Random thoughts

Would you rather live tomorrow than be alive today?

Strive for better or enjoy what is? Both.

In exploring What and Why
	One should examine the boundaries
		Cosmology at the grandest scale
		Particle physics at the smallest

Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems may be the most fundamental of truths we know.


Random picture – 100 meters from my house

341 thoughts on “Random thoughts

  1. The Oxford English Dictionary defines ‘random’ as “Having no definite aim or purpose; not sent or guided in a particular direction; made, done, occurring, etc., without method or conscious choice; haphazard.” This concept of randomness suggests a non-order or non-coherence in a sequence of symbols or steps, such that there is no intelligible pattern or combination.

    How would we know whether the photo is random?

      1. haha I know! In my thinking, randomity no longer envelopes the “unknown cause” as it used to.

        Random “drift” in things that we observe can be accounted for by simple underlying formulae.

        Consciousness can be accounted for by a quantity of particles..

        For me, to be caught out as “being a particle” within the system is sobering and strikes deeply at my ego. I thought this was what I wanted, but I do not feel the joy of leveling inconsistencies. Rather, I am feeling punked. The Universe ridicules me. Why such a loss of havingness and value?

        1. Perhaps it is really a flaw in the language.

          For example: It`s a cat.

          Alan Watts suggested that a better description would be a living intangible that is catting, foresting, skying, thinking, pervading, experiencing and so on. The intangible is not a thing, not an it. Nor are its products an it. Rather it is a manifesting. The intangible manifests on a continuous basis shifting focus and is never the manifested..

          1. In my effort to mechanize what I see, to get out the superstition; in my effort to get the spooky effects out of the universe, it seems I have ignored what the great minds all saw ~~ “spooky effects.” This was arrogant of me. I have been sitting here pondering this and to myself feeling embarrassed.

            1. Chris, this post is so like you. You are special. Not too many people could muster enough self-confront to come up with such an assessment – whether accurate or not! 😉

            2. I need to say that because of your post accusing me of having BPC regarding Scientology, I addressed this in auditing. You were right. I do have a desired and and as yet unfulfilled understanding regarding LRH’s “real reasons and motivations” which won’t resolve for now so I am giving up on that for the time. LRH this, LRH that, . . . blah, blah… I am just stopping that as a fruitless waste of my time. Read on.

              Maria’s post saying that Scientology does not work, people work, is a cogent reminder for us all to be mindful and to get busy handling our own cases in ways that bear fruit more substantive than negative chatter.

              LRH said, “The title (of the book) ‘SCIENTOLOGY 8-8008’ means the ‘attainment of infinity by reduction of the MEST universe as apparent infinity to zero, and the increase of the zero of one’s own universe to an infinity of one’s own universe.’ ” This statement seems consistent to me in light of dozens of threads and thousands of posts describing our individual efforts to “know ourselves” on this blog alone. My own research into my own mind reveals this to me to be a clear and workable statement of purpose for myself in my own efforts toward spiritual improvement.

              For any of us who have moved our TA doing a solo session, maybe we should rehab our own purposes to continue to do this. Scientology may have done a disservice by making it seem quick and easy to accomplish “ultimate” spiritual goals; However, anyone can and routinely does get immediate “gains” spiritually, even if some of us like Alanzo think they are momentary. My opinion is that the gains are not momentary, they are rather small in proportion to the case sitting there waiting for us to confront. For those who spent years auditing on “7, etc.,” would you be willing to talk about the particular successes and failures that you’ve experienced doing this?

              If the physicist is supposed to not worry about spooky effects and in to “shut-up and calculate,” then maybe those of us whose predilection is towards the meta-physics should “shut-up and audit.” (I exaggerate — I don’t want anyone to shut-up — just making a point.)

              I am curious if any of us are openly or secretly solo-auditing and if so if anyone would be willing to come out of the closet and talk about it?

            3. Love it: “Shut up and audit.” But you know what’s funny? Between the two of us I’m usually more the one to beat the drum for Scientology and yet – I would paraphrase your paraphrase as something like “Shut up and keep traveling” I could have said “seeking” or “looking (in the deepest sense)” or various things, but by “traveling” (or the like) I would include any path of choice that is taking you in a direction you want to go. All roads lead to Realization (not as good as your paraphrase :)). Now mind you, it may very well be that at some point the path of auditing would need to also be taken to actually go the distance. That I don’t doubt – I just don’t know it to be true as a personal reality, so far.

            4. Chris,

              I don’t think you’re arrogant.

              Spooky – yes, but never arrogant 🙂

          2. “Who would mouse and who would lion
            Or who would be the tamer
            And who would hear directions clear
            From the unnameable namer?”

            From “A Very Cellular Song” by the Incredible String Band,1968

            It’s a long piece but here’s Part 2 which ends with a nice chant:

            1. Wow Valkov,

              I thought I was one of the few who listened to Incredible String Band … great group!

              They were very much on my main list in the late ’60s & early ’70s – still are, in fact I was playing a few oldies recently.

              Thanks for the memories!

        2. Chris, you haven’t been punked! We may be (and probably are, IMO) reducible to particles, in physical terms – but particles with free will.

            1. By now, I’ve answered this a couple places/times… But my direct answer, “Everything can be reduced to particles and then some. We can identify with these particles, or not.”

        3. Chris, “For me, to be caught out as “being a particle” within the system is sobering and strikes deeply at my ego. I thought this was what I wanted, but I do not feel the joy of leveling inconsistencies. Rather, I am feeling punked. The Universe ridicules me. Why such a loss of havingness and value?
          Would your ego suffer even greater from loss if you believed you are not even being particles? Here is the most incredible thing I have experienced I share this with you it might help. Thinking that one is no more [no desire to be any item to believe I am something or somebody] or one is only a tiny particle or one is nothing no one it those thoughts do give a feeling of loss emptiness, Plus dozens of other considerations like Bit of sadness to I am sure that one is no longer in the game.
          Chris, you have been tricked again by your own thoughts-considerations… There is no loss, nothing were taken away from you, on the contrarily, new dimensions were added to your already reach store or knowledge. You now know you can be a body or nothing or a particle too, what fun.. When one gives up the considerations of being something being attached to something permanently… all is gone than you can be that greedy being experiencing all., and have it all.
          Peter and I, few weeks back we had communication about “no longer in the game”. No longer? That too is a thought and if you examine that than what really is? The games don’t lessen, they remain here they continue, can be continued if you choose those. The only part is erased the heavy energy which stimulates, and that stimulation is the permanency in the game. Example, think you have a tremendous headaches while working, [work is a game condition too] headaches is erased now you are working feeling happy, than you toe causes your pain while working, the game is there just new element is added. Now you work and new thoughts enter in your space….. you see the body was doing the repetitive movements… but the game a totally different thing, your creation is your thoughts that is the game.. Moving particles about pushing them from one location to the other, well that is just a very small part of the game… and to find out that they are not even solid!! Well, insults galore… you thought you were body, now you think only as a particle, than nothing… but those are just viewpoints. How about play a game and every day choose to be something different? Today I am a heavy boulder… tomorrow a car than a dog, than. You got it! last few day I have been with the rolling clouds… one can learn a lot what those beings play, how they think and what made them believe that they are now occupying those bodies… because that is what they doing…
          PS: tell the ego go home to Mama…hehehe..

          1. Elizabeth: “Chris, you have been tricked again by your own thoughts-considerations…”

            Chris: Right you are. With my internet down for two days, I was able to spend a little time auditing this and it washed out alright. I loved the “blues moment” as I’ve been running on a smoother level for a while.

            It is seeming more clear to me that consciousness is not a particle but consciousness can identify with a particle. Extrapolate from there…!

            1. It is seeming more clear to me that consciousness is not a particle but consciousness can identify with a particle. Extrapolate from there…!

              Yes, that is how I have been coming to see this. Consciousness is an ability to identify or perhaps better said, distinguish or discern. But I don`t think consciousness itself relies on the existence of particles at all. It`s just that being at-large participation in this time-space continuum is based on particles. i.e. consciousness doesn`t disappear just because particles disappear. Particles disappear and what is left is consciousness.

            2. Maria, may I? How we view things is so different, from here what we call MEST Universe or where nothing just particles moving about. .
              I will say from what point I view: The first light I have become aware of and identified with. In that moment nothing existed no consciousness of anything since that concept was not coined. Nothing. Light that was it. [I am sure I was not the only one who has become aware in that moment of the light, but beingness did not exist yet, so that remains the mystery how that light and by how many have been seen.]
              From looking back from here now where we use words, continually evaluate, judge etc. I would say that I become aware of that light or “I am the light”.
              Since we become educated with education we complicated things in order to have more interesting captivating game and that brought to voluminous confusing concepts.[ the words- concepts are the only prison which hold the being]
              The compulsion to tag every action has caused- created myriad of dead ends in the maze. It seems that maze is the thinking- conceptualizing, labeling agreeing and disagreeing. The end is reached when all those bewildering speculating is given up.
              Yes, when particles are no longer there if you want to call yourself “the consciousness” yes that remains… that is the intangible-therefore infinite..
              PS, I am most delighted, that solidity don’t exist, and what I have seen this morning… neither the “Forest” or the universe unless you put it there in that moment..

            3. Maria, the most difficult “”THING” to give up is ”thinking” because it is just that a “thing” . Thinking is like a river a huge boiling torrent myriad’s of sprinkling color of energy –vitality ribbon rushing roaring, continually recreating restoring itself.
              Every moment is a new moment in its life and hold power which is like a magnet to the being, that river of energy is mesmerising and hold the being captive.
              Changing viewpoints will not get one out of that flow because those new view point are still the part of that river. But erasing those concepts as in session will free the being once and for all.

      2. NOTHING-NESS is it the true spiritual state?
        A cognition which I put under your name.. I have a cog on the above all ready, a new reality. if any one care to ask, than ask.

        I have had few hours of solo auditing on clouds today.. The sessions are simply fantastic… totally un-real or accurately real?
        From one cloud I picked up there was ‘”nothing”” in it but I did not believed that “nothingness” since in my reality the universe which we no longer view in the “now”= we tend to put into something: considerations like: it is in the past, all gone, belongs to yesterday, forgotten, not remembered, never happened and most cases we just pull an invisible curtain front of it and we say and we believe too “Out of sight: out of mind.” And we wash our hands and lean into a new game which “we say” we are playing in the NOW at this moment.
        So I never believe that nothingness existed in that cloud, I was just facing that “nothingness” one more in new unit of time related to different reality. The session begins and that NOTHINGNESS has become a huge session.
        This being who has believed he was nothing, moved into that state to get away from it all. That nothingness in the end of the session turned out to be a ”Huge cover up” so nothing could be detected for safety reasons that is believed, or noticed, observed, sensed from outside, therefore interfered with, or could not to be disturbed, being affected in any ways by others or taken away and destroyed, not- ised plus had few dozen other considerations beside those and one of them is the “meditative state”.
        But the big cog. was the “IMPORTANCE” of the nothingness””. Huge reality of different kind. What was important because” if we are nothing, than we are spiritual beings”. Since “being nothing” than we are not Material- not beings of any kind: having things with different bodies-anchor points.
        “”””””””””” That last consideration in the cog.. sort of made my heart jump.. Is it truly we believe that the being nothing is the spiritual state or we are made to believe that is the true state and in fact that is just an implanted state..”””””””””
        PS: I am sure there will be a continual, cognition because I never believe that there is an end to something, that any cognition is a final cog: the last reality in existence in the Universe since the Universe is too big, infinite to have ending a final conclusion on any subject… Good day in Paradise, there is harmony in the Universe+ full of dog dodo…..hehehe.. I wonder when is the last lough one could be having?

        1. From Castaneda’s first book, THE TEACHINGS OF DON JUAN, A YAQUI WAY OF KNOWLEDGE, “For me there is only the traveling on the paths that have heart — on any path that may have heart. There I travel, and the only worthwhile challenge for me is to traverse its full length. And there I travel — looking, looking, breathlessly.”

          1. relentlessly, in fact the fire is stronger than ever because by now I know the knowledge gained….. infinite….

  2. I was walking behind Geir when he tripped over a fallen tree, his HP-41 fell out of his pocket, the built-in HD-camera clicked and took this apparently random photo. Geir caught the camera before it hit the ground. Just another normal episode in the day of Geir.


  3. I quote from the wikipedia link provided by Geir : “Gödel’s incompleteness theorems are two theorems of mathematical logic that establish inherent limitations of all but the most trivial axiomatic systems capable of doing arithmetic. The theorems, proven by Kurt Gödel in 1931, are important both in mathematical logic and in the philosophy of mathematics.”
    Now I quote the definition of mathematics from wikipedia: ” Mathematics is the study of quantity, structure, space, and change. Mathematicians seek out patterns and formulate new conjectures “.
    In my view, the most fundamental truths on ideal mathematical structure should be complemented with the equally fundamental truths on quality and function. What I mean is, what I see in the woods photo are beautiful and fully complete and consistent trees, they are not a mathematical or informatics structure. What is my mistake ?.

    1. Didn’t those trees become what they are through evolution? Which by definition could not have been consistent, right?

      1. marildi, when these trees evolved, they were as well, complete and consistent trees of his kind in that particular step of evolution. The missing point here is that the Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems apply to mathematics and algorithmic information ( like the computer information ), not to problems like the Pythagorean theorem but to the most complex ones. When you evaluate living things and activities there are ” functions ” to accomplish with an acceptable quality to be considered complete and consistent enough. An example is the job done by an electrician in a house, it should have a workable function and quality to be paid by the house owner as a complete and consistent well done job. This function aspect is more important when there are social interactions like in the family and work but can be extended to such topics as God. imo.

        1. I do see what you mean about each step of evolution resulting in complete and consistent trees. I was looking at the process itself of evolution, and thinking that if you want to have a result that (besides being complete and consistent) is of a higher level – then the process has to become inconsistent to the degree that there’s a change or alteration (inconsistency) from what it was – so as to achieve a different result, one that is of a higher quality. This is how I see the evolution of not only biological forms but Consciousness too.

          How does it work when you are extending it to God?

          1. marildi, you talk about the process of evolution itself, somehow seeking a higher level result. And you mention, if I understand well, that this process has to become inconsistent when there is change.
            In my view, the evolution process is not a machine with mathematical changes but a system that inhale inputs and exhale waste without becoming essentially more or less. An example would be the act of feed and then latter, go to the w.c. . Rafa doesn´t become more of him by eating and doesn´t become less after the restroom….., in the case of the forest, the forest has like input rain, sun, the fallen trees and has like an output new little trees, oxigen, shadows, etc. the whole system has millions years being complete and consistent. in the case of the evolution of the consciousness in the homo sapiens, it is a process which involves comunication mixed with emotions and this is a very explosive combination. Here the inconsistencies can be seen as aberration ( but not as mathematically predictable conjectures ). In my opinion, the next step of evolution for the homo sapiens is to solve this communication mixture ( as a side note, here lies the importance of a popular education on the mind ).

            1. The way I am looking at how evolution works as a complete system is that there is a process which results in a new and different organism that survives more optimally – i.e. the intended result of the process is evolution. If the process itself remained fixed (a set “blueprint” for the organism) it would be consistent and wouldn’t be able to achieve the result of evolution, obviously. However, if indeed it were flexible (inconsistent) and allowed for innovative creativity (by Consciousness, of course, also the creator of the system) there would be a complete system – which per Gödel must be inconsistent.

              I like your description of Consciousness evolution, especially the point about education on the mind. I do however see aberrations as very mathematical – but the creativity (power of postulates and considerations) of Consciousness is what can handle aberration and what can achieve evolution.

            2. marildi, I understand this inconsistent quality of the matter to change as a kind of entropy necessary to create movement and time since the creation of this universe and which eventually will cease ( due to the acceleration of energy outside the common point of origin. This is why is important to not get stuck in the mere transmigration of the souls, because they eventually will have almost zero mass present and no time ( no game and no posibility to start a new one ). In my view this declaration of inconsistency from Gödel can become very easily a justification or ser fac to explain laziness. An example: mom asks to the child, why he don´t do a god homework and the child says, because he can´t achieve a complete and consistent one per Gödel 🙂

            3. Rafael, very impressive post. Just one point – the last line about “complete and consistent per Gödel”. Either you miswrote that or you misduplicated what the theorems actually say – and that could explain any misunderstanding about my comment on evolution. Here’s a quote from one of Geir’s earlier posts:

              “Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems tells us that no system can be both complete and consistent. You must choose; A system that is complete and inconsistent, or a system that is consistent and incomplete. https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/08/14/you-cant-have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too/

            4. marildi, you quote from one of Geir’s earlier posts: “Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems tells us that no system can be both complete and consistent. You must choose; A system that is complete and inconsistent, or a system that is consistent and incomplete. “. As I understand it, it is the same as to say that absolutes are unobtainable, but a little more twisted. Of course that from the viewpoint of mathematical absolutes, you will always win an argument with this single final statement. But this is a fallacious use of a mathematical theorem in the practical reality, an inaplicable use sometimes. i.e. . What is an ideal absolute apple ?, there are not one comple or consistent enough to be absolute, but do you consider an absolute apple the one you eat at mid-day when you have hunger enough. mathematicaly it is not perfect but it tastes mmmmm……. just absolutely perfect. So what I say is: mathematically Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems are absolutlely truth ( with infer that they are not 🙂 ) but empirically they are not ( which will be hence an absolute truth 😉 ).

            5. The theorems says what it says – and thusly implies that the universe itself cannot be both complete and consistent. Neither can God. It is in fact deeper than “absolutes are unobtainable” – since that is merely according to LRH “a consideration of this universe”.

            6. Geir, the implication that the universe itself cannot be both complete and consistent could be very well inferred from these two theorems but the God aspect seems to me more like based in the Big Bang explanation on Stephen Hawking´s book ” The Grand Design ” . There this British theoretical physicist, cosmologist, and author says that due to the high gravity of the first superdense marble ( the precursor matter of the universe ), well, there should not be any time. This is the basic mis-understanding in this ” God do not exist ” chain. Pretty silly on him because, after all, who created the little timeless superdense marble and even more, why the creator of matter needed any already existing time ?. talking about assumptions….

            7. I am not challenging your faith or anyone else’s faith in God. I am merely explaining that the theorems resolves the ages old conundrums revolving around God’s almighty-ness. Apart from that – mathematics is not something Unreal – it is a basic description-language of the Real.

            8. Geir, thanks for your explanation. As I currently can see this, the existence could be said as having always inconsistencies. Only something non-existant will have an absence of inconsistencies, too. But this state would be as well unknowable :-). On math I have my own understanding limits.

            9. Rafael, I see now what you meant about the child saying he could never get his homework to be complete and consistent – since that would violate the Gödel’s theorems. Funny :D. But I get what you’re saying about the potential abuse.

              I think one way to look at Gödel’s theorems is to consider subsets and supersets and the fact that there is always a superset above any set that gives it additional meaning and completeness, without which the set is incomplete. Also, if you tried to incorporate something from a superset into a subset as part of it, you would introduce inconsistency into the subset. An example might be science as a subset and consciousness as the superset. Or Newtonian physics and quantum physics.

            10. Thanks, Rafael. Thinking about it again, I guess quantum physics isn’t actually a superset over Newton physics, but it does indicate its incompleteness. A Unified Field Theory I assume would be the superset over both and make them consistent and complete (but not within themselves). In itself, a Unified Field Theory would be incomplete even if it accounted for Consciousness, since we don’t understand the origins of Consciousness – another superset, I suppose.

              Another way I look at Gödel’s theorems is in terms of frames of reference, which are like different levels of viewing some sphere of understanding. So unless some body of knowledge takes in every possible viewpoint, even though it may be consistent it would be incomplete – i.e. we would have to reach the 8th dynamic or become God in our own universe.

            11. Except to the degree that you deny it, you are already “god of your own universe.” Are there other gods of your own universe? If you say so, you bet! I believe this is another way of stating the “Clear Cog.” And it may be the ceasing of the “urge to survive as oneself.” I have not wondered about survival as myself for some time. I am working around the language, intentions, demarcation lines, etc., but “the urge to survive” is a declaration to myself that there is a possibility of succumbing and this is me an identification with MEST and a lie (for me) as well.

            12. Good point. I should have said not only God of one’s own universe but God of all others in it as well. .

              On past discussions about “urge to survive” my thought has been that LRH gave that as the dynamic principle of existence in just the context you mentioned – MEST. That is precisely the context for the first 4 dynamics. Only later did he add the other 4 dynamics and then changed “urge to survive” to “urge to exist as…” each dynamic.

            13. The word “urge” has two definitions: “an impulse” or “an involuntary or instinctive impulse” (Random House) I can see that having the second one might be aberrated, but not the first. The first would go with simply having a “purpose”, a knowing and intentional part of any game. And who doesn’t want a game?

              For me, any way I slice it comes down to a game and a purpose – purpose as a human and purpose as a being, both. And MEST is the playing field – for both. As for the word “contrived”, since it has an unnecessary negative connotation, I would just say the game has been “mocked up” – as games are.

              I go along with LRH when he said that there is nothing inherently wrong with the universe – it’s what beings do with it. The universe is our friend. 😀
              Don’t you still feel the way you did a while back when you expressed not wanting or needing more than to enjoy life (paraphrased)? You talked me into it! 😉

            14. Of course. Aberrated would fit under the second definition I quoted – involuntary impulse. That’s the unseen, held-down = aberration. I just don’t think that LRH was using that definition when he talked about the “urge to survive”.

            15. Got it. Then you feel that there are “urges” which are involuntary and these are aberrated and there are urges which are autonomous and these are . . . ? — I didn’t quite follow that, help me — Then where does the ownership of the unaberrated urge lie? What is the source of the unaberrated urge?

            16. Unseen and unknowing urges might have been created by oneself and then hidden, or they might have been created by another and implanted. I don’t think I am using any theory different from what you know about.

            17. I am going with you. Let’s just establish that there are autonomous urges which are not aberrated. Wherein does or could this autonomy lie?

            18. Good. So lets revisit the autonomous urge, the one which is not aberrated. What could be an example of an unaberrated urge to survive? Is it a matter of degree or of seed or of … ?

            19. Not sure what you mean by a matter of degree or seed.

              Or do you feel that any decision,conclusion or resolution (all synonyms for postulate, per the defintions) are not ever originated or created by oneself but are basically the effect of some other cause?

            20. Althought the writing in many of these posts is beautifully poetic (really), you’re going to have to not be so cryptic for me. Maybe give an example.

            21. Hey Chris,

              I’ve been enjoying the conversation you & Marildi have been having … i thought I’d throw my 2 cents in …

              You ask: ” So lets revisit the autonomous urge, the one which is not aberrated. What could be an example of an unaberrated urge to survive? Is it a matter of degree or of seed or of … ? ”

              Even before Scientology, I think many of us envisioned a world at a much saner level where people in general got along and we worked to help one another survive better. Communication would be honest, the urges that cause one to commit overts would be gone, and there would be some spiritual or theta qualities in relations with others.

              On a personal level – yes, I looked at what came before – the immediate effect on PT when looking at this was a calming potential of energy – a no flow, no action existence – but, great potential.

              I won’t say this is one of those ‘ states of existence we can’t even conceive of’ as LRH mentioned. I can conceive of it. It may be that way for some, but not for me. This conception of the spritual essence of what we are has been present for eons with me. I hesitated at using the word ‘what’ in the last sentence – it is a ‘movement towards MEST’ word as , I believe, is ‘ Self ‘ or any identity that we assume.

              Are there states beyond that? I would think so. Maybe simply a static and immediately below that is the 1st postulate or consideration and the start of the Game.

              In answer to you question, I think this initial urge to survive is likely unaberrated and coming down from there, one slowly agrees to be more & more effect and finally gives up his ability to be Cause and in doing so, gives up a portion of his free will.

            22. Dennis: “I think this initial urge to survive is likely unaberrated and coming down from there, one slowly agrees to be more & more effect and finally gives up his ability to be Cause and in doing so, gives up a portion of his free will.”

              Chris: Agreed. Free will is reduced first by identification with what is created, after that, the withholds (the source of amnesia) lock it up tight as a drum. I have been having a good success with owning up to my own urges, my inconsistent behaviors, and consequent withholds. Confession can be good for the soul. It goes better for me the more I practice. The more I know, the more I understand. The more I understand, the less I judge myself. The less I judge myself, the less I judge others. It is an enlightening experience.

            23. Ahh … loved your last statement: ” Confession can be good for the soul. It goes better for me the more I practice. The more I know, the more I understand. The more I understand, the less I judge myself. The less I judge myself, the less I judge others. It is an enlightening experience. ”


              Yes, isn’t it interesting how that little evolution unfolds? Great for you and others. It is more & more apparent that when one ‘cleans up’ his own actions as regards himself and his relations to others, a whole plethora of events unfold which affect many universes.

              Great Cog Chris!

              Hey, have you ha a crack at the Ethics Repair list? 4 flows really does a nice job … Flow 0 is a great one – it really whacks away at self-inflicted postulates & considerations 🙂

            24. Thanks Dennis. I have not addressed that humongous list yet. As I have been winning, and as my issues have been unwinding with not too many snags, I have not been inclined to take on those two lists… As it is, I am always backlogged on items to run.

              Truthfully? Unless something truly gargantuan, atom-bomb huge happens, I am working right now over the top of a cog of how large and small the MEST universe and hence my case is. In other words, I am winning, this is good, I intend to continue, BUT the work in front of me is truly looming. I already see short-cuts and just take them, hence my comment about being a loose cannon. But if anyone knows shorter cuts than addressing the rudiments of life such as understanding and the mechanic of be do and have, I am listening.

              There is one hope for me that I keep in reserve. My experience as a troubleshooter and as an auditor teaches me that digging through the muck of a problem in life or of the mind can look pretty solid and durable until the moment when it dissolves without warning. Knowing this, possibly one day there might be a universe ripping cog that just makes everything settle down to pure essence. Until, the game I am playing is fun and rewarding — plenty more than enough to continue.

              King James Bible:
              “For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.”

            25. And autonomous urges? We wind them up like toys and turn them loose. Forgetting where they originate, and being sometimes unhappy with our own inconsistent behavior, these forgotten viewpoints take on a life of their own. ((But not really. It is an apparency, you know, like apparition (ghost).)) They do not endure inspection.

            26. Chris: ” And autonomous urges? We wind them up like toys and turn them loose. Forgetting where they originate, and being sometimes unhappy with our own inconsistent behavior, these forgotten viewpoints take on a life of their own. ((But not really. It is an apparency, you know, like apparition (ghost).)) They do not endure inspection. ”


              Agreed … I have never run into a postulate or consideration that did not dissolve (I became Cause once again) by inspecting and realizing how I was making it happen. And I do mean NEVER.

            27. How do you feel about LRH’s statement that ‘SCIENTOLOGY 8-8008′ means the ‘attainment of infinity by reduction of the MEST universe as apparent infinity to zero, and the increase of the zero of one’s own universe to an infinity of one’s own universe?’

            28. That statement in 8-8008 seems to me that one has achieved the purpose of being the 8th dynamic. Interesting you brought that up. Geir commented earlier to the effect that becoming God would then mean that the universe would have to become inconsistent (per the theorems). I thought about it more and am thinking now that there would no longer be a universe, or at least not the same one. It would probably go back into the Higgs field. Or somethin’. 🙂

            29. Maybe. Sometimes I like to stop drawing lines around the dynamics. Sometimes it helps me to not make boxes and then to try to make my ideas fit inside them. There aren’t any precise lines of demarcation in these dynamic urges. It is just a way of talking about them. But we are getting a little random aren’t we? hehe

            30. Ha ha! I just had the same thought a bit ago – about these random thoughts on the Random Thoughts thread. On a slow Sunday evening it’s a way to increase our randomity. 😀

            31. I think I can apply it to any dynamic. I think it means the reduction of the apparent MEST urge to survive, the MEST urge to identify. And the increase of the apparent zero importance of our own universe to realize the intangable infinity of our own universe. Not the infinity of “self.” That is the reverse vector. Maybe Self is the most concentrated form of MEST. You see how this could be?

            32. “Self is the most concentrated form of MEST.”

              I don’t think I know what you mean. Tell me more.

            33. Said another way, the 8th Dynamic is our home universe. We don’t “become” gods, as these ideas are lower and more concentrated MEST selves. We realize the intangible and then begins the possibility of games. Poko yoked against reversing into our little squeaking meat bodies, we audit. This is how we become familiar with our higher nature.

              All the physics, all the code, all the math describe very well and very elegantly physical existence. Everything can be derived mechanically, even randomity. But the randomity is an apparency and the true randomity lies in locked-up free will. We are arrived at such a state that we have very little life left, until we can scarcely recognize ourselves from the MEST with which we so closely identify.

            34. “Locked-up free will”, you say? Well, only to a certain degree. There are always choices that can be made. Maybe not a very wide array of them, but choices nonetheless. And that’s where free will operates. If there’s a person without any free will, there would be a total robot or zombie. With auditing and/or other means, the choices increase and there’s more free will.

            35. Ok, I will address being cryptic. We say there are “always choices,” but really? Are there? Where are we talking about when we say there are choices? In our universe there are choices, if that, but the MEST universe has a mechanic of be, do, & have. We can begin with a choice, but then there is the mechanic which seems to have to be complied with of be, do & have. But we mostly forget about our home universe where there are infinite possibilities. Mostly we concentrate on “making” something happen in the MEST universe.

              Maybe Hubbard tried to get us to look at the disproportionate attention that we placed on physical success. The ultimate rehabilitation of The Game is to get these proportions back into at least overbalanced on the home universe side of the equation with much much less seriousness on the physical side of the equation. “Urge for survival” can be and has been carried too-too far.

            36. Thanks, Chris. You’re a good sport – that wasn’t cryptic at all, even for me (ha ha!) I totally get what you’re saying and I might have expressed the idea this way: “urge for survival” has had way too much emphasis on lower dynamics, often just the 1st, and too often nothing at all on the 7th which would I think be the home universe.

              Hey, since we’ve been dancing all around the subject of free will, I wanted to share a 10-minute video that explains free will better and more thoroughly than I’ve ever come across. It discusses both randomness and determinism – and quantum phenomena have a very central place. It’s from the “information philosopher” site that Maria introduced us all to some time back. Let’s see what you think (anybody else too):


            37. Sorry to write poorly, I didn’t mean any negative connotation to “contrived.” What strikes you as negative about the following definition?

              1. Deliberately created rather than arising naturally or spontaneously.
              2. Giving a sense of artificiality.

            38. And at that time (reaching God), one would find it inconsistent – because existence itself is inconsistent…

            39. You lost me. Why is existence necessarily inconsistent, rather than possibly just incomplete?

            40. 🙂 If the reaching of the 8th dynamic would attain completeness, then it would be inconsistent, thus having The Whole of Existence as Inconsistent.

            41. Oh, you meant in that instance of reaching God. I thought you meant in general.

              Hmmm… Maybe existence would be inconsistent in that the dynamic principle would be inconsistent with the actuality.

            42. marildi, good observation, you say: ” a Unified Field Theory would be incomplete even if it accounted for Consciousness, since we don’t understand the origins of Consciousness “. The frames of reference aproach to this inconsistencies vs. completeness conundrum looks for me like a good intuitive solution to the problem.

            43. Thanks :). The principle of frames of reference is so often applicable. That and the principle of fractals – which may just complete Gödel’s theorems ;).

            44. LOL! Love it. Said this myself. Not to make Godel wrong, just to take a simple fact and expand it to the absurd. Good one.

          2. marildi, about the evolution of not only biological forms but Consciousness too and how it is related with what I call God I will try to give you a brief viewpoint. Consciousness is a quality that each living unit has to some degree, from a virus to organs in your body ( like the heart ) and from you to larger groups like human species. In this cycle of life there is a growing of the so called ” Consciousness ” quality. How it relates with the God ? God is the final stage of this evolutive process. If you understand and naturally practice the right communication with the existence then you eventually will comunicate with the higher level forms of that existence. Religion def. : from latin noun word, ” Res “: thing, object, being, existence and ” ligare “, latin verbal word: to tie, bind, unite, comunicate . The better you do this activity described in the definition, the most Consciousness you achieve. 😉

            1. Thank you for the answer. So where you say that God is the final stage of evolution, do you mean becoming one with God? Or is it more like being in full communication with God?

              “Right communication with existence” – nicely put. I see it that way too.

  4. Reading the OP again, I got a better understanding of the connection between those “simple” questions and a fundamental principle as the answer. And it hit me that there’s so much meaning in this tiny post of just a few understated lines that I thought – it’s poetry. Or maybe “just” artful prose (which includes a HyperList ;)).

    The photo too I can read lots of meaning into, besides it being aesthetic. Beautiful post! Thank you for the pleasure moment and for pointing out Gödel’s theorem as a valuable fundamental. 🙂

  5. Geir, I covered this in my article, “On WIll”. thanks for that info…
    I never read your OT article… even if I would have would not make any difference to me since I would not ‘remember’ it since I dont have Memory..

    1. Life begins with the 8th Dynamic. This is the initial starting point. Then we consider. We consider grand ideas of spiritual life, then think about worlds and universes, then the considerations build to support more and more solidity. Countless Eons later, we begin to create the wind-up toys and set them loose. Fully and apparently autonomous, they eat and are eaten, just as the rest of the universe eats and is eaten.

      Finally we mock ourselves by becoming the wind-up toys and fear for our survival in a universe which can only eat and be eaten.

    1. Chris, you mention this : ” Truthfully? Unless something truly gargantuan, atom-bomb huge happens, I am working right now over the top of a cog of how large and small the MEST universe and hence my case is. In other words, I am winning, this is good, I intend to continue, BUT the work in front of me is truly looming. I already see short-cuts and just take them, hence my comment about being a loose cannon. ”


      The size of case? Yeah … that is a wild one.

      For me, sometimes it appears that it is an endless mass of confusion – very heavy at times. If I don’t spot the cause at that point, I just let it destimulate.

      I remember a couple times on OT 2 where I got into something, lost my whole perception of where I was and awoke a long time later still holding the cans and head on my auditing table – heavy stuff at times, BUT I realized I was running thru incidents and finally the fog lifted, along with my head 🙂

      At times it appears that the size of case is gargantuan, but I think it is somewhat of a misdirector. I like your idea of finding the shortest route – to me, if it feels right – it is.

      As long as you are getting the TA, then all is good.

      Going back to the ‘gargantuan’ case … I think you have likely experienced that when you inspect that oddball postulate or consideration – it quickly boils down to a simplicity of understanding.

      It is wild to me that such simplicities can hold so much power over oneself (or one considers it that way), and appear to be so large in size & depth.

      Once that confusion starts to dissipate, the ‘mass’ quickly dissolves and it is truly gone. Key-outs are a different phenomena to me and as per LRH tech, it is still there but not impinging …

      Regardless, spotting the source and all considerations regarding lack of Responsibility and misowned Cause will quickly blow these baby’s.

      I really do look at these as very simple postulates & considerations – the early ones seem to me to have required the lightest touch to create, but hold and pin us most of all. To blow these early ones really shakes up (in a good way – alignment) one’s universe.

      1. “the early ones seem to me to have required the lightest touch to create, but hold and pin us most of all.”

        1. Elizabeth … I knew you were going to pop in on that one 🙂

          I thought of you as I wrote it Haha

          1. That what’s happens when there is no space. You have pulled me in. I was into a made believe universe: movie. I thought it was boring so I turned it off.
            I thought of you this afternoon, must have been magical by the water today… It was lovely here too.
            All week long I worked with clouds i have given sessions. It is incredible just how much stuff beings get into.. We were post to have all last week rain here, as I audited the heavy rain cloud above my body, the rain stopped last Tuesday and there was a circle opening where the sunrays could move through. So we only have rain at night when I was not looking after the territory above me. I used to be very good with the weather but till this week i did not bother, but i just had enough, the garden had too much water and I want blooms and hot sun for the flower.
            So I put my talents to use and gotten rid of them clouds { they do audit easy] How have you been yourself?

            1. Hi,

              Doing well … busy with work but this is good.

              Yes, it was beautiful here today – very warm – lots of ship traffic to watch, eagles, seals and my long grass – still too wet to mow.

              I’m glad you handled those clouds … send them East 🙂 … then my grass can dry a bit so I can get at it!

            2. The cloud which has been given session vanishes, sort of melts away. You see, it was a body, like any body, yours too is mostly water and you know just how light it can feel after session. Same for the clouds.
              They have much less considerations, much less! They have fantasticly different realities.

        2. just thinking ” required the lightest touch to create” must be because we were not into failure, affort, must have, cant do, we just did. we did not think we could, not or could… no “thinking” was involved.

          1. It has built up by layers like folding a piece of paper. Like adding the hardener to epoxy resin and stirring until stiff. brrrrr, that is an item for me.

      2. Cool Dennis. Thanks for the feedback. I never feel overwhelmed going into session, I just feel that the Sun may use up its fuel before I run out of case.

        Geir, out of the 3-1/2 years you audited on 7, . . . after the first couple years, how did you feel about going back over and over again? Do you feel that you well used the full 3-1/2 years or did you feel finished before this? Or do you feel you could take this on a bit more?

  6. Isene says: 2012-05-06 at 23:44
    If the reaching of the 8th dynamic would attain completeness, then it would be inconsistent, thus having The Whole of Existence as Inconsistent.

    Soderqvist1: But where is the eternal truth of God?
    Let’s us simplify; David Hilbert once had the idea that all cakes in the world should have recipes so it would be possible by baking to reach truth cakes and so every moment in baking would amount to a proof sequence, and a truth cake should be the proof that the recipe was consistent. But Kurt Godel showed him that there are more truth cakes in the world than recipes, because in the world of god called the 8 dynamic there are eternal cakes, which are thus not made because we have left the world of mechanics behind and are simply in the world of truth knowingness!

    Rafael Sánchez Núñez says: 2012-05-06 at 01:16
    Chris, Gödel’s incompleteness theorems are two fundamental theorems of mathematical logic and are important in the philosophy of mathematics, which is a field of unreal conjectures, like in the case of the liar paradox:

    Soderqvist1: Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead back in the 1910 tried to derive all mathematics from logic in a masterpiece called Principia Mathematica it ended up as failure because of the liar paradox and other undecidable propositions yet it is still a masterpiece. PM is abbreviation for Principia Mathematica, and is made up of three volumes, and the first one describes how you go from 0 to 1 in sixty pages. John Casti is a PhD in Mathematics, and he has said in his books as I have read, “PM is a book which everyone is talking about, but close to nobody has read.

    I tried some years ago to read said book, but I gave up, because literally I was bogged down in a morass of impenetrable abstract symbols, but the Genius of Kurt Godel, he took the whole logical language of PM and transformed it into numbers. He took the liar paradox of PM and transformed it into sentence G within system P, which amount to; “sentence G is not provable” and transformed the logical language of PM into his arithmetical counterpart P which simply states that system P is consistent if G is not derivable within P!

    Soderqvist1: I have read Daniel Dennett book; ‘Breaking the Spell’ and he has said in this book that the case Kim Philby is an example of undecidable proposition (the liar Paradox) from the real world. It is undecidable if Kim Philby was a spy, or counter spy he seems to belong to the shadow world of both, he is like the liar from Cretan which are not amenable to syllogism, because they don’t belong to any well defined group!

  7. Soderqvist1: When you look into Kurt Godel’s system P, you will see that the whole system is made up of numbers who are talking about themselves as Godel used numbers to create a self-reflexive system so they could tell him their story, and you further see that every proof sequence is consistently deduced, and after a while you encounter peculiarities like sentence G, which is also talking about himself, and G is claiming that he is not provable, and you see from a exterior point of view that G is different because he has no proof sequences, he is thus formally undecidable, but yet he is telling the truth, because you see that the system is too weak to prove every truthness about itself, because there are too many cakes, and too little means to bake them, and that knowingness is a mathematical induction called meta-mathematics!

    Hofstadter, Gödel, Escher, Bach
    All consistent axiomatic formulations of number theory include undecidable propositions … Gödel showed that provability is a weaker notion than truth, no matter what axiom system is involved …

    1. Peter Söderqvist, In my view what we are seeing here is the mechanical aspect of this universe explained mathematically, but curiously enough, even within this universe we can find hints of the ” outside ” creative reality. The wave function colapse, the quantum entanglement , the weird acceleration effect of the dark energy, the conic section pattern orbits as a result of timespace flexibility to name a few. Yes, this mest universe is as smart as a computer, allways incapable of being fully consistent bacause his inner recursive nature, but in my view there is an endless ( never complete, completable ) cosmos of posibilities, and this is a good thing.

  8. A recent comment by MadHatter in a thread on the Admin Tech (see: https://isene.wordpress.com/2010/08/20/wanted-value-in-lrh-admin-tech/) made me think…

    The issue with rotely following stats to determine a condition for an area is fallacious precicely because of Gödel’s. Because; The stats will Never show the situation completely. And one should never try to expand the stats to Make it show the situation completely. The latter because of Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle in that if you try to make the stats Complete, you and up measuring just about everything and then you will affect the area by the measurement itself (the most obvious is that you will lower the condition as a result of spending all the time and effort tracking stats or fine-tuning the stat system).

    This made me realize that stats are less important than I envisioned only a few minutes ago. It is merely a crude indication. As such it is important, but it should never be made more than a crude indication. The rest is up for human judgement.

    1. How, then, would you measure performance, etc.? I mean, what would “human judgement” be based on? It would have to come down to some non-arbitrary measurement of some sort and I can’t think what else that would be besides a stat.

      1. On second thought, I get what you mean – as regards the point about determining a condition. I can think with that – it’s a matter of the person determining his own condition – he’s the one who has “a feel” for what it is due to knowning all the surrounding circumstances. Got it. Brings in my indicators too. 🙂

  9. The boundaries… I have been wondering about the boundaries of will and here is something I find worthwhile to explore. Considering the workability of the suppressed person rundown where you run out another person’s problems and produce change in their universe, it must be possible to influence other’s universes in many other ways, as well. I have done it “randomly,” and not trying to. One time I had something just like the EP of the SP rundown with a person who was my partner for a dance performance. She would be cursing, criticizing and invalidating me throughout the performance and I made a BIG and humiliating mistake. As soon as I thought I figured out what was going on in her universe and what I was going to do about it, she came up to me to make peace. How connected are we?

  10. OK then. My feeling, too. It seems the direction of expanding dynamics. This seems huge to me in a good way, but, taking it to its extreme boundary, where would this take us? I am not looking forward to coalescing into a big blob of togetherness, much as I love you guys. LOL

    1. Put two oranges together. Mash them good. You get a conflict and something not an orange.

      But now, remove the peel. Remove the pulp. Remove the juice. Remove the rest.

      Now mash them together. See? Like this, being the same may be counter-intuitive to anything we ‘know’ about. This is how I have to look at quantum mechanics to not blow my brains out from a lack of mental mass.

  11. Nice analogy.

    It’s grand to be on this path with no preconceptions, isn’t it? The highs, the confusions, the struggles and triumphs. I say “no preconceptions” but I really mean no preconceptions that I am aware of at the moment, because I am always finding more of them.

    1. Grateful,

      But if you are walking with no preconceptions, can you say you are “on a path”?

      Or as Russell Salamon wrote in his great poem,

      “In your giant laughter strides open

      and the road you carry

      you lay before you.”

      Or perhaps like Cat Stevens sang, you are “on the road to find out”. In which case you have created the randomity for yourself by not-knowing.


      1. iamvalkov, thank you for this. You are right. If it is a “path”, then it has many offshoots as well as wanderings through the woods (and especially brambles). There are many, many paths there and I am walking forward, and sometimes backwards-and-sideways, using the markings and tramplings of others, but only as possibliity.

  12. I’m not at all mathematically inclined, so I have tried to relate some of these discussions to experiences I am conversant with, that can be pointed to with words, and perhaps music. I think until y’all can do this, y’all lose the bulk of humanity in the wake of your passing. That’s not to say you shouldn’t continue to talk amongst yourselves – you definitely should – but the language of physics and mathematics is not for me.

    My exposition of what I think is the topic is, I’ll begin with this, an old song by the Beatles(if I can embed it correctly:



    Turn off your mind relax and float down stream
    It is not dying, it is not dying

    Lay down all thoughts, surrender to the void,
    It is shining, it is shining.

    Yet you may see the meaning of within
    It is being, it is being

    Love is all and love is everyone
    It is knowing, it is knowing

    And ignorance and hate mourn the dead
    It is believing, it is believing

    But listen to the colour of your dreams
    It is not leaving, it is not leaving

    So play the game “Existence” to the end
    Of the beginning, of the beginning

      1. To continue, here is Nicholai Berdyaev on “Freedom”:

        “Freedom is the ultimate: it cannot be derived from anything: it cannot be made the equivalent of anything. Freedom is the baseless foundation of being: it is deeper than all being.” (MCA, 145)

        “The philosophy of freedom begins with a free act before which there is not, nor can there be, existence, being. If we were to begin with being as the basis, and recognize this primacy of being over freedom, then everything, including freedom, is determined by being. But a determined freedom is not freedom at all.” (SC, 109)

        “Freedom of the spirit which itself gives birth to consequences, which creates life, is revealed to us a bottomlessness, baselessness, as a force from out the boundless deep. We cannot feel a base, a foundation for freedom, nowhere can we find some solid element which determines freedom from within. Freedom of the spirit is a bottomless well. Our substantial nature could not be the basis of freedom. On the contrary, all nature is born of freedom. Freedom proceeds not from nature, but from God’s idea and from the abyss which preceded being. Freedom is rooted in ‘nothingness’. The act of freedom is primordial and completely irrational.” (FS, I,183)

        Any complete thing that can be identified, “closes space”, as LRH might put it. Whereas freedom is boundless.

        Does Godel’s cover this, in your understanding of Godel’s?

        1. Hi Valkov. My answer would be – no. Gödel’s theorems talk about a “system” and a system is something rather than nothing – it has structure, parts that relate, etc. – it’s in the physical universe.

          1. The ultimate context of any system is freedom, is it not? Freedom is the ground from which any thing springs. Otherwise, how could Godel come to his conclusions about systems?

            1. For me, that clearly computes. The creation of a system, as an example, would mean putting in order, an order that hadn’t existed before. From chaos “springs” order, but not as a result of 50,000 monkeys typing… There has been and continues to be way too much creation for such longshot odds as pure accident – including such creativity as biological evolution and every man-made system too. Only free, creative thought could come up with something that puts in order in such magnitude as has been done. And Gödel had to be very creative and free thinking to gain the insight into systems that he did. Even if it solely came down to mathematics – that in itself is quite a creative system, from just the little I know.

              So yes, freedom is the ultimate context of any system, for that system to have been created at all.

            2. Well, the original theory postulated an INFINITE number of monkeys at an INFINITE number of typewriters eventually producing everything that ever was, is, and will be, amen world without end.

              Do you think we will ever get there?

            3. Okay, but infinite numbers of monkeys and typewriters take infinitely too long. Their speed of particle flow just doesn’t hack it. 😀

            4. Marildi, I misspoke. Given INFINITE monkeys etc, it need take no time at all to produce everything.

            5. Val, I’m reminded of that goddess who “springs fully armed from the head of Zeus”. (Knowing you, I bet you can quote the particulars.)

              Seriously though, I don’t think it’s a matter of producing the universe just as it is now, all in an instantaneous flash. The missing element would be that the universe EVOLVED. It didn’t all spring forth fully evolved with the Big Bang. Evolution inherently takes time, by definition. So even those little monkeys would need time.

              Besides that, in the history of the universe with biological evolution, for example, it doesn’t compute that there were infinite “trials and errors” (so to speak) because it wouldn’t have evolved at the rate it did by that “method”. I say that because I’ve read articles by computer whizzes who explain mathematically why if things had been up to the throw of the dice, evolution would not have come about anywhere close to the rate that it did – given the life span of species, etc etc. God really doesn’t play with dice. 🙂

            6. Well Marildi, I’ll have to find the references, but I recall reading about “evolution” some years ago, and the dominant impression I took away was that evolution did exactly proceed by leaps, fits, and starts, as though God did indeed roll the dice. Species appear out of nowhere. There are few or even zero transitional forms to be found, etc etc. Dinosaurs suddenly become birds,etc. Now some researchers are thinking that some dinosaurs had feathers all along. All that stuff about”evolution” is almost pure conjecture. Those guys create whole universes out of a fossilized jawbone fragment or whatever. If they can tell a good story about it, they get published in National Geographic and the world goes “Oooooooooo! Aaaaaaahhhh!”

              What I gathered from Darwin-based explanations refuted the idea that “evolution” was some kind of progressive upward motion towards increasing sophistication and complexity. Hard-core biologists seem to view “evolution” as basically, change. Simply random diversification for the most part.

              I think viewing it otherwise is simply anthropomorphization of essentially random events. It is like seeing patterns in the random “snow” on Chris’ TV. The patterns aren’t really there. We impose them on the random field.

              There are actually two different visions of what “evolution” is or means, and they don’t mix well. One is mystical, the other “scientific”, ala Darwin.

              What do you mean by “evolution”?

              I pretty much go by Wkipedia articles in my thinking about it.

            7. I guess I was giving a different twist to the idea of “the roll of the dice”. I meant that it wasn’t just a matter of statistical probability – i.e. the long run viewed as completely pre-determined by laws of averages. But I think Darwin did say something about “spontaneous” new species and that could also be described as a roll of the dice – but in the short run. Or it could be described as the intervening hand of God. Have I confused the issue even more now, LOL?

              Random diversification to me could be a way of saying that “Providence” can and does intervene at Will. But I still tend to think that there is truth to the idea of evolution – my hint is that it exists fractally everywhere. Political systems evolve, economies evolve, companies and even families – even individuals evolve, including spiritually. The cosmos itself has gone through what can easily be viewed as an evolution from the point of the Big Bang, with the formation of stars and galaxies and planets, etc.

              But the idea that there is “no progressive upward motion” does indeed sound like hard-core biologists and other materialistic scientists – who seem to be biased against the idea that there might actually be the potential for knowing creation or creativity. And the idea that some God of materialism had everything that would ever happen all worked out at the Big Bang makes no sense either – there would be no purpose, no progressive upward motion for all us children of God. 🙂

              There’s your Sunday sermon, ha ha! On to Mother’s Day now – have a good one yourself.

            8. Good post Valkov. Yeah, dinosaurs with cold blood, dinosaurs with warm blood, colorful, plain, . . .

              I already mentioned this a couple times and don’t want to be a shameless promoter, but when you have a chance to check out A NEW KIND OF SCIENCE. You can read the book online for free. I keep mentioning it because it shows how simple code, very simple code can account for complex and seemingly random results, à la evolution. (http://wolframscience.com/nksonline/toc.html)

            9. As the monkeys continue to type, successive evolutions of everything are produced. So we’re back to having time as part of the equation, if you wish.

              1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at development.

              a. The process of developing.
              b. Gradual development.

              3. Biology
              a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
              b. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.

              4. A movement that is part of a set of ordered movements.

              5. Mathematics The extraction of a root of a quantity.

              My only comment is that more complex is not necessarily better.

            10. Valkov: “My only comment is that more complex is not necessarily better.”

              Chris: My comment to this is that a complex is a multiplied simplicity. The complexity and the simplicity are irrelevant to one another insomuch as they are the same thing but in relatively different quantities. It is my own addictions which drive my yearn and urge for greater and more complex stimulations. Said another way, my own growing identification with and ballooning attachments to MES-T spur my appetite for greater quantities of the stuff.

            11. I want to try to restate this thing of confront another way: Complexity is just another way of saying that I am taking too big a bite. It is not the “non-confront” that Hubbard made it out to be. There is something. And then there can be a lot of something.

              An inability to confront complexity is just really a training issue. When a person knows to narrow their focus, the confront naturally becomes easier. It isn’t about courage or of flatness of buttons. It is more a matter of scope.

              When I become more competent, my focus can widen. This is what is meant by “orders of magnitude.” I am only able to confront that order of magnitude which is comparable to my own.

            12. Chris, the “complexity” I had in mind is the complexity of compounds. Ever time, the complexity of things grows because more and more things are compounded. More and more particles of various origins are repeatedly compounded and compounded again and again. Like putting a bunch of different fruits and vegetables in a blender and totally blending them.

              What would you have to do to as-is that complex “mess”?

            13. very interesting…. very interesting…. made me smile, what would you do Valkov if every fruit was mashed , liquified? you only blended the so called solid items…. but you still have the original postulate of every fruit… and they are very much intact…. live and kicking…in full power…existing..

            14. i should have said, no matter how complex things become they still can be taken apart, one item at a time, just reversing the order as they were created… [i should not have commented…]

            15. hahaha And why not? It is a little bit late for you to become the reticent one! hahaha

              Anyway, you’ve said it beautifully. My only addition is that when I am well-practiced and well grooved into the recognition of myself as the cause-point of how I feel about things in my own mind then simply ceasing to hold ideas in place can blow unwanted emotional feelings and ideas. This is kind of a short-cut to a “Dianetic-style” approach. It is the same thing but done in an instant.

              An example could be, “OH! I am hyperventilating, I am having an anxiety attack!” (This is quite a good example of emotional runaway, like the “thermal-runaway” example I used earlier) First, I could view my body, view my heart rate, view my breathing and become mindful and calming them down and regulating them to a normal rate. Then look for the inciting seed thoughts creating this unwanted condition. I am using a personal example so I can know what I am writing about but taken to a larger scope, I don’t know how far reaching this can be. I don’t know how able a person can become. Maybe as we identify less and less with more and more, we become more able to control our environment. When I write “environment” I really mean the environment of the “cocoon of our own considerations.” I do not make claims about the great consensus reality of test tubes, gravity, planets and telescopes for this seems to have (Be, Do, & Have) rules separate from the rules of my own mind.

            16. Valkov, maybe I missed your point earlier about complexity but what Elizabeth wrote about taking it apart one consideration at a time is how I do it.

              But “as-is’ing of that mess” if we are talking about mest, then I don’t seem to be able to affect mest very much with simply a thought. However seeding “Be, Do, Have” with a simple thought has built me a new garage — I am getting my framing inspection from the city today. It is a proud moment as I am truly master of my universe! hahahaha

            17. figure this one out, ” garage built you or you built the garage?” 🙂 what is?[dont think that question is stupid or silly]

            18. hahaha! Good one. Well, I am not Vinaire and my garage did not spring forth of its own volition!

              My point is that I can create and destroy at will within the context of my own universe. But in the solid world, I seem to have stepping stones called be, do, and have. I take a thought from my mind, then I become architect, lawyer, builder and then re-arrange MEST in the model of my image of what I want to create.

              The garage? Well it is a re-arrangement of mest but that seed was grown from me. And by me, I don’t mean Chris. Chris is a tool in my scheme.

            19. It is a interesting notion while conceiving the garage you were not Chris since Chris-body is a tool only, so while conceiving the garage you have experienced your own mock-up. While doing that you were the garage, the body which you have created that energy-shape was you in those moment so therefore that moment you had that body-garage.. Human body is to only a agreement, it is nor real.. so you can see why one can be everything, experience everything and we do just that, all the time continually.. You are not experiencing the “human” you just experiencing your creation in that moment. And that is you. So think of a crocodile 🙂 what were you in that moment when you were seeing that huge wriggling roaring charging body? : )

            20. Beautiful cognition. Embarrassing that it was sitting so very close to me and I did not see it exactly that way… beautiful perfect way of putting it… opening a vista.

            21. Nothing embarrassing about it for you, why should that be so?
              It was not a cognition for me just sort of a new reality sneaked up on my over the time and I realized I was everything, that made me ‘Think” how could I have been everything, how that was possible? Oh.. the experience is one simply is that experience,.. and that experience is the do and be and the have… and the was… since it only has been. .gone.. no more: therefore no past or future.

            22. Like I write – a vista. Beautifully simple way of looking at being. Much better and more comprehensive than a stingy little “self.”

            23. “I am what you are” not only implies toward “humans” but toward everything we experience.. By having such a view sure takes the snobbery out of ones thinking-existence-viewpoints like the beliefs of being superior, better, above all, being important powerful or the opposite of those considerations.. less or being nothing or nobody.. powerless Yet, ones so called havingness, power, knowledge becomes immense because one can have and do have everything.. there is no end, there is no limitation..

            24. Damn you are on a roll…. “Takes the snobbery out of one’s thinking-…” My sentiments exactly! This snobbery thing is one of my biggest cognitions of all time… just bringing it up causes the roughness to smooth-out on my seas.

            25. On the roll? I am just starting out and I am reaching for new vistas. I was informed while having a recent communiqué that realities are so very different outside of these which hold the MEST in place, that by going there I will be at the bottom of the heap again.. starting all over.. and what has brought this on since I was wondering what should be doing next after this, since I do miss the sessions-cognitions and I knew my search has not ended.

            26. as i said, endless, no limitation only you can say how much is how much… to me there is no reason to stop, if there is a reasonn in existance than i simply want to know what is that reason stands for? what is that wall, barrier? than that energy vanish and i am free once more…to create a new…

            27. I even screwed that up. It is soooo BIG and SMALL and EVERYTHING in between – no shortages. Plenty to audit. Dang! I can’t look at that — too big a bite.

            28. hehehe… long as you believing in a concept of “big or small” than there is such a reality in existence for you… dont forget your path is a adventure a glorious adventure, which should be enjoyed, savoured.

            29. You say you have no effect on the universe… just think, reassess…. Every time, you kiss Shelly[ there is huge power in that act] , you touch the wheel of your car, you, think of you kids, talk with your father, look around your house, take single step, brush your shoes off from dust, turn on or of a light….. every action regardless if those actions include the use or move of the solid object [ there is no solidity in the universe] do causes the change in the universe… One creates endlessly… even while in the so called “sleeping” stage.. We love to create it is our existence, that existence is our power.
              Next time you walk across the room, do it very slowly, see- feel –experience the creation of every foot step.. Or when turn on the light…. wow.. you can say you have just created light., which flooded over your other creations… One kiss on the top of your sons head has the universe embedded into..

            30. I want your words about my value and importance to be true. They ring true within the confines of my own universe; but in the solid world? — Not so much. In my ego, I had wanted to be like the gods and for a time in religion I had thought I would be. Today, not so much. In fact, the “butterfly effect” seems only significant in movies. I do affect the world, I know I do, but because of the relative orders of magnitude, my significance seems hardly worth mentioning. I am willing to reassess but that’s just how it looks to me. One garage more or less in a planet full of garages doesn’t seem all that important… I don’t want to undervalue it either, but I would rather have a correct estimation and a balanced ego than make a complete ass of myself to myself.

            31. chris: ” but I would rather have a correct estimation and a balanced ego than make a complete ass of myself to myself.”
              little old me, erzsebet; blody hell, how could you make total ass of your self when every creation is perfect? your universe alway was and will be perfect it is others who made you believe otherwise. why dont you put your ego in the vase and just admire it from distance. what is ego? somebody made a explanation of something which was in his universe and made otheres agree that we all have one.. Do we have it, what ever that is or it was just something sounding very smart and to become smart as others in order to belong in thge smart group we made a agreement THAT EGO, BY GOD DO EXIST.. lots of wind blowing in cold side of hot… no matter what you create you are not separated from what ever.. you just simply create…

            32. Chris, it is remarkable how simple the Universe is, the Universe never have changed, it is still the same as ever. How we view things made it look like it has changed. The “learning about” made things looks complicate.
              Few weeks back I have made a decision and given up television-with that news. In that moment the so called outside world ceases to exist: no war, no election, no who cheats, kills maims whom.. Nothing. By disconnecting the news I have stopped participating in the wars, I am no longer the part of the Greek problem, by having thoughts on those matters in that extend one do partake become part – share those game conditions, in fact in that extant we make those conditions continue.. … If one would think not knowing what going around the globe one is ignorant than….. just think what knowing experiencing the minute details of daily low tone activities have caused, what effect they have….existence is in the form of thought.
              After when Geir come back from Africa, he was writing about the people who he has met there what he has observed-experienced: how spiritual and powerful those people were. Just think Lad, why is that, what is the reason for their power?
              When one looks at the universe in different reality: how magical, how thrillingly beautiful it is than that it is.
              You are the master of your universe…

            33. Yes! My wife has given me this gift a few months ago by cutting off the TV cable. We no longer have that erratic storm in our space and save $30 per month to boot. We no longer pretend to be part of the problem nor part of the solution to the financial crisis of the world. 1/3 of American TV is devoted to Pavlov inspired commercials that stimulate and reward memorization by returning me to my programs.

              Yes, I see the universe can be simple — but deep. I have realized that I will walk my path for the duration of my life. How far am I sure that I will get? To the end of it for sure.

            34. Valkov, my mind DOES resemble very much your blended fruit. I also likened it to a wad of steel wool. It is very much a wad! I deal with this by taking small bites. Otherwise, it is overwhelming.

            35. Hi Chris, that gives me a better idea of where you’re coming from. I hadn’t actually thought of applying the idea of the “mash-up” to my mind that much, but I can see how it could be just as true, as applying it to the make-up of the MEST universe.

              The problem with the MEST universe is the sheer number of other determined postulates it contains and is composed of.

              The mashed-up fruit is a pale shadow of the complexity involved. In the first place, the molecules and elements a fruit is composed of came from somewhere else, from the nutrients in the soil where the fruit was grown, in the fertilizer that was used and so forth. And the elements in the soil , the soil itself, is a mash up of other origins. Our world is a mashup of a mashup of a mashup, world practically without end if the Hindus with their Yugas (world ages) are right. Our world and universe may itself be a mashup of previous universes, and every particle in it has an underlying postulate, and each postulate originally created by a different being. Part of their as-isness would involve identifying the originator of the postulate, which is part of what makes “reality” seem so solid and enduring and hard to as-is. Because it is not easy to trace the ownership of each particle. The concrete of your driveway may have in it particles from a meteor or an asteroid that crashed on earth ages ago which itself may have been composed of various sources – pieces of buildings on long-gone other planets, molecules of ancient dishes and toilet bowls, fireplace ashes and other bric-a-brac.

              This is why the concept of beginningless and endless time in an infinite universe is so insidious.

            36. May I Valkov? In my reality one do not need to identify every created –originally postulated item of creations of others , only one need to find-locate those considerations in which one agreed that those things exist. By as-ising ones very own agreements-considerations one becomes free, totally free…

            37. Valkov, I have stumbled upon Stephen Wolfram, the author of a NEW KIND OF SCIENCE. In this book, he explores how very simple code with very simple rules, re-iterated, can be the source building blocks of fantastically complex systems. In light of our discussing complexity, and in light of my comments about complexity being built on simplicity iterated, I am dropping this link to this basic chapter in the front of his book. http://wolframscience.com/nksonline/section-2.1

      2. So why the song? What does it have to do with freedom?

        I don’t know, except music is based on intervals, and intervals are what create a time continuum. In the spaces between the intervals is where freedom is. Or, as another put it, (perhaps Rumi?), “Silence is the language of God”.

        There has been some focus on fractals. But the focus seems to be largely on visio of fractals.

        What about the audio expression of a fractal?

        Sorry if this is way off-topic, maybe I’m just commlagging from previous threads, but it often seems to me the topics of various threads revolve around a common center, so one can jump in anywhere.

        As far as this OP, well, randomity obviously can occur only where there is some freedom.

        1. If ever there were a thread for random thoughts, this must be it. 😀 We’ve all been taking advantage of it.

          I haven’t heard of audio fractals per se, but I would say of course they exist. I do know that there is such as thing as a process fractal and I think I discovered one on the ARC triangle thread. The way I see it is that the “R with Understanding” that comes at the end of a cycle of communication begins the next communication cycle or the next ARC triangle – it’s a new R that can be communicated, etc. This can go on to larger and larger fractals such as a whole subject of study.

          1. “If ever there were a thread for random thoughts, this must be it. We’ve all been taking advantage of it.”

            That’s what freedom is all about.

        2. Here’s your audio fractal.

          Definition of motif: “a recurring subject, theme, idea, etc, especially in an artistic, literary, or MUSICAL work.

          1. At some point, don’t the recurrences become redundant? Thus one needs to know when to cease creating, as in the Gambler song, methinks.

            1. Yes, and I cease to know where I am or who I am. I can begin to identify with the iteration and begin to think that I am the result of an iteration. The basic mechanism of fractal iteration is so simple and easy to put in motion that it can be automated.

        3. I am liking your idea of freedom in the intervals. Also like your idea that ultimate context of any system is freedom. I can really work with that and it is consistent with the definition of game.

    1. Interesting, Chris!

      It reminded me of this,which has also been done by violins, as many as 8 pianos, and entire orchestras:

      1. Here’s some fractal singing. This is Qawwali – Sufi devotional singing which has become popular in Pakistan and parts of India. Nusrat, one of the greatest singers, was from Pakistan.

        All of this begs the question of whether systems exist in freedom. I believe without freedom, no systems would exist. Freedom is everywhere, between the lines, and is prior.

        1. Though I cannot prove you right from within the system, I still agree with your observations on freedom but to even a larger degree.

          The “between the lines freedom” that you observe consumes most of the space-time that there is. I think it is my own fixations on the problems and barriers to freedom use up my attention. If freedoms are the stops which are not there, then there is nothing to hold our attention the way a “sore toe” can.

          How much attention (units) do you suppose we have? And what would one be?

          1. Don’t know about those ten-hut units, but I would say there is more Space than Matter and Energy and probably there is more Freedom than there is Space, even. Although I think to us poor homosaps Space pretty much stands for Freedom. It sure does for me. The truth is, each person’s tolerance of Space is different. Too much Space can result in the experience of agoraphobia. Too little Space, claustrophobia. Each person wants to set his/her own anchor points and doesn’t like it when someone else pushes them in or pulls them out. Self-determinism is a basic drive and the other guy’s self-determinism is often the basic problem around which the games have been built. “Effect on others, no effect on self”. LRH was often very perceptive and succinct.

            Thank you (y’all) (falettin me be mice elf agin’)

            1. “Thank you (y’all) (falettin me be mice elf agin’)”

              Does that relate to the rest your post or was it a random thought in general? Either way, you are so welcome. And may you carry on. 🙂


            2. Valkov: “Self-determinism is a basic drive and the other guy’s self-determinism is often the basic problem around which the games have been built. “Effect on others, no effect on self”. LRH was often very perceptive and succinct. ”

              Chris: Agreed, and is a basic aberrational attribute. You slightly but importantly mis-quote Hubbard by calling a “game” “Effect on others, no effect on self.” This is the definition of a “games condition.” References: Tech dictionary definition of: game, games condition, service facsimile, and team. Self-determinism can be a part of a game; however, when not under the will of the player it can be running automatically and be part of a “games condition” as your quote about effect on others and no effect on self.

            3. Chirs, I beg to differ. My understanding is that there is a big (not slight) difference between a “game condition” and a “gameS condition” (the latter being the one LRH said is aberrated). There is a whole list of game conditions (not said by LRH to be aberrated), one of which Valkov quoted.

    1. I agree, Chris. The definition from 8-80 is “energy flows of small wavelengths and definite frequency. These are measureable on specifically designed oscilloscopes and meters. No special particle is involved”.

      My thought is that a decision (similar to a postulate) gets made and in so doing whatever was decided (or “postulated”) “appears”, i.e. is created. And this is how “attention” being put (or posted) on anything in the bank RE-creates it. Creation and re-creation are both “posting” of something – putting it up. .A postulate is essentially a new creation and maybe attention is just a word for postulate RE-creation, since even on the re-creation there is a decision, which if it were new would be a postulate.

      To get even more radical, perhaps, I wonder if this relates to how consensus reality is continuously re-created – if in fact it simply consists of facsimiles just as one’s own time track does. The facsimiles of consensus reality are and have been mutually created and continuously re-created by everyone and are thus in constant restimulation – making it seem to be a RWOT.

      Back to the definition of attention, I wonder what to make of “no special particle” or if it has to do with quanta physics. What do you think?

      1. Good recap Marildi. I dunno about no special particle. I don’t know enough about this level of mes-t except to speculate.

        My subjective reality is that I have a limited and sometimes very limited ability to give something my attention. Get the idea of shining a flashlight in the dark. When I do this, I am aware peripherally of things being just out of sight in the dark – I expect that they are there, however, my flashlight does not illuminate them. This is analogous to the way I shine my attention.

        Mysteriously to me, like the flashlight, my attention emanates seemingly outward from me to illuminate with attention what I then seem able to gather physical information about and perceive. How does this work?

        When my attention goes onto something subjectively mental rather than something objectively physical, the same sequence and rules seem to happen. Mentally, it is easy for me to make the analogy of modern personal computers storage, memory, processing power, and speed, to my mind.

        The steps you describe seem plausible. A while back, I was remodeling this old house for my family to live in. I took space meant for a carport and made that into a master bedroom suite. Then without covered parking, I decided to build a garage. I decided on some concepts in my mind, then I scratched them out on paper. Then I called an architect to come over to look at my site, and look at my sketches. Then he drew up yet a better rendition of what I coalesced in my mind and on paper. I got this plan approved by the city, gathered materials and people and started doing work. Now the garage that started its existence as a creation of my mind is now framed up into the sky and looking very much like I first postulated.

        So what’s my point? I am trying to understand as layers the progression from theta to mental to physical in somesuch way like as layers of atmosphere. With the atmosphere, there are not lines or exact levels of demarcation. I am wondering if our entire existence is just this way.

        1. Chris, I think we’re saying the same thing. You said, “When my attention goes onto something subjectively mental rather than something objectively physical, the same sequence and rules seem to happen.”

          That seems to be just what I was thinking too. In other words, “physical” and “mental” attention/perception may not be different phenomena at all, other than some of it coincides with others’ attention/perception. There may be no fundamental difference between (1) the mutual re-creation (attention/perception) of universally-held “facsimiles” of experience, i.e. consensus reality, and (2) an individual’s re-creation of his own, personal facsimiles – i.e. the facsimiles of his unique experience, his own time track.

          You said, “With the atmosphere, there are not lines or exact levels of demarcation. I am wondering if our entire existence is just this way.” Good analogy. It probably amounts to a basic mechanism viewed at different levels. Maybe they’re fractals.

          Btw, who or what was I “recapping”, as you put it – I seem to have forgotten who came up with what, and when, LOL. Must be another mutual create. Yet another fractal! 🙂

          1. I am you and you are me and we are all together, goo goo gajoob?

            Will the real Walrus please stand up?

            1. I have not found the “real” walrus yet… yes, i am what you are…

            2. Valkov, I have addressed you many times, you have not responded 99%.[ I made a game out of it, wondering will he or won’t he answer-acknowledge now?]
              I wonder what is your reason, why you find it so problematic to ack my communication to you. I am not looking for agreement, no, definitely not.. but a simple whatever would have been good,.. also you simply can communicate, no Erzsebet once and for all I have no desire to communicate with you. That too is OK by me, that would end my game… mind you it is not much of a game ….

            3. I’m very sorry Elizabeth. I do not spend much time on this blog, just drop in occassionally because my mind has become very slow the past few months. I have not even read through this thread from beginning to end. Not really up to keeping a conversation going. Sorry.

            4. thank you for letting me know your reason, very good of you… so you dont find much inspiration in reading any more.. i do get your meaning…i understand that only too well. It is not your mind, nothing wrong there.. but the stimulation has gone, has been as-ised.

            5. Elizabeth, I wish, but it really is my mind. It is because of medicines I have taken since last summer. I am not as involved as I was before, and I am slow to process things.

            6. dear Valkov the way I look at it, that is your step on the Path, just a new lesson to learn from. So you can have fun with that too. ‘
              PS: i was on morphine for 3 1/2 years the dosage was 3 times a day 80mg=240mg, enough to kill a large horse. I have soloed in that hell state till i decided I will rather have the pain. Went off it without any help and no craving-addiction were lef all audited out..The withdwan symptoms deserve a mention: totall hell, unimaginable if self would not go through that mock-up, experience.
              I look back now and have not been useing any drugs for years, nothing at all and I look at that experience as a lesson which was on my path.
              Now i suffer from total health… hehehe… i alway loved your comments i looked forward to read them and i admit I do think of you now and than, I know we share great deal of our tracks.

            7. Valkov says: Elizabeth, I wish, but it really is my mind. It is because of medicines I have taken since last summer. I am not as involved as I was before, and I am slow to process things.

              Valkov, I don’t know what your situation is medically, but I do know that two very simple solutions have helped others considerably with messed up mental processes. The first is weight lifting. Nothing heavy, just simple free weights no more than 10 pounds. For some reason it strengthens mental processing. The other is pure, unadulterated organic coconut oil — start with a teaspoon a day in cereal or whatever and work up to as much as 4 tablespoons. The EFAs in coconut oil have a similar effect to free weights.

            8. very interesting..so weight lifting acts like the locational prosessing, but the oils i dont know about, could you please send some info? thanks!!

            9. I know what you mean Elizabeth. I stay away from painkillers.

              Maria, thanks for the info. I’m picking up some coconut oil later today! The exercise is a good tip. Part of my mental state is I don’t want to do much, but find when I do physical stuff, I feel better.

              I am stuck on an “anti-platelet” medicine for about a year because I had some stents put in some of my blocked arteries after having a heart attack. The stuff is strong and does some weird things to me.

              Previous to that, last summer I had 3 chemo treatments. It worked fine BUT they did start to make me “biochemical” in LRH’s meaning. Chemo patients refer to “chemobrain” and this is quite true – chemo can affect one’s mental functions and also make a person feel like a “mean drunk”. I had only 3 treatments but felt some lasting effects. I don’t even want to imagine what the people who get heavy chemo and lots of it, go through!

              Now with the cardio drug I am feeling increased mental effects constantly. They are physically based; the body(GE) is tense, confused and apathetic because it’s homeostasis is being messed with, and I am “spaced out”. Kind of an “exteriorization under duress” feeling.The weights will definitely help with that, but I have to take care because I also have an abdominal hernia. It’s not too severe at this time, but went undiagnosed for quite awhile because the Drs are so specialized and so busy these days, they overlook anything not part of their narrow specialty. And they mainly operate off blood test results anyway.

              “Modern” medicine is a real trip. They can save your life, but the cost can be severe, and usually translates to “Save your life but harm your health and quality of living.” Like that story from the Vietnam war – “We had to destroy the village in order to save it”. Or that ancient joke – “The operation was a success but the patient died”.

              All my treatments have been at a state of the art medical center and medicine today is way different from my childhood days in some ways. A lot of blood tests, very little hands on examination. And the docs are drug-happy.

              I need to take the anti-platelet med, they say, because I have medicated stents. It seems these can rapidly plug up with clots in the first year because of the very medication that is in them, which will all be gone within one year. The pill I take prevents clots from forming inside the stents. If I don’t take the pill, my chances of dying of a massive heart attack are apparently about 1 in 20 – not good odds!

              Had I known more at the time, I may have opted for non-medicated stents and been able to quit the medicine a lot sooner – perhaps. But of course the doc downplayed possible side effects of the med when I asked him about it. The fact is, the docs don’t usually have to take these meds themselves, so they don’t really know what the subjective effects are like.

              If I ran the med schools, Drs would need to take some of these meds they prescribe, for a couple of weeks themselves so they knew what patients were talking about!

            10. Wow. Lots of advice here. Better get in my $.02. B-complex helps my mental function. Carrot juice helps my digestion. Vitamin C cell walls. All of vitamins and vegetables help with prostate and cancer issues.

              Please take my advice as my daughter is graduating medical school. Helping pay for this has made me a medical expert. (joke)

              I appreciate the advice given by Dr. Day: http://www.drday.com/ (Just part of the entire scope of being well.)

              Wellness on you Valkov.

            11. Valkov, i got it, thank you for letting us share. Aging bodies are not pleasant to be connected with, and the bloody things do brake down, give in and give out.. Wish I could give help with yours….all I can give is my love and I do have unlimited, abundance, please accept that flow…

            12. Valkov — What a bummer that you have been going through all that. I hope that you will be able to get some joy out of our various suggestions. Here’s a couple of links that may be of use:

              This one is a well thought-out program for older adults who want to use weight training, including cautions to do with the limitations of older bodies:

              Click to access growing_stronger.pdf

              This one is a rundown on coconut oil and why it works and what else can be done along with coconut oil. It tells how to take the coconut oil so it doesn’t upset your stomach.

            13. Maria, thanks for the information, greatly valued. I have ordered a gallon from California Living Tree Co. I am assured it will be a great support for the body in many ways. My diet is excellent and has been for many years since I went to the opening of Toronto’s first health food store way back in 72 [I think it was] but those day the researches just started out so not much was available but there is much improvement by now. Do have a lovely day!

  13. Marildi said: “Must be another mutual create. ”
    Chris says: This gave me a really interesting idea and something more to look at in session and a twist on something we’ve been talking about for months.

    Mutual: What is mutual? What do we share together? My answer: The underlying sameness.
    Mutual create: This gets tricky because what is mutual and what creates is that underlying sameness, therefore, not two individual beings, which I am saying are two clusters of considerations; These two clusters of considerations do not together “create.” They may and very well might puke out iterations, but these are re-arrangements and not truly creations. So the mutual-ness which creates is actually the underlying sameness which creates.

    Grateful said: ” I am not looking forward to coalescing into a big blob of togetherness, much as I love you guys. LOL”
    Chris says: When I saw this, I wanted you to read my mind. To go inside my head and be me and read your words and dissolve the inconsistency that is bred into them as Maria says, “by problems with the language.” My view? At our more basic levels, we are not truly individuals. This is the counter-intuitive look at beingness. These “points-of-view” that we assume, these opinions are not who we really are. To me at this time, who I really am is a pinched-off (not pissed-off) piece of consciousness encrusted by considerations. The considerations give mass, significance, point of view, opinion; But especially and most importantly: SEPARATENESS. As I dissolve the considerations the free theta becomes less bound. This free theta is not an individual with a self in the usual sense, the sense which is described and forevermore taken for granted as true because it is in our language. For me in my reality, as we dissolve our inconsistent considerations, as we smooth the physical field and gain more understanding, we draw ever closer together. As we draw closer together, we don’t become a gelatinous wad of individuals; we become something more true. Call it a more native state.

    “For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.” — Corinthians

    1. Wow Chris. You have so beautifully summed up what I have been experiencing and you have managed to do it with our oh-so clumsy language! Namaste!

      1. Thank you and namaste Maria. You and the rest of the gang have led me around showing me things until it has started to sink in. The wording above regarding “pinched off consciousness” is almost a verbatim quote from you (from my memory). For me to work so hard to pull ideas together only to realize that I have to allow them to escape to remain free and creative is epiphanic for me.

    2. “For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.” — Corinthians

      That has got to be one of the deepest quotes ever. I think LRH might have been saying something similar when he said that a thetan wants to be duplicated. Not meaning to just have comm duplicated but o-n-e-s-e-l-f duplicated. I think it was the same meaning as in the Corinthians quote.

      1. Marildi — here is some additional information that might shed some light on what LRH thought about duplication other than the duplication of communication. The concepts are indeed “counter-intuitive” to the limitations of language and the commonly held ways of the physical world — i.e. cause-distance-effect in a time stream. There is another aspect of it that he spoke of which has to do with duplicating at a fundamentally “deeper” level. Just scroll down the page until you see the excerpt from “LRH tape lecture 20 October 1954 The Parts of Man Overt Acts and Motivators” and you’ll see what I mean. Mind you, the entire article is fascinating!

        Note for people who have not studied and audited OT section materials: the article is a discussion of entities (which are somewhat discussed in the book History of Man) without any actual OT section materials in it save for the author’s assumption that you already know what is on the OT sections so it might not make much sense to you if you have not studied and audited the OT materials. However, if you do not want to have any additional awareness about this area of information, you should not visit this link.


  14. But on the other hand Marildi and Valkov, the subject of games is peculiar and fractal as well. Games, even when there is sportsmanship and the purpose to have a real game, are inconsistent. And the balance between winning and losing might be deterministic. Either deterministic or is someone cheating to win or lose?

  15. Yes. Finally I did. I like the blending of determinism and free will. This is the way that my own world works.

    Regarding being cryptic, that is easy for me to do when writing from a stream of thoughts from the 1st dynamic without much regard for another’s receipt-point. And sometimes the subject matter defies my limited language skills. But if something I wrote leaves you with a “huh?” or “WTF?” I will be happy to try to expand the point to make it easier to see, or else just expose it for the garbage that it might be.

    1. “I like the blending of determinism and free will.”

      Me too.

      (I have to be away from my computer until later today – will get back to the cryptic [but interesting] stuff.)

    2. Okay, how ’bout de-crypting “the balance between winning and losing might be deterministic. Either deterministic or is someone cheating to win or lose?”

      1. Ok. This is along the lines of our discussion of free will. We’ve all heard it said after watching a really good game that the winner “just wanted it more.” This would be consistent in a universe containing free will. But the rub would be that when one player exerts more free will, has he stayed within the rules of the game or has he cheated? Then that recoils right back into the rules of the game and what they mean. Then that recoils back into whether there can be a fair game in a universe of free will. And also how could there be a game in a deterministic universe as well… Both universes have their problems when I try to define games.

        There may be a solution to this and it has to do with the make up of the physical universe. Does the physical universe possess an innate quality which limits free will? An innate quality which cannot be overcome by free will? Would this quality have anything to do with Be, Do, and Have?

        1. Chris, “ Does the physical universe possess an innate quality which limits free will? An innate quality which cannot be overcome by free will? Would this quality have anything to do with Be, Do, and Have?”
          you can bet on that to your last pair of socks, than add your children, Shelly and you can throw in your sanity for good measure, have no fear mate, you wont lose.

          PS i do hope you were kidding when you asked that question?

        2. Chris this is from you
          ‘To the degree that I am aware of my mind as a tool of my deeper layers of self, I seem to be well in control of it. Conversely, to the degree that I am unaware of my mental reactions as separate phenomena from myself, I am unable to control it.

  16. The mechanics of my thoughts in my mind have become more exposed to my view. There is so much automation. Even when I write “my view” I begin to wonder at the sense of location that I give myself in order to have an opinion; a viewpoint; a point-of-view. This type of beingness requires a strong and automatic sense of ” I.” This sense of I reverberates backwards and forwards threatening to escalate out of control unless I ground-it by viewing it.

    1. Wow. When I read your post, I immediately thought of The Factors:

      Chris: “This type of beingness requires a strong and automatic sense of ‘I’.”

      Factor 2: In the beginning and forever is the decision and the decision is TO BE.)

      Chris: “…the sense of location that I give myself in order to have an opinion; a viewpoint; a point-of-view.

      Factor 3: The first action of beingness is to assume a viewpoint.

      And then another “wow” – on the last sentence…

      “This sense of I reverberates backwards and forwards threatening to escalate out of control unless I ground-it by viewing it.”

      …the image I got was – collapse of the wave function by an observer:


      1. Thanks for your interest in this cryptic bit of random thought… here’s some more:

        My automation iterates, then feeds information from the previous iteration into the subsequent iteration. This might be analogous to the greater universe at large which they say is accelerating as it expands but my remarks are aimed at my own reality only. Viewing this automation, I seem to subdue the automation. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_runaway ) Does this metaphor of comparing a runaway chemical reaction to a kind of mental illness that creates more mental illness work in practice? Hubbard called this “freewheeling.” I think I am using his term correctly.
        What is it about my viewing this “heat-up” when it begins that quells it?

        To the degree that I am aware of my mind as a tool of my deeper layers of self, I seem to be well in control of it. Conversely, to the degree that I am unaware of my mental reactions as separate phenomena from myself, I am unable to control it. Said another way, my identification with my mind seems to lock up my choices in that area which I identify as me. It seems that I cannot control the aspects of my mind with which I identify and which I take for granted is me. An example of this is when I say “I am a thetan.” However, now that I have viewed this for the identification that it is, I am not doing this. My newest identification is with my effort to see myself as a Static. This is my newest identification that replaces my earlier identification with thetan. This seems to be the nature of my iteration, that I iterate, then I identify with my iteration as “my” creation, then feed this identification back into my next iteration, then congratulate myself on coming up with a new idea, which is just the next iteration.

        I am not sure if this is a useful way of seeing myself or if I am just mixing metaphors and then patting myself on the back for “having a cognition.” hahaha

        1. “…mixing metaphors and then patting myself on the back for ‘having a cognition.’” Hilarious line. 😀

          My conclusion at the end of your post is that there’s no getting away from such things as iterations feeding back into the next iterations and be-do-have building on the previous be-do-have – both of which sound like my conclusion about comm cycles and the ARC triangle. Do you remember that exchange where I was looking at how they are each based on the last?

          Well, it seems you really will have to get back to static before you can create something from nothing. Go for it, muchacho! (Throwing in a little Spanish, since you threw some at me with your “muy pronto” comment.:))

          My last reply about posting “of my own free will” was in reference to our incomplete comm cycle about free will, but I’ll have to get back to that next time.

          1. Hahaha, cool.

            What I am wondering is if there are rules which cannot be broken? Is there a mechanic about this universe which is impervious to our will? The answer to this question changes the paradox of “Can omnipotent god make a rock so big he can’t pick it up?” from “yes” to “no.” When I stop thinking in absolutes, my thinking becomes ever so much more flexible.

            1. Then the universe is a unique place where the consensus rules and rules may not be broken? Or who can break a rule without banishment? Or who can disentangle themself and remain themself?

            2. I think we cannot break a “consensus” rule? . . .other’s rules?
              Why could we not? What hold all rules in place? Agreements, it is agreed therefore it is.
              Example: today is May 18th 2012. Everybody agrees to that, of course those who already passed that so called Time Zone, no longer agree that it is the 18th. Tomorrow is the 19th for us, so let say we are in the tomorrow, where is the 18th have gone? The postulate of the existence of the 18this in the past ‘’past do not exist’’ So what happened to the 18th? We agreed that it is, than we simply agree it is no more.
              By the way what are the remnants of let say 1567 may 18th? There are only a number and some left over considerations in the form of recording in some dusty old archives. But those recording really not the day or year it self since that never existed, just some matter which could be from any time.
              Same goes for the so-called numbers May 18th 2012. Those numbers and letters were agreed an, the rest how you were doing, what you were doing happened only in your universe, same as in every individual beings universe, differently. Those numbers the day 18th did not make any difference in your creative activity.
              Postulates are continually disappearing by agreement, who wears crinolines’ this days? Who wears flapper dresses? Which North American Indian tribe rules the plains? Is Attila still rules the Romans? Which gladiator was pardoned today? Where are the dinosaurs? Horse and buggy? Is the a Golden Gate bridge really there, not for the Amazon tribes, not for me!
              And bloody hell where is my crown, where is my throne where is my Kingdome?. Hehehe postulated out of manifestation…the game was over by agreement-rules when that body expired put under six feet of dirt, which was that postulate. The rule was: the body was ruling… it had the royal blood etc..etc
              Chris: “”Then the universe is a unique place where the consensus rules and rules may not be broken? Or who can break a rule without banishment? Or who can disentangle themself and remain themself?
              No rules don’t rule, the creators of the rules rule.
              The rule is broken every time somebody disagrees with it! “I don’t believe in that that is not true, you are lying, I never heard such a thing. That is impassible, never happened, the scientists proved it different etc…etc. etc..
              “Who can break the rules whiteout banishment?”
              Anybody can, I for a good example broken all the rules by having sessions in order to locate something different in order to get away from the old binding rules of the past. Each cognition do demolishes as-is the old rules.
              “ Or who can disentangle themself and remain themself?”
              If entangled in the web of rules than you are not really you self but BANK.. Who can disentangle self: anyone who believes wants-needs change, who had enough of the boring dull game, who really believe that the grass is greener on the other side of the fence.

            3. Maybe I should have said “successfully” break a rule.

              I am more free in my mind where I think about things than I am in the world where I go to work. And yet I go to worlk in my mind first and then go do work second.

              Who successfully breaks the rule of gravity? . . . except with very complicated and arduous be, do, and have? (The wing must be shaped just so, and the engine must push it just so, and the air must flow over the wing just so for the airplane to fly. These are consensus rules in a consensus world.)

            4. Chris if you addressing me please put my name in front so I know. I really have no idea what kind of rules you are thinking of and believe cant be broken.

            5. Sorry Elizabeth, I was writing to you. The rules I am referring to are the typical physics laws for starters. Things like gravity and inertia. Two mests cannot occupy the same space, etc.,…

              So while I seem able to handle my own ideas in my own mind, I have to obey “rules” to play in the MEST. MEST don’t seem to care about OT or any other letters.

            6. “Two MESTs CAN occupy the same space”. 🙂 Right! you know it i know it if anybody else do agree to that fact PLEASE STAND UP and acknowledge! now we are getting somewhere, thanks. 🙂 this do the soul good 🙂

            7. Very good. But don’t put more there than I am saying or asking… I am focusing on rules like if we are playing checkers, then I must push the checker with my fingers for it to move. That is all. Not looking for complications. I am looking directly AT a complication and asking “what are the rules governing?” and do I have one spit to do with that?

            8. I been thinking about the question you have emailed.. Rules are in the bottom of the tone scale. They are the foundation of the games conditions and they are the heavy control mechanisms which solidifies hold the game steadily in place= MEST universe. By agreements one can be in or out. But no matter how heavy-solid the Rule is it can be as-ised.
              Just think, not to long back we all could levitate regardless of weight. Now if you would see that action that would be called miracle-magic, impassible, phony, some kind of scam.. etc… The rules are in place now: the postulates: no one can levitate. The rules are the walls-barriers, counter intentions are postulates too; but they were made and can be as-ised.

            9. Chris: “Can omnipotent god make a rock so big he can’t pick it up?”

              I thought that was answered (indirectly) pretty well in the excerpt of the lecture that Maria posted the link to. (Maria, I meant to thank you for that!) LRH was talking about a thetan creating another thetan:

              “If he created something with this intention, ‘This is now more powerful than myself,’ he then would have to observe its actions and activities, independently undertaken, and then have to modify and cut down his own so as to always have less power than he had granted.” http://workabletechnology.com/?p=424

              So I figure that with God, it would be the same idea – he would have to cut down his strength so as not to be able to pick up the rock!

            10. Chris, I was talking about a thetan creating another thetan and about a thetan intention to create a more powerful thetan than himself ( via lessening his own power ).
              About an example where consensus rules can be broken, well, if by consensus we understand human consensus, definitively yes, there are every day, every hour and second an oportunity to break the rules, any of them, it is very well covered in the scn objective processing. An example is what is being done in this blog, we are rule breakers 🙂 and new consensus is being created. About the physical universe rules, I don´t attemp or see any real benefit in breaking the rules of this playing field, it could be good or bad depending of our viewpoint alone.

            11. We yearn for OT so that somehow we are no longer subject to the usual rules. Discussing among ourselves is not breaking any rules of this universe. Do you know of a true OT phenomena more than heresay? I am not referring to human rules. I am referring to atomic rules. Any occurrence of one of these rules being broken?

            12. there you go, looking for proof, if not solid than dont exist? very funny. when you looking for solid that is you will find, if you would just step out for one second than you can see that 99.99999% of your universe is not in solid form….but it exist in the form of “invisible” for the “Eyes”.Eyes cant see your universe..

            13. Hey Elizabeth, I painted my back yard fence today, just getting around to checking the blog…

              Proof? Not demanding any proof. Asking questions. You are right, eyes cannot see my universe. I was just asking about this universe. I am just curious if natural law can be successfully violated without serious consequences for the violator… If I keep asking this, pretty soon I will word the question the right way and my answer will fall out.

            14. Back face? good one. what kind of natural law you thinking of please give ene example…Like apple falling toward the earth?

            15. Chris.. you are not going to like this…. my apple can fall any way i like it to fall, i can have apples falling like snow.. and why not? You see I cant change my reality what is postulated can be as=ised and replaced with different postulated item…Like clouds are above, why not below and threrefore is is nice and soft place to walk and your foot steps dont make sounds? If you want to change rules you need to change considerations…sorry this is all I have

            16. Chris, you are right in that we ,somehow, are no longer subject to the usual rules. But the OT definition is a very exact one: objective and subjective cause over the mest we share and over life, thought and form, but not only that, it has to be done knowingly and willingly. This ” OT ” condition is to aim in fact to play the God role, THE BIGGEST SIN, the sin that caused the degradation even of the most intelligent and beauty angels ( as told in the bible ). To break the mest rules is not the purpose of human beings. If you break the rules of the mest universe then you will have Hiroshima y Nagasaki kind of events. imo

            17. Wow!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WOW!!!!!!!!!

            18. Chris,

              One of the basic premises of the Bridge is that one is RE-gaining ability.

              If one views rules from the viewpoint of being trapped and having to get out of a trap, then one is a piece in the game and trapped.

              If, however, one views as a maker of games, one can to a greater learn the game and gain better control.

              It is a viewpoint of a game-maker rather than a piece within that game.

              Yes, one is still part of the game to which he agrees and to the degree he has agreed with the rules of the mest universe, but, one can ‘ rise above an avid craving for agreement from a humanoid group’ and strike out on his own.

            19. Rafael,

              OT is a gradient scale.

              I don’t remember ever reading that LRH considered himself full OT … did you?

            20. Dennis, you are right in that LRH do not considered himself full OT, in fact he told that this research was in process. What I do read was a very vivid description of how an OT should make his own death faster as to not going thru all the agony ( breaking the skull in the back with just thetan energy ), the reference is somewhere amidst the numerous LRH conferences ( but this could be deleted by now ,as usual, in the New Age of Knowledge evolution ). About the place in the OT gradient scale that LRH achieved ( or any OT for that matter ) do not seems to be very high in comparision with humanoids.

            21. Rafael: ” About the place in the OT gradient scale that LRH achieved ( or any OT for that matter ) do not seems to be very high in comparision with humanoids. ”


              If you had a considerable amount of auditing, I believe you would soon change your tune 🙂

            22. Dennis, humanoids is a generality that embraces very fine wog persons. I think that this raw meat can be made good bodies in the shop if they have enough money to pay and reach spiritual cause over mest. This is what I think when someone says ” I AM OT “. In the other side, I can see your point about the effective improvement achieved with scientology auditing ( done with competence and good intention ). I myself consider that scientology auditing contributed strongly in making a better person of me.

            23. Rafael :Dear Elizabeth, you know I appreciate you . Do not feel shattered, instead work diligently at becoming even more good at it. There is an infinite cosmos of posibilities awaiting you….
              Elizabeth to Rafael: I do work very diligently, [love that word] the cosmos is not waiting for me i am making those things the cosmos and I am the one who create and yes the posibilities of my creative abilities are infinite. I am very very good creating..I left god in the dust… you see god is nothing more than implanted creation a computer game so is hell and religion. So dont tell me please any of that stuff… I have solo audited on those items, no angels in my universe, if i would see one for sure i would know that i see aberation and pronto i would be back in session to audit out that aberation. Please dont hit me with religion…

            24. Elizabeth, I want to hear more about “god is nothing more than implanted creation a computer game.” Please tell.

            25. Marildi, it was something else, running into such a incident in session… now that was a shock.. sitting above all an a golden throne, all heads bowed down front of him. Glorious ray eminated from the throne. I was looking at this picture and for a minute i could not figure out what was wrong with it. But meanwhile I had this awe feeling like I too should be on my knees adoring whatever. But the whole thing was, in the picture nothing was moving. So i contenued with the session, “go to the beginning of the session Etc… I went earlier, than over and over the whole incident. entered every kind of buttons, suppres, O/W nothing was moving. Was it mine, belong to somebody else etc… Than I realised whatever it was, only was just a picture and i was needed to believe there was such. the picture than vanished.
              The real work started after that, I had to know, real know so I audited long list of every related items I could think of.
              No God.. nothing but I have found MAJOR Implants which had contents made you belive that you were little, inferior, nothing helpless, etc.. Huge items that one must obey and believe that there is superior being in this case was the mother computer-implant station. I am sure I have audited over 5-6 hundred hours on those items. I even cleaned out the angels.. The Hell bit was more complicated and had much heavier stronger energy flows.

            26. Thanks! So you say that the superior being in that case was “the mother computer” – that’s what I want to hear more about. How exactly was it a computer? And why the “mother”? (I so much appreciate you sharing your experience with us!)

            27. Why the mother computer? Because that session the cognition have lasted for about 40 minutes and the pictures rolled like movie front of my[Eyes] and that continual cognition contained every human behavior believes one ever could imagine. It had everything from conception till dust to dust. And I mean dust to dust.. You are nothing after death!!! It was the most complete LIFE one can have and by than I have recognized a implant station since I have seen a few before but nothing like that one.. It was the Mother and mothers do the same now… continue with the implanting. Mothers down load their knowledge….
              PS I have a whole post in my blog what motheres do the “glue” bit

            28. Okay, I got it better. So I guess it was like a computer screen, with all kinds of pictures coming up on the screen, and that’s why you call it a computer. Or maybe it literally was a computer! I guess it would have to be – duh!

              I do get the “mother” idea – mothers want their kids hatted on the rules of the game so they can play it better. Can we blame them? But I know what you mean – knowing the rules too well can make the rules seem senior to the being or even hold the being back. Mothers themselves need hatting. 😉

            29. mother computer same as mothers have very strong energy flows. It has trapped the beings attention. The out pouring pictures would not allow the being pull away. As they pour out the pictures are so real since nothing else existing one truly believe because see nothing else that is ones very own life happening.
              Same as when one sees a most fantastic movie, one live through the movie. Well this mother computer+implant station was doing the same, fed out the life cycle of tghe human— with all the emotions sessations believes which when in place become embeded totally and that become ones life.
              But than there were many other implants similar content, but variation, so one has many implants-pictures to choose from what to do or what not to do. but they are all part of implants.
              And of course, there were games one could buy, and we all did, with different contents and we could and did VIEW-implant self too.. We did have lots of fun doing that…

            30. Did that mother computer make it seem like you were re-living your life? Kind of like a hologram – except more solid and real?

            31. it was the life it self, complite, totall real. there was no knowledge of anything else. It was just it was…My life

            32. The life was like you living now, you were born, grown continue do things, you are not view your life from a different point:looking an. but you are living it, that is the implant believing that you are doing it that it is you who is getting up in the morning… the implant is that… the implant is i am driving down on the road, i am having lunch, iam having a bath etc… i am having a headache. i cant find my keys… i am upsett…because i lost my mother..

            33. Wow, that is one incredible 3D computer! So I guess by having you live that life the experience would be “implanted” because they seem to be your own pictures. But was it a life you had already led?

            34. Marildi: there was no memory of before or after, only one life, so one is nothing before and becomes nothing after DEATH that is one of the reason one gets a new body fast so can START A NEW LIFE ONCE MORE, because than one lives again.. You see, the spiritual existance is not implanted, only the body-life is implanted, so one must have the body in order to live and to have a real life.. which is the lie of course.

            35. The reason I asked is that I have heard of people who I think were talking about between lives where they saw their whole life, the one they had just lived, pass before their eyes.

            36. Those are interesting when that happens, but dont forget there are hundreds of different implants piled on each other not one ever been as-ised.. they are just NOT-ised. yet they are all live and well and very much affective,. I have explored the in between lifes the spiritual state since there is my interest is. The So called body life have lost its meAMNING BECAUSE IT IS OR WAS JUST A MOCK -UP. tHE ETERNAL EXISTANCE IS REAL TO ME. THAT ENSLESS [bloody bottons] timless-ness, where everything or nothing can be. the body life is nothing..

            37. Thanks much. On that lovely note, I’ll say goodnight. 🙂

            38. Sorry I have given you a MU. While that implant was downloaded. In the implant contained those concepts. No memory befor or after, nothing existing but the implant material it self. This mother implant was over-riding all other implants, erased or cover over everything else. I hope this makes it more understandable.

            39. Marildi, Hell to solo audit out Hell was the most dufficult session I ever had.
              I would like to share the most difficult sessions I ever had out of the tens of thousands. The topic was HELL but I won’t repeat the auditing question which triggered off such a huge mass which lasted for three days. That concept whatever it was held me twisted, bunched up in agony nearly -conscious.

              The session started early afternoon, yet I could not get out of it by late evening, I was exhausted hungry, felt panic since I could not see pictures but that twisted agony.

              It never happened before to have 8 hour session in one sitting, but I had to end it. Fallowing morning I went to work I was in the zombie state, all day and driving was very difficult since I was not conscious. At home back to session, same all over, occasionally I could surface enough to repeat the auditing question. Again I could not get out. This time I stopped to eat than back to unconscious state. The session was almost 11 hours long. In the morning back to work same state continued, but by being having some thoughts surfacing I realized I was in trouble and felt panic what if I can’t pull myself out? big time panic….set in…

              At home eat, than back into session, with the same auditing question. The most difficult part of the session just started, because realization has come I must look beyond the unconsciousness, I must find my way out in order to see what I was in. I must find a tread, a picture which will give me something to continue with something to fallow. It worked, very slowly; I pounded the walls of Hell at first with just a smidgen of returning energy, since my thoughts were less than whiff of smoke in the autumn evening

              But the auditing questions continued, the ack.’s were there to. The pictures started to roll and I have come out of the depth of Hell. The cognitions rolled in for days and I could not go into session for a month. Auditor’s code well learned and being kept can take any PC out of any incident. That session was 6 hours. Wins galore, Hell as=ised, the universe rejoiced…………
              Some idiot CL8 auditor told me few months back that my sessions are not valid because they were not C/S-sed praperly. I wonder when the lat time she had cognitions, I am sure not lately because she could not recognise one when she read one of mine. You see I am just a squirrel in the eyes of the auditors… but what a hell of a squirrel! and I have wins-cognitions they know the tech yet they dont use it… So who is the squirrel?

            40. OMG Elizabeth! That is so so so awesome. Really and truly – you could write one of the most exciting books ever with your adventures as a solo auditor! And the knowledge you share with us is priceless. That is because it is direct experience, not using logic or reasoning or any kind of prior expectation – you just find what you find and see what you see. What courage you have had! Bless you for that! You are a valuable friend to all of us. 🙂

            41. Thanks my dear, i never read any of that stuff which I write about and I never asked any question from no one. But in session I have asked hundreds of thousands.. If i dont know something than i ask…
              I have learned long time back… If I can ask a question on any subject I know the answer to that question otherwise I could not ask since i would not have the knowledge to ask about.

            42. yogy person who is that? The only thing i looked at was my own creation-bank -mest– whatever. Confronting is the greatest pleasure I ever experienced through the confrontation i am seeing the universe, the most wonderous place imaginable.

            43. Elizabeth, I was laughing at how you wrote that. . . Yogi Berra is a famous American baseball player who was also famous for the funny one liners he said off the baseball field. Things like, “No one eats there anymore, the place is too busy.”

            44. old relation i am sure… since there is no such a thing as strangers… I never once in all the session when I looked, i alway found every person I have known them before… I even looked for Geir and found him on the track… hehehe, and not once..

            45. Somebody has told be not to long back that I dont have a fig worth of confront..he said that because he has written pig slop in my blog, and i would not let it through. He called me every kind of low life, one can think of in english.. but he did not know I am a hungarian born and hungarian have delicious swearing which would make any outsider including a sailer blush.. My mother use to let one fly here and there… nothing new But me not having confront well that made mw write a short post: Being OT is not a being floating above all, because One is better than everybody… no.. Not at all… OT is: intangible therefore infinite who is cause and experiences a creation
              I am honored by getting Hate-mail, so called ugly stuff.. here is my reality.. I do not believe there is only beauty, serenity aesthetic… whatever— like pleasure, pure joy the so called upper level existing in Ones universe….The track is long the experiences were many which were wide-ranging.

              Long-time back while still in the Mission in Vancouver, I was learning-inhaling the new knowledge fast as it was possible for me to have…

              From the Tech. Dictionary I have learned a new word “Confront” I had a cognition an it., which has blown me away… To confront whatever and that has given me a new idea… To travel to the ugliest part of Vancouver that was East Hasting Street, a little park was there than and which was in the middle of China Town the gathering place for those who were sharing the same reality: people glassy eyed from drugs and alcohol lay in stupor in the street, back alleys in their own urine , set in their soiled clothing or benches filthy leaning on each other for support, others passed out on the grass strewed with garbage and crows walking about looking for food which dropped out from hands which shake uncontrollably. There were patches of vomits huge globes of mucus all over spattered, the buildings all run down old… yet the sky was blue and infinity…

              I was young in body than and very beautiful and dressed in designers clothing, coiffured in the latest fashion had all the trimmings a fashion model…Hehehe… Then I still had believes that I was female…idiotic agreement…

              I walked around there I stopped front of the gob of yellow mucus on the walks, I seen the urine the shit smeared sidewalks and stole a fearful glance back at the man who all were staring at me… I wanted to run. I wanted to vomit, my stomach heaved jerking.. The fear what I felt was so overwhelming I wanted to be any other place but there. Since I not only picked up what my eyes could see but all my senses were trebling from the impact of those energy flows around me… My fear, my revulsion was so overwhelming my knees nearly buckled… comments drifted in my direction… I was raped mentally and verbally…. I was close to pass out “””none-confront that is!!!””” Every day I went there as I walked about my awareness of my souranding increased I dared to see more, sense more, be there and I started to feel a bit more at ease.

              Since the willingness to confront increased by then, just to be there and do nothing else confront in the NOW what was real what I have experienced.. Seen..… My reality changing daily how I have seen the streets and their occupants… something new was there not in the street but in me..

              Cognations small at first, just a thought here and there… I went back there and walked into those alley and streets every day for 2 weeks and my fears eased up bit by bit I started to feel my own presence not just the streets space and its energies… Than I had a major cog as I walked about, stepping over legs, shit, large splatters of mucus, empty bottles paper plates, filth everywhere, as I walked into the alley for the last time stopped and looked into the garbage dumpster.. I inhaled my surrounding with all my sense, now I had no fear as I looked back into those eyes which has fallowed my every movement for two weeks, because now I have seen I was in the universe which was mine too.. Joy washed over filled my universe, I floated since I was no longer the effect but I was at cause..

              Those of you who care to call me names send me hate letters, tell me what ever believe you have is hateful and cause discomfort fear in my universe… to collapse to succumb to be an effect, I don’t think so… My confront was that intact in 1974, since than i had the opportunity to confront the universe on every level… a bit better… much better.

              Those things which you put out into the universe those words lives in your mind it’s only has power there.. They are just words.. nothing more… Your hate is part of your Path… that hate is also a lesson to learn from…

              Whatever you do have fun enjoy it since it is yours, very own creation, your very own universe… it is you… http://elizabethhamre.wordpress.com/

            46. Elizabeth, I agree. In the case supervisor series LRH named “Gross Auditing Error #1” was “no auditing occurring.” Every sanctimonious auditor who claims auditing is valuable but who won’t do it should re-evaluate their position.

            47. right bro… it was aida who told me off, plus i had few more accounters with other snobs who know the tech down to the last letter but it eded there for them.. well good to be a squirrel in paradise..

            48. Rafael, thanks that is simply great, I too understand your view points, but what is good that, by understanding that others have different reality we dont have the need to change theirs…it is their universe, their space..and that is just wonderful…

            49. Chris: ” We yearn for OT so that somehow we are no longer subject to the usual rules. Discussing among ourselves is not breaking any rules of this universe. Do you know of a true OT phenomena more than hearsay? ”


              I was never a fan of letters or numbers after a person’s name.

              I look at the Bridge, and in fact, Life itself, as one long checksheet.

              I have witnessed what is called ‘OT Phenomena’ with others and myself.

              If one considers that these abilities and awarenesses are ‘unusual’, ‘not the norm’ or some such, this is a different viewpoint from where I look.

              I see them as normal.

              What is ‘unusual’ or ‘not the norm’ would be one’s failure to use them.

              These are not parlour tricks – they exist and from what I have seen with my own ‘case’ and others’, they are suppressed.

              Have a look not from the viewpoint of trying to re-gain, but from the viewpoint that those abilities and awarenesses are there – one needs only to find the key or the stop one has created, or another’s suppressive creation that one agreed to.

            50. Hey Dennis, I don’t want to come across as bashing OT concepts because I’m not. I don’t even think that way. I’ve been pleased with the results of auditing my own mind. What I am asking is to what degree these abilities and these concepts can impinge on physical universe rules. I do not doubt that the able can become more able. But when they become more able, they always become more able in the context of Be, Do, & Have. My question about physical laws is ARE THEY IMMUTABLE or not?

              Elizabeth makes a good point that 99.99% of our time is spent in our own worlds and my experience and research shows me this is true. Therefore, my questions encompass a small but solid portion of our experience — the human experience. Elizabeth speaking spiritually calls the human experience the “implanted experience.” Possibly in that concept has some traction for me.

              However, my question remains, “Has anyone successfully made or modified or violated a natural law — Ever?” And if this promise has been perpetually unkept, then perhaps I am looking down a blind alley? Elizabeth would say that looking to the physical universe for answers IS a blind alley. Is she right? Should we participate in the physical world as a game only with no other significance than that and look to ourselves for ultimate understanding of ourselves?

              But what about physical laws makes them so adamant? I participate in the world without any choice to deviate from these rules. The violation thereof results in death of the game.

            51. Chris: “Elizabeth would say that looking to the physical universe for answers IS a blind alley. Is she right?”
              Erzsebet: We must look at the personal physical universe[ones own reality] as first in session than by confrontation of the item one finds out if that item was right or wrong in which were made to believe in ..Agreed to… went along by.. and thought in general it was real… our life etc..… and by confrontation we realize how it has become because was it the truth, and that new reality, the cognition now becomes ones new reality… certainty …
              Chris, one must look in sessions for one’s own reality you never will find that any other place. My reality never can be yours, you only can have a agreement on my believes but that is not likely your basic beliefs which lays far below your agreements.
              “Is she right?” only for me I am, others only can agree or not…
              I am sorry I caused a MU… In session one will find the cognition…by confronting ones very own universe… but not by reading about it..

            52. Chris, I never failed to mention what I write about is my very own reality, That i do not speak for others, my words are not written in stone and it is my adventure, and what ever I write should be taken with a pinch of salt. Now if that is not clearly expressed than what is? For what is write or wrong for the truth one must look for in ones very own universe since the rest outside of that is mostly hogwash…
              PS: if Dennis dares to speak againts me he knows I take my rib back and that is than the end of him!!! 🙂

            53. Chris: ps: it is perfectly all right to put up what i write for debate…[since each person do have their reality on it while reading it], but long as it is understood it is just a item same as any others in the blog..and not a thundering mighty truth, now that would be bad in my reality..

            54. when talking about thetan creating thetan? Total illogical irrational, absurd, I mean it is so totally off the wall. How the hell one can create which do not exist as a body as a energy, as something? please dont think I wish to make you wrong in any way, far from it. just because somebody has written that, is it really true?

            55. Dear Elizabeth, what makes you think that this thetan creating operation should look logical and rational to you ?. And Elizabeth, just because you have just written that this operation is so totally off the wall, then it makes what you say really true ?

            56. A thaten creating a thetan? you tell me you how it is done. in my universe that is off the wall. But if you can tell me how that can happen than by all means i can learn something new, never known before and I would be very-very happy of the new reality.

            57. Dear Elizabeth, it is done thru faith. Someone in a certain state of faith can create certain types of kinds of creations. If you become good at it eventually you can create even the substance you are made of ( not physical ). Elizabeth, you have told many times that there are realities that we can not see or proof easily and this is one of this realities. Try to experience it walking the path of persons observation . We are created with the same substance of God, this is why.

            58. thank you ever so much for that explenation…i am in the dust…shattered..i do need to be good, i can see that…

            59. Elizabeth: ” I am in the dust… ”

              … and I was made from one of your ribs 🙂

            60. Thanks Dennis just about time you have showed up and bailed me out, I am not very good with explanations, how are you?
              there you are, beloved friend, [reading the rib bit] You have one of my rib? i new i miss placed that thing, this morning after shower I was counting them to be sure i have all of them in place and one was missing, i thought it was washed down in the drain. Could you mail it back please, without I am lop sided. Thank a million. by the way what is your code for the phone, i got the number…

            61. just call me idiot in the dust… i have 1 250778 4644 and cant get through you can email it too

            62. help help i am missing numbers! 1778 than? so difficult to nevigate in the mest… i get lost contenually…maybe because the missing rib…

            63. Dear Elizabeth, you know I appreciate you :-). Do not feel shattered, instead work diligently at becoming even more good at it. There is an infinite cosmos of posibilities awaiting you….

            64. 🙂 we are having fun no matter which way the apple falls… did I tell you I have been in one place where the snow was red? the ocean had pink water too.. I liked it… But first seeing the red stuff coming I could not figure out right off what it was. Than WOW, snow!!

            65. just thinking here… if it existing than no matter what that is, it was postulated into existance…. than it can be as-ised ..broken, nulled..

            66. Stay with me now, are you saying that the physical universe is subject to your will in such a way that there are rules that you can break?

            67. Chris, would you consider controlling and directing the randomity of the physical universe, to be somehow “breaking the rules” of the physical universe?

            68. Good question Valkov. Maybe give an example of what you mean.

              My premise is that I can control and direct within the “closed?” system of my own mind but to breach the veil and to control and to direct in the solid world requires the tedious process of “be, do, and have.” I am looking for examples of this NOT being true. Exaggeration: Stepping off a cliff and floating in air. However, much milder forms of this could be acceptable – they just need to violate physical law. This has always been the standard of OT – to move control from the subjective reality to the objective reality in what would ordinarily be classed as magic. Example of able person moving things around quite ably but not violating physical law: Donald Trump, real estate tycoon.

          2. Good points about ARC comm cycles and be do have. Remember my conical helical coil diagram? — Same idea, though I wasn’t thinking with fractals when I drew that. Still it fits. Vinaire asked whether the universe might’n be one big self? Maybe that’s a good way of putting it.

            Funny, now I find myself thinking about the “universe” as “that closed system bounded by space-time.” This strikes me as very funny to think that our “everything” is bounded. Infinity is contained within these bounds. Intangible is different from infinite (I am trying to be particular) in that it like static is not part of this closed system. It is the thought that there is something outside thought.

            Elizabeth would rightly say that we are bounded by our considerations, but is that all? The Static is conjectured to be that which is unbounded. Now at the root of our sameness I am thinking that the static, represented mathematically by the wave-function, which is unbound until (the physicist says) an observation binds it, — the static may be that next dimension.

            I reject the concept of individual statics. This is now clearly inconsistent to me.

            1. “bounded by considerations, is that all?” you are looking for complacation than you will find just that.. but in complication you will not find what you looking for…

            2. Of course I remember your helical coil diagram! Yet another instance (and good insight and visualization) of the “sequence of things” – also known as “time”.

              As for static being “represented mathematically by the wave-function, which is unbound”, I can think of wave-function as being unbound but just within a certain probability distribution. Ahd even then not unbound in the sense of an infinity of location possibilities even within those boundaries, because space size is limited by the “Planck unit of space” (I’ve come across the concept but don’t remember the term) – i.e. there are only so many “pixels” that can fit in a given space, the space of a given probability distribution. Correct my concepts as needed (and if you dare! hahaha). “Static”, on the other hand is unbounded – by definition. (You know, Elizabeth is probably right that we get too complicated, LOL!)

            3. Chris, I get what you are saying about how firmly fixed the rules of the physical universe are and I agree with Elizabeth that only “OT ability” (or true “magic”) could counter them. But is that what you are talking about exactly? Or do these fixed rules have you then doubting free will – and that is actually the thing of interest? The latter is what I got from your previous posts on our incommplete exchange.

              I found a very scientific explanation for why free will can exist even amidst the fully deterministic (almost fully so) rules of the physical universe. And – get this – your beloved QM is the WHY! 🙂

              “If wave functions did not collapse, their evolution over time would be completely deterministic and information-preserving. Nothing new would emerge that was not implicitly present in the earlier states of the universe.

              “The only reasonable model for an indeterministic contribution is ever-present noise throughout the neural circuitry. We call it the Micro Mind.

              “Quantum (and even some thermal) noise in the neurons is all we need to supply random unpredictable alternative possibilities.”


              The idea of “alternative possibilities” is further described at that site (on different pages) as meaning, per my understanding, that the quantum noise in the mind brings forth random ideas that a person can then, by his own free will, choose from.

            4. The concept of “individual Statics” implies the possibility of “many Statics”. It might be that the concept of number cannot be applied to Static.

            5. Yes, agree. I believe Static to be another dimension(s) where 4-dimensional space-time is less relevant and small-minded. I feel that the definition of Static as well as Vinaire’s unknowable will not come HERE, so I have to go THERE — No longer as myself but as a new creature. This is a satisfying thought for me and levels the inconsistencies brought about by wrangling with illogic. Now all I have to do is become greater than I am.

    1. Ha ha! You smoked me out! Just busy, and I don’t dare start with you guys right now cuz chances are always good I’ll get into it too much. But I have at least one of your comments earmarked to reply to. See you tomorrow (of my own free will ;)).

      1. Marian thank for the info.. I read the info on the internet and ordered the coconut oil-butter from the vitamin shop. Sounds good to me.

    1. No problem Elizabeth! I’m glad to be of help with the coconut oil — wow – you really bought a lot! I’m told it’s great for cooking and skin care too! Really quite versatile.

      1. I will let you know how it works, i wont be using it for cooking, also will give some for my sister, she diabetic. rotten memory, heart problem. just had triple by pass, plus had since than stroke, name it she got it. Now Maria, just compare, me in total health, yet i was the one born half dead, so this shows auditing works!!!I known that since my very first session in 73.

  17. Chris, my dear I still dont get it, rules like sport game rules, rules of war, rules of behavier, rule what holds the planet in place, you have my number, call me, if i know i tell you..gravity? I believe we talked about gravity. feed me a tread i can fallow that, but otherwise, i am clueless..

  18. chris, while one play the game like driving down on the road, one has to fallow the rules how to drive and survive that experience for the body to stay in same condition from the first to the last action stepping out of the car in the driveway. We talking moving solid items from one point to the next, that is like ches game, those rules you know…

  19. So knowing that I can always improve my understanding of something, I restudied Kurt Godel’s incompleteness theorem and realized that a man without a wife is incomplete. Then once he’s married, he’s finished. (humor)

Leave a Reply to marildi Cancel reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s