is “TO GET RID OF YOUR REACTIVE MIND”.

    What if you could consider, just for a moment, that you do not have a reactive mind? Consider that there is no such thing at all that exists as a reactive mind.

    And what if you could consider, just for a moment, that you did not need to get rid of anything at all? That you were actually fine just as you are, not imprisoned or hampered by anything at all.

    What if you considered that you are just a human being here on planet earth and that everything is absolutely, positively fine with that?

    What would happen then?

    1. The key problem, as Buddha pointed out, is PAIN & SUFFERING.

      Hubbard basically came up with the idea of “Reactive Mind” and said that if one gets rid of one’s reactive mind then one becomes able to control the MEST universe. The assumption has been that one would overcome pain and suffering by controlling the MEST universe. Is that assumption true?

      This has largely been a theory of Hubbard. How much of this theory is workable in practice can be seen from the current state of mind of the people who are running the Church of Scientology. They certainly think that they are able and that they are controlling the MEST universe. They seem to troubled only by the pesky spirits of suppressives and pts’s..

      People can control pain and suffering by letting the MEST universe be as it is, and simply detaching themselves from it. They can still go about their business of life and be happy. They don’t feel the obsession for controlling the MEST universe and showing off this ability of theirs.