As a person starts to write, he may gather an audience. He will then get feedback and he will experience that he creates some value for that audience. He writes more, gets more feedback and so on and so forth. This feedback loop can be a trap. He may continue to write to satisfy his existing audience or his own comfy feeling from the feedback he gets.
The writer can get anchored to the audience who got anchored by his early writing. Thus he can get anchored to his own past output, generating a situation where he finds it difficult to change or explore new paths.
I am very conscious of this phenomena. And as you may have notices, I went from writing exclusively about Scientology on my earlier blog to writing on other subjects on this blog. I realize that I gathered a sizeable audience when I left the Church of Scientology after 25 active years. The audience grew as I shared my views after I left. But the world has opened up for me. There is so much I want to know, to explore and to share. Scientology went from being a big part of my life to a very small part. My interest went from Scientology to people.
I am not quite sure why I write this. Maybe to warn those in my audience only interested in my views on Scientology that there will be less and less of that, perhaps, and perhaps more on other subjects and areas of life. Right now I am getting back into creating music, like I did many ears ago.
I will try to not get in a rut and continue to expand and explore, and perhaps with your inspiration, I may explore whole new areas and write about stuff that I never would have thought of before.
Geir Isene - uncut 
I don’t know how about others, but you won’t get rid of me so easily 😉
I wasn’t trying to shake you off 😉
Just joking. 🙂
“The writer can get anchored to the audience who got anchored by his early writing. Thus he can get anchored to his own past output, generating a situation where he finds it difficult to change or explore new paths.”
I think this is a good way to express what happens, not only to a writer but to an individual proceeding through life, maybe even to life itself. These anchors produce and reinforce consistency and continuity as they are based on past and future expectation. You touched on this in your creativity and craziness post observing that there is a backlash against “stepping out” of the expected and into the realm of creativity. There is more to this than meets the eye.
I’m enjoying your journey. I find it inspiring and encouraging to read what you have just written.
Speaking of meeting the eye, I have been exploring in directions that are yielding great insight, insight that is very difficult to express in words and in visual terms. It started with exploring the concept “Buddha field” in relation to quantum field theories and paradigms – paradigms being anchors.
I first noticed that there is tremendous focus on vision and language in my paradigm which I assume is the common paradigm I subscribe to. Yet my real field of interaction/influence is not really composed of either vision or language. As I explored (and this is very much in progress as we speak) I noticed that this field is a tactile field but not in the usual sense of touch. This is the “lay” of the land of music, a play of that tactile field interpreted as hearing.
Consider homeostasis — a cell has a permeable membrane separating it from other cells that share its medium. The cellular process of exchange requires an imbalance between the external medium and the internal medium of the cell. Only when there is an imbalance does an exchange take place, and then only of the molecular structures that serve to balance. So there is the state of the external medium (which contains and comprises external cells) and the state of the internal medium interacting. Perhaps this is the “Buddha field” in a microcosm. So what happens when one introduces catalysts that alter the medium? Perhaps this is why we so love music and touch and joy and inspiration. Even the word inspiration has this element to it and perhaps this is at the genus of giving. Just give.
Perhaps what we need is greater inconsistency… 😉
I truly admire your direction and wisdom. Thank you for the helpful information about writing. Makes a lot of sense which I’ll keep in mind. I look forward to hearing what you have to say in those “whole new areas.”
Thank you. Next will probably be some music. We’ll see 😉
Geir, I think most of us are (and have been for some time) happy to branch out with you. What’s interesting, though, is that we usually still bring Scientology into the picture no matter what the topic is. My own idea about this is that whatever disaffection (even bitterness) there may be about Scn, or how divided we are in our viewpoints about it, our having gotten involved in it as much as we all did has sort of made us “kin” 🙂
It’s like any big family, or any culture large or small – you have so much similar track that you can relate to each other pretty quickly and easily. And deeper than that is the fact that you all understand the same metaphors and constructs about existence. Even if we disagree about those constructs, we are at least able to communicate through them on most any topic of conversation. In other words – we speak the same language!
Not just the same terms but the same way we organize our thoughts. There doesn’t have to be any more adherence to Scn than that – just as a system of organizing thought. And it’s very useful for that purpose, IMO. Maybe we’ll get to the point where we can just use it (or not use it) in that way, and with ease – with no preconceived notions or ridges or resistance one way or the other.
That said, I would also like to say that the world has not only opened up for you but you have helped so much in opening it up for us too. And not just because you have gotten us to think for ourselves about Scn (which is significant in itself), or that you have gotten us to think about many other things – but because you are here as a stable terminal. LOL, there I go using a Scn term. And construct. But I really couldn’t think of another way to express that! Maybe someone else can come up with how that could be said in non-Scientologese, but I bet it would pretty much take a paragraph. Anyway, I think that is a major component in the mix. 😉
Last but not least, it’s good that you have mentioned that we can help inspire new areas for you to write about. We should keep that in mind. 🙂
Marildi – your post inspired me with an idea maybe someone could take up. That is with Scn terms. We could use a list of words or terms with a wog usage to be understood. I know how hard it can be to change over and not use Scientologeese. It’s not easy after so many years and yet we must communicate to others in the field.
Lizabeth, you are right, and it’s been mentioned before that we should do something like that. I guess we should at least keep in mind that not all readers are former Scientologists, and explain what we mean by our terms when we use them. Thanks for your input. 🙂
Marildi, hadn’t thought about the readers, but yes, as Isene writes other types of articles there may be other type of people on his blog. I guess I was thinking as a transition period of talking in the real world, having words to fit our understanding. I found it quite easy to get back into the scn words, after being out, and again it depends on who you’re talking too. Think about this: You talking to someone and you don’t want that person to think you’re a scientologist for whatever reason, even if it’s only for mu’s sake. How hard would that be? Hopefully we ex’s will reach a balance on words and have the alternatives of speech. You already have a good start in your earlier post and I had a good laugh about it, with you. Anyway, very good point you brought up. 🙂
Btw, I found that ARC was the hardest one to translate while communicating… still is for me.
Actually, Geir has mentioned once or twice that many of his readers are not and have never been Scientologists. And there have been some regular posters who aren’t either, interesting enought. But I agree – the numbers may increase…
Yes, ARC is one of the tough ones. We’ll work on them, though. Here and elsewhere. 😉
Good to hear and know. I’m rather fresh, a newbie on this blog, like you don’t know that, (smile) so appreciate your input. The numbers will increase for sure. Thanks. 🙂
Thank you for that gracefully nice comment.
My ability to put my thoughts into the written word has improved here too! Thanks back, for the inspiration 🙂
” My interest went from Scientology to people “. The same with me, may be there is an important reality there to explore 🙂