Discussions on the Net

I am sitting in a relaxing chair in one of my favorite places (Tehuset i Lillegrensen), contemplating three years of actively discussing on the Internet. Enjoying a cup of Chocolate Mint Tea, I write my current conclusion:

Internet discussions are generally unproductive. They most often serve to solidify the viewpoints and opinions of a debater. When faced with opposing views, a debater will usually come up with increasingly strong and intelligent ways to defend his own – regardless of the value or rightness of those views. Discussions tend to be an exercise in rightness rather than a way to mold and morph and inspire one’s opinions, beliefs, trusts and outlook.

Want to discuss this? Let’s meet over a cup of tea.


352 thoughts on “Discussions on the Net

  1. Does this mean you are in fact done discussing on the Internet?

    What is the scope of “discussing” in your conclusion? Do you include only comment fields (like this one), or articles and blog posts (longer than tweets)?

    I find that the point of discussing on the Internet is to show that there are different views on the subject and enlighten the “neutral” readers, much more than convince your counterpart.

    For the record I am having a cup of coffee now.

    1. 🙂

      I agree with the viewpoint regarding “neutral readers”. Adding that into the equation, I can see the answer coming out as a slight positive. Letting that slight positive number compete with other activities in life puts the discussions and debates into serious disadvantage.

      I’m not entirely done. I will certainly keep posting and the posts will be open for discussions – but myself engaging in such discussions will perhaps wane.

      1. Cant stand the heat, eh? 😀

        Seriously, though, it wouldn’t be the same without a fair amount of Geir presence. 😦

          1. I’m sure you’re right, that discussing in order to convince others has played way too heavy a role, even though it might result in gains for some, including some readers. And that type of discussion can even be a lot of fun, just as a game IF it’s kept at the games level.

            You know, maybe we never ever got to the point of being able to discuss for the honest purpose of broadening our own reality. A real discussion, rather than a debate. Do you think it’s even possible for us to do that?

            1. M;
              “”You know, maybe we never ever got to the point of being able to discuss for the honest purpose of broadening our own reality. A real discussion, rather than a debate. “‘
              Great point!!! fantastic..

            2. PS;; but that would need lage amount of honesty confession declaration of one’s factual believes,, it would be incradible experience … but that takes guts to hag out ones underwear on the open line regardless what condition they are in.

      2. I pretty much agree with your post.

        It’s like face to face but on the net nobody cuts comm so you can say as you wish and we normally think we are right so…

  2. Sometimes personal change occurs even though the poster doesn’t mention it. Sometimes I mention it but more often I change gradually or notice it later. Over two years of posting on your blog, to myself, I’ve changed dramatically… still very handsome, though.

    1. Very much what I was thinking, Chris. Confusion and misunderstandings eventually blow off and a person changes for the better. I often post my reactions/responses off the cuff and the feedback leads to new windows and productive growth of my views on subjects I hadn’t really thought through before. Plus there are the links to new data posted by others.

  3. With digital communication one can be anonymous and impersonal. People are more isolated from one another. If you relate to people mostly by digital means, you lose touch with how to relate in life. But, is this life as it is now? Isolated, not confronting, not listening, only responding to other humans from within your own isolation. Conversatonal skills have deceased proportionate to the use of digital communication. At a recent family gathering, an area was desiginated as the “communications” room. Three walls were lined with tables with multiple electrical outlets to charge phones and laptops. Thirty family members (aged 3 to 80) gathered for the first time in years, but spent more time on their individual cell phones and laptops than interacting and communicating with each other. We parted with promises to stay in touch digitally. We have not. You are far away from where I live, but I can imagine a real live conversation while sharing a cup of tea and that is delightful.

  4. There’s a KSW Discussion Party going on at Chris’ blog.


    I’m playing the role of a Scientologist defending KSW. If you are human enough, why don’t you take your OPPOSING viewpoint and bring your best game?

    I suggest a disclaimer phrase like “((THIS IS NOT MY VIEWPOINT))” or something else just in case someone decides to quote you in the future or something. Or take another avatar. If you are just going to say your same old thing, then just do that as well.

  5. OK Geir – poor the tea….

    As you said it’s a generality and therefore not really of any value except for being YOUR viewpoint which can be interesting enough. However, if you maintain your conclusion, you should (IMO) withdraw entirely from the Internet, but that would be a loss for the net and for me too. Also I am sure that you have experienced nice and valuable, even educational two-way-communications on Internet. Wouldn’t you say so? And wouldn’t it therefore have some value? Just communicating a stuckness in own viewpoint – yea I have observed that, but with ARC – I have also been able to move that stuck opinion and fixed idea.. and THAT is a gazzzz… wouldn’t you say so??

    Per, DK

  6. Thank You for your post… it has been so far a truly great experience.
    Posting in your blog communicating with others opened up many different universes.
    I agree what you wright above but there for me has been more much more than that, in my reality posting-communicating was almost like sitting in some smoke filled cafe house with friends and just letting it lose.
    What made it different by not experiencing the presence of others has changed the atmosphere yet there is life in the communication of this kind too: lots of it and for me personally were a learning experience.
    Not seeing the faces I have talked with was one of them: but I have learned to ‘’feel’’ their energy flows like I would be a blind man and after a while I could real ‘’see’’ those energy flows surrounding each being.
    Since I live alone for many years and it was a good experience to have opposition on what I think.. being told I am not right more than one way has been very good, kept me in touch with other realities how they see the universe… and presenting great variety of viewpoints , I have learned about scientology alone what it is and what it not, that alone is incredible since I never known any of that before.
    By reading what others had to say opened lots of different avenues since I wanted to know more so I done lots of research on those topics on the side.
    But of course I have learned lot about “me” and I have noted the good and the bad points which needed improvement , I learned this because was pointed out to me… also I have reread some of my earlier posting in your blog and I could not believe I have written some of the stuff.
    Because of that reading I realized I own you apology big time and I sincerely hope you accept that apology.
    It seems I lack of people skills…. There is a reason for that but I will not use it as an excuse.
    Here in your blog because communication I have met friends who I have known from other places, other times from way back it has become for me a great reunion. Recognising old friends, realizing after all they were still friends and lived. We never really lost each other we just collected different experiences.
    I have had one of my greatest experienced in this life because meeting someone here after long time someone who is my true soul mate confronting something like that was a unique experience: to love so deeply yet not even having a picture of that person… To want, but not having.. yet having fully totally and completely..
    Confronting love having love but not the having body experiences brought on a new reality a realization what it is love means as spiritual being…
    Also I have confronted some of the individuals track who I have met here and of course one of them was yourself it was very enlightening to see the reasons for likes- dislikes the reasons for the continual clashes and not willing to ack each other etc…..
    In all in all it has been a grand and you have been a gracious host, thank you.

    1. Awesome, awesome post, Elizabeth. This is what I call a real and full and honest and humble and insightful COMMUNICATION. I really have to hand it to you, my dear. You make me proud to call you friend. 🙂

      Btw, I too can say that “I have learned lot about ‘me’ and I have noted the good and the bad points which needed improvement. I learned this because was pointed out to me…” And I’ve learned a lot about others too, and about communication and interacting. (More to go, LOL. ;))

      1. Marildi my beloved friend , thank you.. it is you who have contributed a great deal.. By now I know i put out all on the line what ever i was thinking my reality. There was nothing I have held back… My best was my best and my worst was my worst.. Those who have not seen it that way… well i cant do nothing about their reality how they see the universe..
        I have only gained….. bloody hell, it has been fun..

  7. I would say there’s a lot of truth to the idea that posters don’t tend to change there outlook. But I have seen that at least some of us have done so, albeit slowly. I personally have made some basic changes in my views. On the subject of Scientology, I’ve freed up from much of the outright conditioning I got when a member of the CoS – in general, the belief that Scn is and always will be the only road to truth. I still believe that the basic tech is highly valuable, and the best I know of, but am open to it perhaps not being perfect. And I no longer believe that Scientologists are superior to others or that LRH made no mistakes. Also, I’m no longer willing to accept statements that are plainly based on lack of substance – whether pro or con. I feel like I and others are at least moving in the right direction, and any other viewpoint would be defeatist, I think you would agree. Otherwise, you wouldn’t continue to host these discussions. 🙂

  8. Perhaps the ability to change one’s outlook has more to do with tone level than any other single factor.

    4.0: Enthusiasm — Search for different viewpoints in order to broaden own reality. Changes reality.

    3.5: Cheerfulness — Ability to understand and evaluate reality of others and to change viewpoint. Agreeable.

    3.0: Conservatism — Awareness of possible validity of different reality. Conservative agreement.

    2.5: Boredom — Refusal to match two realities. Indifference to conflict in reality. Too careless to agree or disagree.

    2.0: Antagonism — Verbal doubt. Defense of own reality. Attempts to undermine others. Disagrees.

    1.5: Anger — Destruction of opposing reality. “You’re wrong.” Disagrees with reality of others.

    1.1: Covert Hostility — Doubt of own reality. Insecurity. Doubt of opposing reality.

    0.5: Grief —Shame, anxiety, strong doubt of own reality. Easily has reality of others forced on him.

    0.1: Apathy — Complete withdrawal from conflicting reality. No reality.

    1. M, that is good of you to post that… instantly I looked it up, the tone level from where i operate from.. looking for opportunity to make change…. looking at every experince as a learning experince- what can i take out of this? good girl….

  9. Once one determines his own outlook, and continues to be open, one needs to become active and do something. Different ways for different people. I personally like that cup of tea quite often and have reached a point where I need action in the years I have left. I can’t do it by discussion only. I need to help better conditions and stand behind my own outlook and viewpoint, while allowing others there’s too. Much time is spent in discussion, discourse and opinion and it can be good if needed or wanted. It is good to stay in touch and learn while staying balanced by Doing. There is my opinion. Oh, for another cup of tea, wish I was with you all in person but just can’t Do that physically. So here we are….. cheers! “-)

  10. No, not at all, there are no neutral readers. At least, I’m not a kind of one at all. It can be a discussion based on a subject which is beyond me, so I stay neutral, that means I turn off the computer. But in a discussion based on a subject who rise my attention, there is impossible not to have a point of view, or at least, from 2 different opinions, to turn the balance in one side or another. Your article Geir is full of common sense and it’s filled with normality. Yes, when you write something, it’s your point of view. A reader who don’t agree with you will express his opinion, which will have also defenders or detractors. Everybody will be eager to defend his ideas, but this is the essence of a debate! I find it the most normal thing in the world 🙂

  11. Are face-to-face discussions actually more “productive”?

    Let’s say 8 or 10 of us, like those who appear on this blog, maybe 5-6 active participants, plus some spectators watchers/listeners, got together over coffee or tea or beer and started talking. How productive in the end would that be?

    I think face-to-face can work with maybe 3 or 4 people tops, if everyone has an equal footing. Internet is “slow” in a sense, because people go away, come back, respond several days later sometimes. But perhaps the comm lags are necessary to absorb, sort out, and think through the posted comm, in order to come up with a cogent response.

  12. “Discussions tend to be an exercise in rightness rather than a way to mold and morph and inspire one’s opinions, beliefs, trusts and outlook.“

    Ideas, opinions and viewpoints. Every single one of them have their place and value. These discussions are important if only for the reason that all these Ideas, opinions and viewpoints are there. Whether they are debated, defended or agreed on with, doesn’t really matter. What matters (I feel) is they exist and can possibly help another along, in some way or another.

  13. Within the context of the Church of Scientology, where information and viewpoints are suppressed, Internet discussions are hugely valuable. Opening up the informational control and letting in facts and data that were not available before almost always changes lives for the better.

    Changing peoples’ minds is a whole other story. That is not done through internet discussion, And if anybody’s mind is changed, it is normally done alone – by one’s self – and almost never in a debate-type environment. But a debate type environment can be the medium where new facts and new data are brought to light, where they would not have come to light with out it.

    Internet discussions have an arc of diminishing returns for the individual. And I agree with your slight-positive value, which when compared to other activities and their values, gives it a huge opportunity cost. Especially if the debaters are mean and disrespectful to each other, engage in ad-hom, and try to tear each other down personally. Then over time, debates on Scientology have a corrosive effect on an individual – even though it can look like to yourself you are having fun.

    Having said that, I have been taken down roads I would have never traveled, and seen things I would have never seen, and learned invaluable subjects that I would not have been exposed to without internet discussions.

    As long as the debate stays humane, and as long as people approach it with a basis of mutual respect, and as long as there are enough *different* viewpoints by smart people who have a lot of ideas to share, then internet discussions are worth it.

    As long as you go out and LIVE, as well.


      1. Geir, I have to admit that I actually agree with your OP of basically taking into account the point of opportunity cost. You may recall that this is something I myself have commented on a number of times, in so many words – i.e. that the amount of time and effort expended in participation cuts into other areas of life to an unwarranted degree and that I keep telling myself I should cut back on this “addiction” ;). I keep failing to do so, however, as I’m still benefitting significantly and in ways I don’t think are available elsewhere.

        In your case, I think there is another factor that should be taken into account, which is that your blog and the discussions here may offer an opportunity for you to reach higher numbers of people than you may be able to by other means. And when I say “reach”, I mean with your large purpose to inspire and basically help others towards higher awareness and capability.

        Nevertheless, I’ve seen that people do come and go, most likely after having reached the amount of benefit potentially there for them. And you of course have that right too. But I must say, I was very glad to see that you are still commenting to some degree. 🙂

        1. Very good comment, Marildi.

          I am not looking at shutting down this blog or stop commenting on the comments of others – but I will refrain from entering debates with others. I am looking at more positive forms of communications.

          1. “”””I am looking at more positive forms of communications”‘ would you be so kind and share what form of communication you have on mind? I promise i will not comment on it if you do… moms the word. 🙂

          2. Thanks, Geir.

            When you say “more positive forms of communications” do you mean on the blog itself or elsewhere?

            One thing I have held out hope for is that the group of us can evolve to the point of being able to discuss in a way that we aren’t primarily interested in convincing others of our point of view but in learning from each other and having our own views evolve for the better, even though it may take the form of apparent “debate”. This would be the next echelon up. I get the idea, however, that you may no longer think that is likely to happen.

            Nevertheles, I hope and trust that “commenting on the comments of others” includes 2-way comm, at least to the extent that you wish to take the time. 🙂

      1. I think it is possible to create a “culture” where each post and reply is humane, understanding, well thought out and productive. I think Geir has tried to do that for as long as I have known him on the Internet.

        When it comes to Scientology though, the cultural values which are built into this mindset go against that.

        It’s too bad, too, because some of the best and brightest people in the world were attracted by Scientology’s ideals, but they were not taught the manners necessary to uphold good and productive debate. “Always attack, never defend” does not produce helpful and sustainable debate where everyone wins.

        It’s too bad.

        But people like Geir keep trying. and I admire him, and us all, for that.


        1. Interesting take. I will add my viewpoint: Whenever you have a group not actively promoting tolerance, but instead actively promoting its own superiority, you will foster a culture of intolerance. When people of such a group enter discussions with others, most others will react toward intolerance with further intolerance, albeit in the opposing direction. Trying to even out such a debate is pretty hard. I have seen this on many topics – also in scientific circles where one group claims to have a superior theory. Or with religions who claim to have the ultimate answers or with a group in between that claims to have the only workable technology for the mind producing Homo Novis and the ever elusive Übermensch.

          I am personally and currently settling on the view that everyone is right in their view of existence, but each one is looking from his point of view. In order to tolerate and understand another’s view of something, one must appreciate from where that person is viewing. And I believe preaching this point of view is a mission of mine.

          1. Geir: “…most others will react toward intolerance with further intolerance, albeit in the opposing direction.”

            Yes! I’ve noticed this in myself and others who are not normally intolerant. Thank you for articulating that! Just knowing about it now will tend to make the mechanism less effective, maybe even ineffective.

            This is a great example of how knowledge and understanding can free a person. I believe it will be much easier now to “tolerate and understand another’s view” and “appreciate from where that person is viewing”. Your mission is already started to be accomplished. 🙂

            1. @Chris:

              To be more accurate, it is abstracted concepts, both fictional and non-fictional, relayed via language medium that appears to be in the province of human beings. Imagination (imaging) is a faculty of animals although it appears to be restricted to memory rather than abstract concepts and future concepts. i.e. very much in the now.

              But there is no way of verifying it 100% with animals as they do not have a language that permits the description of such concepts. Not one that we can recognize anyway.

              The point is that animals are not known to set up fictional plays, plan and shoot TV series, write tomes of profound poetry or any poetry at all for that matter, play with calculus, recombine elements to form an entirely new, cohesive element through the use of tools and formulations, and so on.

              Dreams during sleep can easily be explained by memory replays and that is something people do as well.

            2. Interesting! Hmmmm. I have to think about that a bit… Though some animals make and use tools, levers and whatnot, we surely do make better tools than animals do and I had previously thought was the manifested difference between man and non-man. As you say, we don’t know what they think.

              For sure, they occupy a point of view. My sister thinks she knows what her dog is thinking and saying and gives me a running commentary and translation. (I want to strangle her! uhh! It’s too much!) Maybe I don’t believe her, that her dog really has the thoughts that she says. But I don’t really know what she knows.

            3. My own dreaming is 99% abstract gibberish with fully formed concepts upon waking. These provide resolution of problems on which I have some kind of fixation. I don’t remember dreaming of the past as in straight memory ever. The one percent left over might be strings of thinking with or without pictures of fictious mockups about something I know something about (from memory) or else something I am creating.

            4. The stuff from Friedrich Nietzsche. The german philosopher wo went type 3 and ended up
              in a psych institution. *gg

          2. @Geir: You said: “I am personally and currently settling on the view that everyone is right in their view of existence, but each one is looking from his point of view. In order to tolerate and understand another’s view of something, one must appreciate from where that person is viewing. And I believe preaching this point of view is a mission of mine.”

            I spent some time rifling through various materials on what is different about a human and an animal. There’s been a lot of scientific investigation on this and it was fascinating to read about. Most of the differences were a matter of degree and scope. What was really interesting was as far as anyone could tell, human beings are the only species that have an ability which I call storytelling, which is making up scenarios that are either wholly fictional or a blend of fictional and non-fictional, able to weave future possibilities and imaginative constructions into current reality and discuss and expand on those quite in addition to past memories and current perceptions.

            Each person has their own story. Events and information are seen through that story. Various details from life events or information that do not contribute to that story or that detract from that story are either not seen at all or rejected as untrue. An individual story may not be true in the truest or widest sense of actuality or consensus, but it is consistent for that individual and therefore appears to be true to that individual. The dots are connected in ways that forward their story. Head on challenges to the story might not be accepted as there are no “dots” to connect them to.

            Changing the story of another person does seem to require somewhat of an appreciation of that story and somewhat graceful / smooth transitions to new stories. This is probably why plays, movies and books are such a valued and influential medium even though they are supposedly just “entertaining.” But then, some of the meanings of entertain is to admit or keep or maintain a frame of mind. LOL! And so Frodo Baggin’s epic and ethic can become part of the story too! Not to mention those calamitous “life-changing”: events that couldn’t be helped (it was an act of God!) that leave an individual standing in the midst of the ruins of their story, picking up the pieces and putting it all back together differently.

            1. Scope is right Maria. But I don’t know if I want to give up on imagination and story telling as an attribute of only humans just yet! My kitten plays and fights imaginary foes, my dog dreams and makes little yelps and running motions with her feet, and the two newcomer dogs race like mad and snarl and faux growl as though they are really competing and going somewhere when they are really just bouncing off the walls! What do whales tell their young and one another?

            2. @Chris:

              To be more accurate, it is abstracted concepts, both fictional and non-fictional, relayed via language medium that appears to be in the province of human beings. Imagination (imaging) is a faculty of animals although it appears to be restricted to memory rather than abstract concepts and future concepts. i.e. very much in the now.

              But there is no way of verifying it 100% with animals as they do not have a language that permits the description of such concepts. Not one that we can recognize anyway.

              The point is that animals are not known to set up fictional plays, plan and shoot TV series, write tomes of profound poetry or any poetry at all for that matter, play with calculus, recombine elements to form an entirely new, cohesive element through the use of tools and formulations, and so on.

              Dreams during sleep can easily be explained by memory replays and that is something people do as well.

            3. Wow! Franc delivers! Kerjuk, ne feledje, a hires paradicsom kiserletek!
              30 Dumb Inventions - L. Ron Hubbard
              Scientologists believe that the e-meter has such sensitivity that Hubbard could use it to determine whether or not fruits can experience pain, as in his 1968 assertion that tomatoes “scream when sliced.”

              Not disagreeing, jus’ sayin’

            4. Ferenc, that link didn’t work just now (it said “certain links may no longer work”) but after a quick google search I found that Physicist/botanist Jagadish Chandra Bose also experimented with a galvonometer and came to the same conclusion as LRH did – that plants feel pain.

              “Plant research: His [Bose’s]major contribution in the field of biophysics was the demonstration of the electrical nature of the conduction of various stimuli (e.g., wounds, chemical agents) in plants, which were earlier thought to be of a chemical nature. These claims were later proven experimentally. He was also the first to study the action of microwaves in plant tissues and corresponding changes in the cell membrane potential. He researched the mechanism of the seasonal effect on plants, the effect of chemical inhibitors on plant stimuli, the effect of temperature, etc. From the analysis of the variation of the cell membrane potential of plants under different circumstances, he hypothesized that plants can “feel pain, understand affection etc.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jagadish_Chandra_Bose

              @ Chris. Comparing the number of my posts pointing out the rightnesses about LRH and Scn and yours pointing out the wrongnesses, it’s hard to say which of us is the more dedicated. 🙂

            5. Wow, Chris. I really give you credit for asking such a question, and so sincerely. That was the correct listing question! 🙂

              First and foremost, I would like you to understand that there is a difference between core Scientology philosophy and tech and the corrupted version that slowly crept in over the last few decades. Can you understand what I mean by that? If you don’t, let me know. And if you do, will you please not use the word “Scientology” indiscriminately to equate the two? It messes up the exchanges between us because they are simply not the same thing. I’ve tried to clear up the difference when you didn’t seem to see one but I don’t seem to be able to keep the discussion on track.

            6. I understand you perfectly. On one level I can agree with you that there are the scriptures “here” and a corporate organization “there” — two things.

              On a second level, the reason that I don’t agree with your positive attitude toward the scriptures are multiple. One is that to me, the scriptures are faith based upon a placebo effect. This is my view. I think that many faiths can have beneficial effects for parishioners and I respect that and I respect you. Something that I do not respect is proselytizing. If my own belief that one person cannot know or see what another person knows and sees — precisely — then it is a high violation of that belief to practice telling another person what to think, to explain their reality to them. This is my current faith.

              For me, Scientology OT levels are unworkable and fail due to the generalization that Hubbard’s case is shared with the rest of us. I respect his right to behave and live a hypocritical life but I won’t listen to his opinions of my mental state except with disdain. He no longer has credibility to me. You don’t need to reply to this as I’m just telling you something which is my opinion based on my study of and experience with Scientology which is in depth.

              Though we might agree on various facts of those scriptures, overall I have to be careful because of the earlier example of yours of the oil on water creating another effect. Scientology is so much this way for me that the rainbow of diffraction due to the oil on water cannot be taken apart. My knowledge and experience of Scientology today are now tools in my toolbag. I might take them out and use them and I might speak the lingo, but as far as to being on board with the subject or as to being immersed in the subject, I have now left that iteration in my rear view mirror and it recedes as quickly as I live. For a better feeling to understand how this can be so, please refer again to that video that I previously posted from YouTube called: “Theoretical – Philosophical Physics : Space and Time into a single Continuum.” If you are interested to get an insight into my attitude or point of view, possibly there is a clue because of what is explained in that video.

            7. Chris, thank you very much for this post. To me, it is proof positive of your ability and willingness to express deep-seated beliefs. 🙂

              OMG, there is so much I could respond to! But I’ll start with the video and a particular philosophical viewpoint expressed in it, which is perhaps a subject that Geir should write a blog post about because that view is one side of the biggest division in world views that I can think of – including, I believe, the division between yours and mine.

              Firstly, some of the principles in the video I was already familiar with, since the same ideas were are in the Scn Axioms (published in 1954, btw), particularly this one: “Axiom 8 – The APPARENCY of time is the CHANGE OF POSITION in particles of space” Emphasis in caps is mine.

              Your video states the above like this: “Motion sets the passage of time”. And also: “If we picture…every moment throughout the entire universe lined up, we would see everything that has ever happened… “

              However, and this is the crux of the matter, where our world views drastically diverge is in the ending of that second sentence, which I’ve put in caps: “If we picture…every moment throughout the entire universe lined up, we would see everything that has ever happened OR WILL EVER HAPPEN”.

              That, right there, is the great philosophical divide, as I see it. It says in those few words that everything that happens is set in stone, pre-determined either by “God” or the laws of the physical universe. And thus it infers that there is no such thing as postulates and intention on the part of individual beings, no such thing as free will or creativity, and no power whatsoever over physical universe laws. That is the current BELIEF and FAITH of a great segment of the world of science – it’s basically the philosophy of determinism.

              Now, it seems to me that although you have indirectly denied it, in so many words you’ve expressed that same view. Your idea is that the best a person can do is to learn well the laws of the physical universe and gain as much expertise as possible in working with those laws so as to make the best of them – since there isn’t anything else that exists that can possibly create an effect. Rather, the most one can do with what you call (misname) “intention” is to intend to master the physical universe in the sense of understanding it well enough to make a good adjustment to it. MEST is senior. In fact, MEST is ALL.

              My own view is that spiritual beings do have the ability, through postulates and intention, to cause at least small effects in the world and that those small effects over time are the actual thing that creates unpredictable change and is what brings about evolution in every sphere of existence, whether or not such evolution is a slow one. The native ability to postulate is also expressed as inherent creativity. And it is an exercise of free will. Your unstated but to me thinly-veiled denial of postulates is also a denial of free will, IMHO. Over to you, my friend.

            8. p.s. In turn, here’s a video that supports my view of things – and in fact does so with scientific evidence. The first part is about the double slit experiment. The second part is about the Delayed-Choice Quantum Eraser experiment. That’s the part that actually supports my view – and does so scientifically, mind you. So If you don’t want to watch to whole 25 minutes, just watch from about 3:30 to 13:00 (under 10 minutes). The results of that particular experiment cannot be explained by the purely materialistic viewpoint of many scientists. The third part, the last 10 minutes or so, explains the meaning of the experiment in simple terms.

            9. Chris, you still haven’t replied to my two posts above and I have to conclude that you must feel I really missed the mark. I was basing what I said on the comment you had made just above, which was this: “If you are interested to get an insight into my attitude or point of view, possibly there is a clue because of what is explained in that video.”

              I’m thinking now that the statement I quoted from that video may not actually have been what you were referring to as being your point of view. Or if it was, your interpretation of the meaning of that statement may be entirely different from mine.

              Thinking back to various exchanges we’ve had about intention, postulates and free will, I know you’ve said things like free will and spiritual subjects are “ineffable”, but I also remember your description of building a garage. You said that first you pictured it in your mind and then you took all the various actions needed to build it, and now it exists in the physical universe. That seems to me to be a good example of postulates and intention and free will in action, whether or not you yourself would apply those “ineffable” terms to what occurred.

              Even so, if like some people you believe that the “picture” created in your mind along with the “decision” and “intention” to bring about a new garage were not really of your own volition but rather you were being the effect of some other cause (such as brain automaticities or other physical universe forces), then I feel I could correctly infer that you do not believe those abilities do exist. But I don’t think you have ever taken it that far (or have you?).

              There is, however, one other thing you stated that still seems to indicate your doubt of the actuality of those spiritual abilities, which was this: “There is of course the spooky effects of quantum mechanics, but having spent some considerable time studying that now I find that I have come full circle to not understanding the significance of the experiment”.

              The video I posted above is the best I’ve seen that explains the Delayed-Choice Quantum Eraser experiment, which is the experiment that I think gives the best “understanding of the significance of the experiment”, as you put it.

              This link to a WP article also explains that experiment, if you would prefer to read an article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser

            10. Hey Marildi – Happy Sunday afternoon.

              I’ve just read your post and am wondering how to appropriately answer your post of this morning: https://isene.me/2012/09/24/discussions-on-the-net/#comment-23315

              Scientology is a religion. As such it is a collection of belief systems, cultural systems, and worldviews that relate humanity to spirituality and to moral values. Scientologists identify Scientology as the one true religion and give a wink and a knowing smirk to one another when comparing it to any of the other thousands of religions on Earth. When I was ordained as a Minister of Scientology, inwardly I balked as my true opinion of Scientology was that it was not a religion but was a cut above and did not require my blind faith in order to make it work. Years of study and experience with the subject has taught me otherwise and I now take L. Ron Hubbard at his word regarding Scientology being a religion and acknowledge that it was ever thus. There is nothing wrong with believing in a religion — 2/3 of Earth’s humans do agree with you. Arguing for the correctness of a religion is unnecessary and a mistake. We already have the goodwill of the US Constitution to protect our rights to believe what we want toward religion. Furthermore, religions routinely make claims for esoteric knowledge and results which cannot be proven. Fortunately for religion, these claims do not need to be proven, only believed in and thereby procure either the beneficial placebo effect or the reverse placebo effect depending upon which quality of phenomena we try to manifest in our lives.

            11. Happy Sunday evening, Chris. Time for our devotionals. 🙂

              Seriously, I have an idea. Let’s keep Ferenc’s reality show interesting for him by making some changes to it. I don’t want him to get bored and go away. 😉

              First let me say, I know I haven’t acknowledged either you or Geir very well, and probably others too, as regards many very correct points you’ve made about the abomination Scientology morphed into. Considering who the posters and readers of this blog most likely are, I would even say that at this point that type of post is pretty much preaching to the choir. And as I say, it’s probably getting monotonously boring for poor Ference. 😦

              So what I would like to do is to get to the subject of the future of core Scn, and do so by us finally getting around to talking about the basic philosophy in terms of the basic books, and talking about the tech in terms of the HCOB’s (which LRH stated contained ALL of the tech). Even 2ndxmr, who could hardly be called a critic, recently got me to see that although standard tech works on all but a very few, it is not the 100% workable that LRH claimed as there do exist those few who have a rough time of it. So although they said it couldn’t be done, I had a shift of viewpoint. 🙂

              Now, the reason 2ndxmr was able to achieve that was because he didn’t just give an opinion or conclusion with no substantial support of it but talked about his personal, long-term experience, and he also linked to some articles of others who had extensive experience as well. That kind of thing or simply referring to the materials themselves is about the only thing that is going to have any impact on me, And, more importantly, such a dialogue can impact the future use of the tech.

              So what do you say, do you want to play ball with me on this? If anybody is the man for the job I would say it was you because of your proven willingness to hang in there with me. What do you say, slugger (baseball jargon)? Do we have a ball game?

            12. p.s. The above is basically the same question I have asked you before, but to be explicit – is there anything in the basic books or the tech in HCOBs that you object to or disagree with? (On the question, “Is there anything in…”, has anything been Suppressed? Invalidated? Misunderstood? [just joking] :D)

            13. That one worked – great video! Looks to me like both Hubbard and Bose, decades ago, were right in their conclusions.

            14. Chris,

              Re: “Kérjük, ne feledj el, a híres paradicsom kísérleteket!”
              Én nem hallotam erről.

              இந்த என்ன மொழி?

            15. Hi Franc –
              1. Well, I was just bringing up Hubbard’s e-meter experiments where he put emeter electrodes on tomatoes and then did various destructive things to them such as “slicing” and he found there to be a meter reaction. I was really just trying to be funny.

              2. Wow. Tamil? You are one crazy guy! haha

            16. Chris,

              1. I like when leave me a comment you write me something in Hungarian.

              2. Being you a smart guy, I was expecting an answer like தமிழ்o or التاميل

              3. Which dictionary or translator are you using? I found Google translator better than Bing translator.

            17. எனக்கும் தான்! மொழிபெயர்ப்பாளர் பயன்படுத்த நன்றாக உள்ளது!

            18. Hi Ferenc! I’ll guess that ¡q.d.! means “every day”, referring to your daily prescription here. 🙂 In any case, the double Spanish exclamation marks followed by the smilie is good enough for me!

  14. Too much philosophy for such a simple thing…As long as all the comments are expressed in a decent and civilized way, Geir, let the blog as it is 🙂

    1. Dragos, you are a wonderfully practical man. I like that!

      Actually, though, all this philsophy is in fact “the blog as it is”. 😉

      1. I agree 🙂 The only thing I don’t want is this blog to dissapear. For me it’s a daily habit to read it.

        1. That’s good to know. I really like your comments too, even though you don’t post too often. I guess you just don’t have the “addictive personality” that some of us do :D.

          1. I’m massage therapist. For me it’s very simple: my daily fitness is my job itself, cause it’s very hard and physical. My daily “brain gym” are news, politics, history and…Geir’s blog. The fact I don’t post too often it doesn’t mean that I don’t read all the other posts. I receive in my Gmail account every single notice about a new post. And of course, I read it 🙂

            1. Massage therapist is a definite “help” profession and I bet you are fulfilled doing that kind of work. It’s a great added bonus that it keeps you fit too.

              Wow, I’m really impressed that you read all of the posts here and that it’s part of your “brain gym”. Mine too, actually. 🙂

              Btw, Dragos, I’ll tell you a little secret. Even with the most heated debates on this blog, I’m convinced that each person isn’t so much interested in being right as in helping out their opponent. Yes, that’s right – they want to help the other guy! Especially some of the drastically misguided dimwits who hang around here. (Kidding on that last part!:D)

  15. Here’s a 2-part scale that describes how the emotional tone (temporary or chronic) of a person affects their “speech” – in other words, how they (1) talk and how they (2) listen:


    4.0: Enthusiasm — Strong, able, swift and full exchange of beliefs and ideas.
    3.5: Cheerfulness — Will talk of deep-seated beliefs and ideas.
    3.0: Conservatism — Tentative expression of limited number of personal ideas.
    2.5: Boredom — Casual pointless conversation.
    2.0: Antagonism — Talks in threats. Invalidates other people.
    1.5: Anger — Talks of death, destruction, hate only.
    1.1: Covert Hostility — Talks apparent theta, but intent vicious
    0.5: Grief — Talks very little and only in apathetic tones.
    0.1: Apathy — Does not talk.


    4.0: Enthusiasm — Strong, able, swift and full exchange of beliefs and ideas.
    3.5: Cheerfulness — Will accept deep-seated beliefs, ideas; consider them.
    3.0: Conservatism — Receives ideas and beliefs if cautiously stated.
    2.5: Boredom — Listens only to ordinary affairs.
    2.0: Antagonism — Listens to threats. Openly mocks theta talk. 1.5: Anger — Listens only to death and destruction. Wrecks theta lines.
    1.1: Covert Hostility — Listens little; mostly to cabal, gossip, lies.
    0.5: Grief —Listens little: mostly to apathy or pity.
    0.1: Apathy —Does not listen.

    (Chart of Human Evaluation, Science of Survival)

    I can visualize great results if in our discussions we were to aspire to the higher levels.

    1. Marildi, you forgot something: action. For instance, a person buried in apathy does not talk, does not listen, and most of all, does not act.

      1. Right you are, Dragos. The columns I posted are just two among many on that chart that I referenced below them. Those two columns relate directly to discussions but if you want to see the whole chart, you can look at it here:

        However, here’s a simple description of the way people (including children) can go downward on the tone scale of emotions on that chart. It demonstrates your point of how someone at apathy does not act:

        “A child threatened by danger also dwindles down the scale. At first he does not appreciate that the danger is posed at him and he is quite cheerful. Then the danger, let us say it is a dog, starts to approach him. The child sees the danger but still does not believe it is for him and keeps on with his business. But his playthings “bore” him for the moment. He is a little apprehensive and not sure. Then the dog comes nearer. The child “resents him” or shows some antagonism. The dog comes nearer still. The child becomes angry and makes some effort to injure the dog. The dog comes still nearer and is more threatening. The child becomes afraid. Fear unavailing, the child cries. If the dog still threatens him, the child may go into an apathy and simply wait to be bitten.” (from the book Self Analysis)

        1. Yes I remember this very well and have the book… This reaction to “danger” is one of several possible reactions to danger and any reaction to danger is more a product of training than one tone causing another tone… Isn’t it? I don’t react this way to danger and I teach my children to act in the face of danger as well…

          1. I think you know me well enough to know that I too lean toward the training factor in life having great importanc. But I also do see that apart from any strong enough training that takes hold, the mechanics of the tone scale can go into play. As well, there are stimulus-response mechanisms, which might be the strongest element in a given situation. And there is also such a thing as necessity level, by which a person is capable of acting independently of any of the above – tone scale, stimulus response or training patterns . S/he can make a self-created, self-generated decision, known in Scn as a postulate. 😉

            1. Hi, E. The definition of postulate is a self-created, self-determined, self-generated decision. So if it’s a decision or choice given to the person by someone else or the physical universe environment, it wouldn’t be a postulate. People who don’t believe that postulates exist must not believe there is any such thing as free will choice.

            2. What you write is the party line and lingo of the game of Scientology. You are totally correct in the way that you recite it. In the context of that game, I think you’ve written correctly. Outside that frame of reference, I think there are other reasons than tone and stimulus response. Well, actually, we can take complex stimulus-response right on down that road to encompass analytical thought if we want to. I’m just saying that there are more ways to parse this out.

              My understanding of “tone” is that when we interact with our space time, we disturb it. Like a boat making a wake in the water. The idea that we are disturbing the space-time around us does not automatically make that analogy of the child being scared by a dog true for more than that one example. Post hoc ergo propter hoc is the name of that one. For instance, it is not true of me. As a child, for some reason I discovered or knew or remembered, regardless, I had the idea that in the face of danger I had to strike out hard. No more complicated than that. Beginning at an early age, I threw many a first punch in fights that I was afraid of getting into. I have the scars and a missing knuckle on my right hand to prove it. hahaha! So what was my point? That this cat can be skinned in more ways than this one way and the result will be just fine and not necessarily in agreement with Hubbard Chart of Human Evaluation…etc., is what I hope to convey.

            3. Chris, I fully agree that there are other ways to “parse this out”, but any of those would also be nothing more, or less, than constructs and metaphors. And I don’t say that there might not be a better map of the territory than the one Scn has drawn. I honestly consider that to be possible.

              It feels like you have an old “picture” of me in your mind that keeps being superimposed on my PT words, which are actually different from what I have said in the past. And it would be nice if you would refrain from the usual framing of my comments in terms like “party line” – which has a derogatory connotation that doesn’t befit a spiritual philosophy. I might add that it sounds to me like you are still equating the core philosophy and tech of Scn with the CoS and still assuming I am talking about the latter. Am I wrong about that? Anyway, the main thing here is that it seems to me you are evaluating something about me that really isn’t there in my words.

              Now, here is the key thing – something I’ve told you before, a number of times, but you apparently don’t believe it: I consider the concepts of core Scn to be true not because they are said to be true in the Scn materials but because I have seen for myself that they are true and do work that way. That goes for the comments I made in the post you are replying to above. And, as I’ve said before also, I use Scn terms (“lingo” if you want to berate it) because that’s a language I’ve learned to speak and one I know most others here speak as well.

              Now, all that said and off my chest, what you described as your response to danger – “striking out hard” – wouldn’t that fit into one of those categories I listed, such as training (from who knows when, possibly in the forgotten past) or stimulus-response (which you wouldn’t be aware of, by definition), or it could even be your own computation or postulate (which is where “necessity level”, for example, fits in), These possibilities include all the ways, in the Scn model, to “skin a cat”. Or, as they probably say in your neck of the woods. “skin a catfish” ;).

            4. Party line and lingo are not derogatory.

              I don’t want you to change your mind, I want you to duplicate what I am trying to communicate. This is something we’ve argued about whether it can be done precisely.

              Both you and Valkov are well read and can research like crazy, me too, I guess. But it is my impression that you both feel as I used to a short time ago that there is a solid foundation somewhere out here in this solidity (as Elizabeth calls it) that can provide the solidity to stand up and scaffold a system of truth and I am not really seeing this yet. Currently, that thought, that there is a firm foundation upon which to build, is what we effort toward and can never find.

            5. Chris a solid foundation out there???? I could not have said that since I dont even believe ”there”‘ exists..
              Please make it more clear?

            6. Elizabeth, my comment posted under yours in a way to seem I was talking to you. I was not. “Solid foundation” is not what you preach for, it’s what you preach against. That comment was to Valkov and Marildi.

            7. Thank You… There is no order how the comments come in… Blogging causes the only confusion in my universe..

              “She is also funny as hell an when she is being funny, she is being simple, and when she is being simple, she is being powerful.”

              Power gained back each time a barrier is erased- barriers=consideration
              Because those considerations are nothing more than stuck fixed viewpoints… and the person can’t see further than them.
              The simplicity is re-gained by as-ising the complications=Considerations
              Humor is regained as the solidity, the serious-ness of the MEST-believes are erased
              Power regained because the barriers no longer are in existence..
              So what you got is one hell of a powerful ????

              Well summoned up that one my dear..

            8. Honest discussion would probably be somewhere in the neighborhood of letting go of our anchor points in order to move over to the point of view of the other to see what the view is from there. Upon seeing it, understanding it, we could then move back to the previous (and better?) point of view, or continue moving on to understand still more points of view. This would be sort of halfway between self-determism and pan-determinism. One generates power in the MEST by holding still and moving things about, but this illusion of MEST power seems to me to be not just an illusion but a potential trap which once our attention is fixated has done its job. Pan-determinism (fully?) would be somewhere around omniscience or holding onto every point of view at all times — again an absolute and not only not attainable in life but we can just barely bear to be nice to the wife and not beat the kids very hard when we come home drunk…(levity). . . but we can try and we can use good manners, this is a beginning of pan-determinism — taking the other person’s feelings into account when making our “tone.”

            9. An example is If I were to try and sum up the strength of Elizabeth’s “confronting” it is in the “traveling from where she is now over to where she used to be in order to see herself from that previous point of view.” That is a flow zero. Then she runs the rest of the flows on that point of view. That is a real strength and to me a sound and workable use of her solo-auditing theory. Combining the experience gained in the intermediate time together with confronting the old viewpoint, this activity makes the inconsistency show up like like the biologist putting various stains on a microscope slide then shining various colors of light to make the contrast optimum.

              She is also funny as hell an when she is being funny, she is being simple, and when she is being simple, she is being powerful.

            10. I don’t hold the right point of view, I just have A point of view. Discussion as debating is just another form of salesmanship without communion.

            11. Hey Chris hombre, eet eez not so eezee to get away from scientologee tone scale. You weel not ecape by bolding your answears!

              First off, there is a person’s “social tone” which is usually bundles of learned behaviors.

              Then there is the person’s “real tone” or the actual tone the being lives at. This might be called the “thetan’s tone”.

              Then there are the reactivetones a person might display.

              Then within any particular tone band, there are further gradations. For example, the fear tone band breaks down to sub-bands of 1. high activity of “doing something about it”, 2, a band of paralysis and doing nothing about it, and 3. withdrawal or flight from it. There are also within that band, 4. Propitiating it, and 5. going into Sympathy with it. So there are all those, along with their associated behaviors, complicated by the various differentials produced by considerations of social tone, reactive tone, and being’s actual tone.

              All I’m saying here is, it’s not as simplistic as you seem to be trying to make it out to be. Or as simplistic as the CoSbots make it out to be.

              The parallels are right there in psychology, psychoanalysis etc also. Some kids (and adults) display what is called “counterphobic behavior” or counterphobic attitudes.

              Here is an excerpt from one site:

              Counterphobic attitude

              “One view is that phobic anxiety can be hidden behind attitudes and behavior patterns that represent a denial, either that the dreaded object or situation is dangerous or that the one is afraid of it, basic to this phenomenon is reversal of the situation in which one is the positive victim of external circumstances to a position of attempting actively to confront and master what one fears. The Counterphobic person seeks out situation of danger and rushes enthusiastically towards them, The devotee of dangerous sports, such as parachute jumping and rock climbing, may be exhibiting counterphobic behavior. Such patterns may be secondary to neurotic phobic anxieties or may be used as a normal means of dealing with a realistically dangerous situation. The play of children may contain counterphobic elements, as when children play doctor and give injection to a doll, the shot they received earlier in the day in the pediatrician’s office.”

              “Phobic” of course refers to fear, anything one might be afraid of.

              Many behaviors are “over-determined”, which means there is no one simple explanation for why a person behaves the way he does; it is more like a calculus of several factors thatresults in any given behavior pattern.

            12. I know, I screwed up the typeface for everyone. Maybe Geir can undo my mistake.

              Yes Valkov, calculus-something, what you said. Everyone and everything sees from a separate point of view. They can endeavor to move to another spot to view from but unless they duplicate the precise coordinate of the other point of view, they will not have the same view and they will not see the same thing. Thus pan-determinism is the art-science of seeing from another’s point of view rather than getting them to see things from one’s own point of view.

              The tone scale, arbitrary as it is, can be an indicator of the wave length of disturbance created by a person’s emotions. This wave length has not been measured that I know. It is a prediction and as Marildi says “constructs and metaphors.” Regardless of how we describe it, I see its usefulness in the construct and metaphor of Scientology, I truly do.

              This video helps describe the physics of how one’s viewpoint changes the construct and metaphor of space-time:

            13. @ Chris. Great video (the 2nd one) — thanks for that.

              Note: the first one you posted isn’t working. Do you have an alternative link for it?

            14. The first one that won’t play is a playlist and not the video – my mistake — again.
              The second one is what I was trying to post in place of the first one… So you got the right one…

    2. Amiga marildi, I find some glaring omissions in both of these scales you posted.

      1.5 and associated gradations between 2.0 and 1.1 are missing, and, from 1.1 down to 0.5 are also some missing gradations of tone.

      Did Miscavige edit these out of the chart, or what gives?

      1. Val, don’t forget – the Chart of Human Evaluation was done in 1951 with the book Science of Survival. That was well before the Tone Scale in Full came out, which included the gradations you mentioned. I did just post the one actual omission I made, though. Thanks, amigo. 🙂

        1. Still it seems odd, because weren’t Enthusiasm, Anger(or Antagonism?), Fear, and Apathy right there in DMSMH (1950) as the 4 major tone bands? Sigh. I guess I’ll have to check my old edition of SOS.

            1. You were right about 4 bands. In Dianetics LRH called them zones, as well as specifying certain tones of the original tone scale given there too:
              Zone 3 is one of general happiness and well-being.
              Zone 2 is a level of bearable existence.
              Zone 1 is one of anger.
              Zone 0 is the zone of apathy.

              These zones can be used as a tone scale by which a state of mind can be graded. Just above death, which is 0, would be the lowest mental apathy or lowest level of physical life, 0.1. A Tone 1, where the body is fighting physical pain or illness or where the being is fighting in anger, could be graded from 1.0, which would be resentment or hostility, through Tone 1.5, which would be a screaming rage, to a 1.9 which would be merely a quarrelsome inclination. From Tone 2.0 to Tone 3.0 there would be an increasing interest in existence, and so forth.


    3. I inadvertently left out one level of SPEECH: LISTENS –

      1.5: Listens only to death and destruction. Wrecks theta lines

    4. The comment below should have been posted right under the post on the 2-part scale of SPEECH: TALKS and SPEECH: LISTENS. Hopefully it will now end up in the right place:

      I inadvertently left out one level of SPEECH: LISTENS –

      1.5: Listens only to death and destruction. Wrecks theta lines

      1. Geir, looks like we need some of your technical expertise as the replies aren’t landing in the right place, and the text is all in script (not as important).

        1. That’s my fault Marildi and Valkov – I screwed up the typeface on my own post and the contagion of aberration has infected everything written since my post. I can’t get back in to fix it… I sent Geir a note. At this point only he can fix my mistake. Sorry everybody…

  16. One thing I want to add concerning the negative aspects of online discussions is that I have never seen anyone here ever talks about the addictive properties of online debates. I think the addiction created by the intensity of online discussions adds to the distortion and fixed points of views talked about in the OP.

    It’s why I’m not as involved as much as I used to be. And my life is good. I’m also a lot wiser for participating in these discussions. I have some real friends who have completely different points of view than I.

    I think blogs and forums manifest a form of the proven phenomenon called “Supernormal Stimuli” discussed in the talk below by Deirdre Barrett. Supernormal Stimuli are distortions that play to our evolutionary preferences to make the normal look drab and boring and cause animals and humans to neglect their primary survival duties to pursue things that are less profitable or worse, profitable for SOMEONE ELSE.

    If you want to be a successful brood parasite like the coo-coo, you don’t want an egg that looks just like the others, you want one that appears “cooler” than the others. That way, the mom will give MORE attention to your parasitic offspring rather than her own chicks.

    Creepy. And. True.

    Why are models forced into anorexia? To unleash the the sexual side of Supernormal Stimuli. Supernormal Stimuli is the reason why guys go Ga-Ga over Jessica Rabbit and little girls love Barbies dolls that if they were actual size would have eleven inch necks.

    Clashing online discussions also release dopamine from the rush created from conflicting ideas that are free from interruption, punishment or the social constraints. Mix supernormal stimuli and dopamine rushes and you get people addicted to said forums who cannot see another point of view no matter how hard they try.

    Oh, the hours people here have typed responses that really have NOTHING to do with the topic. They seem to, but in reality it is all about another person’s emotional response and need to keep those emotions flowing in cycles with others.

    So to get the good without the bad, YA GOTTA IGNORE THE TROLLS. Even if they have 11 inch necks like Barbie.

    1. Good points William.
      Marildi and I, we have had in-depth discussion on the addictive nature of blogging…. we are aware and do understand the nature of stimulation it causes..

  17. Another great example of supernormal stimuli is fishing lures. WHY OH WHY would fish be attracted more to something that doesn’t look AT ALL like what they eat?

    “Ooh! Ooh! Shiny, spinny thing. IT MUST BE MINE! (CHOMP!)”

    And supernormal stimuli, I think, applies also to the human need for emotional connections and relationships. Blogs and forums provide a “cooler” way to be heard, be understood, show dominance and cheer on the leadership we trust.

    Luring us to ignore some things that matter. Luring us into a time sucking vortex …

    Unless there is censorship, the web listens with 100% memory. So even if the person didn’t hear you, your communication is there in complete form. Nobody can interrupt you or shut down your ideas. A person listening in can see what your reader missed. It creates both transparency, intimacy and anonymity at once.

    Ever heard of people falling in love over mail? It used to happen – a lot.

    And. Then. She. Met. Him. And. Ran.

    And letters and blogs show that when there is no social filter, a deeper and yet strangely more shallow form of communication occurs.

    I suspect that in cult creation, something akin to supernormal stimulation also occurs which lures people in with unique things we didn’t know we craved. In the examples listed above, it is visual thing, but I suspect it could, and does, go deeper for us human types.

  18. I recently read an article on the “upper dynamics” (9-16) by Ken Ogger (aka The Pilot). Here’s a quote that I think gives the reason why blog discussions can bring about understanding even better than reason or study on one’s own:

    “Although one may come to understand something by study or reason, the higher levels of knowingness are achieved by pervasion, mockup, ARC WITH OTHER BEINGS, and by pure postulate.”
    (The emphasis in caps was mine.)

  19. The first thread I started on The Scientology Forum 3 years ago was oriented towards keeping Scientology working. Today I am not even a Scientologist.
    I am not searching for certainty anymore. (As it now seems akin to solidity).
    Even knowledge as a goal has lost its relevance, it seems now as if knowledge is needed only to the degree that one is being at effect and needs to be fed solutions…..

    My focus now is on creativity. How good I am on this area? Probably not much, but it is a new start and feels amazingly beautiful and promising, kind of an infinite space in which words or thoughts are just too small and tend to vanish into nothingness……

    I wonder if you still perceive in me any fixed viewpoints,…… any basic disagreements?

    1. Hi Rafael, Glad to see you. Of everyone here you have seemed very liquid in your search for _________ (fill in blank) Your contributions have been important and enlightening to me.

      1. Hi Dude. Very much the same here, but I have to point out something else:
        Your contributions have been important and enlightening and also
        extreeeeeeeeemely funy to me.
        Also I never ever felt the silghtest smallest little tiny bit like I were falling into a contest of righteousness with you, and that is priceless my friend.

      1. Awesome!!
        You cracked me up Ha ha ha ha! I believe my laughter was heard up to the Crab Nebula Ha ha ha ha!!! 🙂

            1. You are funny! But don’t be so modest. Even Disney made a movie of one of your creative dreams. They named the little mouse Mickey, but in the original Spanish version it’s Ratón Rafaelito. 😉

            2. Marildi,
              I see Rafael in one of his dream was sculpting an angel but it could have been he was just patting her bottom since there where his hand was
              Definitely he was not snoring than… 🙂

            3. Ha ha ha ! yeah, that is me allright, in my odissey between Home Universe, MEST and all the way back to Home Universe again!!!!

            4. I know. The deeper meaning didn’t escape me. 😀

              Btw, when I was recently reading Ken Ogger’s description in The Pilot of the “upper dynamics”, I actually thought of you and all your comments about creativity. Here’s how he starts out on the subject:

              “The definition of the 8 dynamics has been used successfully for many years. Much observation of life and the long history of workable auditing rundowns based on these show that they do, in some manner, form a complete set of the urges to survive. But there have always been loose ends which hinted at something more.

              “First, there was the recognition that Survive was not the ultimate goal but simply a midpoint in the Create-Survive-Destroy cycle. Of course, one can do better than simply surviving on the 8 dynamics. One can BE these 8 dynamics (see the Technique 80 lectures) or even create in each of these areas. But, although a being can operate along these lines, they do not seem to form a complete picture of surviving well as a thetan. Although a thetan can’t help but survive in the sense of persisting, he can certainly survive well or poorly in his own estimation. And his estimation of this only follows the 8 dynamics to the degree that he has gone into agreement with physical universe survival. It is not his normal baseline. His native operation is up towards the create side.”

            5. I was pretty sure that was your wavelength. 🙂

              What’s interesting is that while the lower 8 dynamics are the physical universe Survive side of existence, the upper dynamics Ogger calls the Create side. And this validates your personal insight that Creation itself is the higher dynamic. Below iss the chart of all 16. Notice that Creation is in fact the highest, the 16th dynamic. His chart places the higher 8 dynamics across from the lower 8 and he describes the relationships and interactions between the ones across from each other as well as how each of the 16 sublimate into the dynamic just above it. I think his theory is brilliant :

              1. Self as a body…………………..9. Ethics
              2. Sex/Children/Family………….10. Aesthetics
              3. Groups ……………………………11. Construction……..
              4. Governments/Mankind………12. Reason
              5. Lifeforms…………………………13. Change
              6. MEST……………………………..14. Games
              7. Spirits ……………………………15. Knowingness
              8. Worship…………………………..16. Creation

              (Note to Chris: I hope you’ve noticed that I am endorsing this extended research of a very basic Scientology principle ;). Btw, I’ll get to your other comments in a little while.)

            6. Correction: He says that “each of the lower dynamics had a slight tendency to sublimate into the corresponding upper dynamic”. For whatever it’s worth to you or anybody reading this. 🙂

            7. Now let say what it is worth for me… I say tonight lets chop it up and make a nice big bonfire out of it and we can all seat around and tell tall tales and try to impress each other: who we were way back… what have we done while we were in the solid universe… 🙂

  20. Marildi Rafaels universe has no deep meaning, [ I am not eval in the bad way… not at all.]
    Rafael :
    “I am not searching for certainty anymore. (As it now seems akin to solidity).
    Even knowledge as a goal has lost its relevance, it seems now as if knowledge is needed only to the degree that one is being at effect and needs to be fed solutions…..”
    This said it all…
    Only MEST has meanig, because it is nothing but considerations….

    1. Elizabeth and Rafael, I didn’t mean to say otherwise. Here is where I was coming from: Creation is even above Knowingness and in this model of the 16 dynamics, “Knowingness or Understanding is the Fifteenth Dynamic.This is higher than the dynamic of Reason and quite distinctly separate from it. With reason, one follows a logical progression, but in the 15th dynamic one can just know…Although one may come to understand something by study or reason, the higher levels of knowingness are achieved by pervasion, mockup, ARC with other beings, and by pure postulate.”

      And again, Creation is considered to be even above Knowingness.

        1. El Ratón Rafaelito is a beautiful soul. 🙂

          And I love to see the little mouse avatar pop in once in a while. 😉

          Btw, for you and Elizabeth both, here are the multiple alleys I like to hang out in:

          “…Looking further, we see other factors that the thetan values. He likes playing games and building things and figuring out logical problems, and especially, he loves to create.” (Ken Ogger)

          1. M….. To each his/her own… whatever… fine with me believing that one wants to be there or forced being there, whatever reasons there are its unquestionably good…. those reasons slide by like the waters of Fraser river…un-noticed by me.. You have no reason to defend your position
            I was in the garden having tea and I was ”thinking” about that scale you have written up..
            That scale no matter how high it goes, only relates to MEST… knowing MEST being in MEST. Doing the MEST way. .Since “CREATION” is still part of the MEST, so is postulating…..
            The level above would be, since we are talking here structure can’t be described by words or let’s try: intangible-infinite…

      1. M, ”And again, Creation is considered to be even above Knowingness.”’
        creation is below Knowingness
        creation is doing… knowing is just that… nothing more..

            1. right… doing-ness is bellow ”know” just think where do that lieve postulate? postulate is wanting… where is wanting on the tone scale? lower than the frogs bottom, this is of course my reality as always.

  21. @ Marildi, I am as familiar as any untrained layman with the spooky effects of quantum mechanics. I am aware of and understand roughly how the double slit experiments have been set up and see how the results lean. I get it. There are spooky effects in that observing sub-atomic experiments effect the outcomes of those experiments. That’s a statistical fact. The statistic is spooky as although the phenomena of wave collapse is well counted, it is not well understood.

    Holding up the famous wave collapse as a proof of Scientology is a stretch. Asserting that the wave collapse is something which is covered in the scriptures of Scientology is a stretch and unnecessary. It is also unprovable. The view of time as expressed in Axiom 8 is elementary and not at all original to Hubbard. If you think that Hubbard had the first insight into the mechanic of time and had an epiphany resulting in this special definition then ok, that can be your religious belief but I don’t agree to hold it out as evidence of the scientific correctness of Scientology. These fields are different. They have different motives, purposes, goals, and methods. They don’t depend on one another neither for nor against.

    1. Sorry, Chris, this is either poor duplication of my post or it’s the dreaded Straw Man Fallacy. I was commenting on the general subject of free will.

      But more to the point, this is the old, poor-ratings and canceled reality show (I hope!).

  22. I agree with you that we affect our environment. You and I seem to only disagree on degree of effect. The argument of “freewill vs determinism” really can be set aside since for all practical purposes there is “freewill under the law” and “determinism in the universe” both. For any pertinent discussion that we could have there are both effects, and the determining factor is always context. OT is a subjective state of perception. There is no objective evidence of OT capability as a result of belief in Scientology. There are happier people (and sadder people) as a result of the practice of Scientology (please do not reply with the “True Scientologist Argument” to this one.) I am not aware of any evidence that Clears have fewer head colds or headaches nor that OT’s die less from cancer than other religious orders do. And in this context, the placebo effect is no less than other beliefs. I have enjoyed a life of good health. Is this because I am Clear and OT? Is because I take better care of my body than others do? Is it because I am lucky in the gene pool or geography and time frame? Who can say? Life is complicated.

    1. Your comments about Clears and OT’s is just more rhetoric. Without any supportive references (as per my earlier request), it isn’t productive of anything.

      And with no willing contender in the ring with you, you are just shadow boxing, slugger (boxing jargon) ;).

    2. @Chris
      Although I am stunned that your contacts with Clears and OTs has left you with such conclusions of ability and health, I must admit that many OTs I know also are less than I’d expect. Less, but probably much more than you’d give them credit for. Possibly some of that (the lack of demonstrated OT ability) is due to the reluctance to share case phenomena – which is ultimately what we’re talking about – as that is one of the big tabboos we have had ingrained into us. Relating Clear / OT phenomena can have the unwanted result of appearing to be grandstanding or just too incredible, or opening a person up to derision as a liar. Some of the things that happen can appear to be fully subjective – thus easily discounted; some objective but unproveable as instrumentation does not exist (to my fairly extensive knowledge) to prove the points. The difficulty associated with provability makes me equally disinclined to profer my own testimonies in a public forum, but I have proffered some in the past and I will profer just one now as it directly relates to and counters your claim about Clears and OTs having fewer head colds:

      Throughout my childhood, adolesence and early adulthood I had an “average” amount of head colds – 3 to 4 a year. That seemed pretty average and I never put much consideration to whether I had more or fewer than others.

      Then there came a point – while training on the academy levels – when one datum on one HCOB caused me to have a (huge) cognition that directly related to how a cold could start. Miraculously, for a period of 4 years after that, whenever I had the feeling that a cold was starting (that tickle in the throat or burning in the sinuses) I’d recall that datum and spot the associated charge and the cold phenomena would blow. Instantly. And that was at a point in my life when I was lucky to get 5 hours sleep a night – and zero exercise – so is the life of a staff member. So while I should have been heavily predisposed to cold phenomena (certainly other staff and students around me had colds I could have picked up), I did not succumb. Not until one night when I had a remarkable dream about a person I couldn’t be with and woke up with a cold. I tried to apply the datum and failed. Throughout the day the full cold phenomena of runny nose and coughing and congestion built up and appeared to be in for the count. Rest wasn’t an option. I was holding the post of Acad Sup at the time and certainly had to be there for the students. That turned out to be very lucky for me. That same night I was drilling a student on a correction list – holding the cans and squeezing them to simulate reads. I was sitting beside the student to have better control of the needle.

      You can probably guess where I’m heading: on one question the needle does an LFBD F/N. A few divs. I’m sitting there with an un-wipeable grin on my face as I cognite on what had caused the cold. The student looks at me with an unsure look on her face, knowing that was a real LFBD F/N, not a manufactured one, and not knowing how to respond in this “drill” situation. All I could do was say “It’s OK, we can carry on” while trying to get the grin off my face (epic fail).

      Apart from personally validating, for me, three distinct pieces of tech, the cold phenomena immediately began to blow and fully disappeared in the busyness of the night.

      Since that time I’ve still had a few colds – about one every 5 years – that I can’t handle with the usual spotting technique. Not a bad average.

      I may not be proof that Clears and OTs have fewer head colds, but I am a Clear and have had fewer head colds since cogniting on that datum. That is only one of the many cognitions I’ve had on training that has left me with the certainty that the tech works and can be used to change phyysical conditions. It heavily indicates the importance of training as there is a wealth of data there on how the mind works that protects one from the life-charge that would otherwise accumulate when the data are unknown.

      Proof? Because of what I have personally experienced, and heard anecdotally, I am quite sure it will be possible at some point to scientifically prove the results of the proper application of the tech. This will require unique instrumentation that I expect will require some extensions to what we know about physics and electronics.

      You say “Who can say? Life is complicated.” I’d say I find it fairly simple and getting simpler all the time. The toughest part is like what Geir said in the OP – getting other viewpoints to agree (‘speshly them durn Thom cats). 🙂

      1. OMG. Just as legend would have it, the cavalry soldier on the big white steed arrives and puts the battle scene in perspective :).

        I trust that even the durn cats will benefit from the light shed. A game where everyone wins (to coin a phrase, LOL). 🙂

      2. Thank you, very well summoned up. I too seldome get cold and my body is totally healthy and i never head heath not even as a child.. here at 72 all is well for the old thing. Harmony of the body was established after as-ising all that crap which it was born with and inherited from parents.

      3. Hey 2ndX, What you have written may not be provable evidence but I find your story to be completely believable. Your story parallels my own experience and for each facet of your story I have an equivalent personal and subjective experience. For your emeter drilling story, I have a “10 Aug” ethics handling “win” which I have run solo since 1979. I also am an example of someone who has few “colds” but then I’ve always probably had fewer colds. One cold that wouldn’t blow on inspection was a doozy that I got at one point about a year and a half into my 2 year long leaving staff routing form. — Yeah, you get the idea.

        1. @Chris: “I have a “10 Aug” ethics handling “win” which I have run solo since 1979”

          This is an example of a datum acquired using Scientology. Did you ever find that datum referenced in other material (non-LRH) from a point earlier than defined in HCOB or PL? I’d bet you haven’t and couldn’t. One thing that constantly amazes me is the number of data I come across in recent scientific publications that are simply data originated by Ron in the ’50s and ’60s. It’s possible those scientists independently came up with the data but equally, or more, likely that they referenced some of the early work and then continued it, PROVING it and publishing it (as their own) in peer reviewed journals.

          The real point is that you admit to one workable Scientology datum – probably only available through Scientology technology – and my guess is that you have found more than one workable datum. These data are very distinct from normal human operation. They are valuable. They are numerous. Yet you come across as discounting all of Scientology because of the foibles and admin failures of the founder. How do you rationalize that?

      4. @2ndX: I like your post and find it very reasonable. But I also find in it parameters for realistically defining OT ability. Or if not “defining” OT ability, then maybe creating more realistic expectations toward the effects of auditing. Being “cause over one’s experience of head colds” is a realistic and fairly subjective and unmeasurable phenomena (unless one keeps a weekly statistic of head colds — upside down graph with zero being a condition of power). But the claim of reduced head colds also supports placebo effects. I think that others, in other spiritual disciplines, may enjoy these good effects from believing in a healing from God, from meditating, possibly from yoga, and maybe visits from ET the extraterrestrial, etc.,. whatever helps slow the iteration to a managable level of randomity.

        1. @Chris: “But the claim of reduced head colds also supports placebo effects.”

          I would have to call that argument a red herring. A nice, smelly placebo being dragged into the conversation path to lead off the specific relationship established between cold and cure, that relationship being:
          – cold phenomena noticed
          – Scientology datum applied to locate source of charge able to cause a cold
          – cold phenomena blowing when charge is located

          What possible placebo effect are you seeing here? There is a direct relationship and timing and mechanism established. A relationship that is testable in a scientific context.

      5. @2ndX: Again, when you write: “Relating Clear / OT phenomena can have the unwanted result of appearing to be grandstanding or just too incredible, or opening a person up to derision as a liar. Some of the things that happen can appear to be fully subjective – thus easily discounted; some objective but unproveable as instrumentation does not exist (to my fairly extensive knowledge) to prove the points. The difficulty associated with provability makes me equally disinclined to profer my own testimonies in a public forum, but I have proffered some in the past and I will profer just one now as it directly relates to and counters your claim about Clears and OTs having fewer head colds: . . . ”

        Chris: Why yes it does have that effect. Making great claims does have the effect of having people exclaim “Show me!” But special instrumentation? Why? There is already the wave collapse and Marildi has used that to prove Scientology to be true. Oh wait, no, she rejected implying that when she said “When did I say that the wave collapse proved Scientology to be true?” So after proferring the proof as red herring she then backed down. Anyways, that is special instrumentation. But the problem with OT phenomena is that this universe doesn’t have any such thing! Not yet anyway and not because of Scientology processes. There are the spooky effects quantum mechanics and they seem to not have been developed by Hubbard and they seem not to rely on Scientology processes to work. Avoiding being derided as a liar is easy if one simply does not lie and tells the truth about OT phenomena.

        1. @Chris: “But the problem with OT phenomena is that this universe doesn’t have any such thing!…There are the spooky effects quantum mechanics ”

          From that I would gather that you would be willing to attribute clairvoyance, telekinesis, precognition, telepathy and other paranormal phenomena to the realm of spooky quantum mechanics? But you still wouldn’t call them OT phenomena, even though they are beyond the ability of the average person. And would you say that if someone had one of those spooky abilities that that was simply a matter of how their atoms joined and therefore not learnable by anyone else who did not have the innate ability?

          Or are all those individuals who have claimed (or supposedly demonstrated) to have had these paranormal abilities simply liars, self deluded and only capable of deluding others?

          1. @ 2nd Transformer: Wow. Well, that’s quite a mouthful . . . Let me retrace — I say that I believe that there is such a thing as OT phenomena just as there is any phenomena. I do differ with para-normals on the extent to which I think it manifests. I think of it it as being harbored in the subjective class of reality. Yes, it effects the physical universe according to certain rules of engagement as I explained in my own garage building example.

            If and when OT phenomena reverberates into the physical universe in a spooky or other unexplained way that appears objective, I do not refute the possibility but I do not leap to Harry Potter type wand waving conclusions. I normally think according to my religious beliefs that there are forces at work unobserved to me.

            It is a religious belief of mine that I exist in and observe only slightly more space-time than 5.39 × 10^−44 seconds as compared with the normal standard (SIU) second. In plain English, I hardly exist to the universe at all. If this belief of mine were true, then it behooves me to remain humble and shut-up about what OT phenomena is possible. Regardless, my manners dictate that I not call you, a person whom I do not know anything about except as a pseudonym on a blog, a liar. But do I believe you about objective OT phenomena? Probably not so much. Do I believe that you experience pleasing and subjective personal reality on OT phenomena, sure. I only know a paragraph’s worth of internet coverage on the Randi guy you mention, but I didn’t bring him up and don’t hold him out as a standard that you must meet. Not at all.

            I only ask that you “knock off hats” or do any objective OT phenomena that you own for me to a successful result if you want to talk about it in my space as though it is true, or else guffaw and let me know that you are pulling my leg (then pass another beer). Does it matter what I demand toward your OT claims? Not so much, hey, we’re just talking here.

        2. Chris: “There is already the wave collapse and Marildi has used that to prove Scientology to be true. Oh wait, no, she rejected implying that when she said ‘When did I say that the wave collapse proved Scientology to be true?’”

          And you never did answer that question – when did I say that?

          In this post, you managed to give the quote for when I rejected this assertion of yours. Strange that you again didn’t give the quote of what I supposedly said when, per your claim, I “used that [the wave collapse] to prove Scientology to be true”. You should either produce that quote or recognize there really isn’t such an implication by me, just an inference by you. 😛

  23. Finally, we are just each of us sedentary mental-wanderers who imagine that we have a greater beingness and greater purpose in life than working, eating, sleeping, breeding and dying regardless of any evidence to the contrary. I am no different than others in thinking that the gods have special plans for my life — regardless of my drone-like contributions to the forward motion of the species!

    I have lived approximately 6 full contextual lives — separate for me — during my 6 decades this life. I seem have begun yet another one and I think that as I move forward that I will live better and more simply if I just subscribed to the immortal words of Bobby McFerrin when he sang, “Don’t Worry, Be Happy.”

    Bury my head in the sand? nah, not so much — jus’ sayin’ — life will go on and to prove it, we can discuss it here on the isene.me blog!

    1. While “sedentary mental-wanderers” is a wonderful turn of phrase and your whole post is another good example of how your writing just keeps getting better (really), the viewpoint you express and have previously expressed from time to time, although it is conveyed in glorified terms, seems to me to be defeatist and apathetic.

      So put that in your pipe and blow some more smoke with it. (Oh, what a no-nonsense mood you caught me in :D.)

      1. Hey Chris, I was doing some Monday morning quarterbacking of ye ol’ ball game and in a new frame of mind I reviewed my posts of yesterday, and I see that this one was the harshest. I should have at least included saying what I did the time before when I commented that your post seemed apathetic – which was to also point out that you yourself do not come across as being in apathy. And that’s the reason I’ve wondered what you’ve been smokin’ 😀 – perhaps some heavy physics tomes that might have convinced you we mere mortals are virtually insignificant and powerless against the mighty physical universe. But whatever the case, on the comment above I was really being more jocular than serious. Just wanted you to know.

  24. I have been thinking about the positive and negative placebo effects gotten from religious beliefs and practices. Yes, in my view any religion can be of benefit or harm, the difference could be the respect for persons and their properties. this respect don´t come from science but from compassion and common sense, a natural and god given gift as it seems to me. It is a big mistake to mix ” science ” to back up any singular religious system of beliefs, to do so would be a blasphemous use of pseudo- science.

    1. @Rafael: Well written. Religious beliefs are by nature placebo. In itself, by itself, and for itself this is a benign activity. However, when in order to experience the placebo a religious tenet requires the placebo be agreed to by another entity, disrespect of that entities right and ability to have their own unadulterated opinion toward the placebo results. This type of “intolerance cannot be tolerated.” I really have no better way of understanding or saying that.

      1. Chris, “intolerance cannot be tolerated.” It is the battle cry throughout mankind’s history. This operation has been done by dictators, despots and their very willing hypnotized robots.

      2. Aw, c’mon you guys, you can do better than that. Geir has a much better take on the placebo effect, in his “On Will” article. He draws a direct correlation between placebos and considerations.

        …which is where the Scientology Axioms come in. Those are the basic considerations that all thetans in this universe have agreed to. And this is the very reason that the tech is superior to other “placebos” – it is based on those universal agreements. 😛

          1. Hi Rafael,
            I remember some quite appealing religious beliefs of yours that you’ve expressed in previous comments. Perhaps your constructs and phraseology are not actually in conflict with the Scn Axioms, which are concluded at the end with this broad statement::


            1. Rafael, that is a long thread! And you have many posts on it. But if I remember right, your emphasis is on family and compassion and spiritual values generally.

  25. @ Marildi, I already wish you well in the things you decide to believe. I am not arguing. I was under the impression that you wanted to understand and be understood. I understand that you are pitching the truth of Scientology the technology, but as I’ve said, using Hubbard’s “axioms” to prove Scientology true is a tautology . Using the double slit experiments, any of them, to prove Scientology is true is a red herring.

    There is not a right or wrong way to look at our individual paths. You do not have to veer from yours to please me and my changing from the path that I am on will not improve upon yours. These are just things we have to work out for ourselves. There doesn’t have to be a debating contest with a winner and a loser. We are just talking here and the old tautology of religion is uninteresting for me. You don’t have to agree with me that Hubbard wanted to have a religion and he got one. That is just my view. All of what I wrote was only an attempt to describe my view. As I move and change, so will my view, but currently I am not sifting through the old Scientology materials to locate what I must have misunderstood since I disagree with LRH’s world view. I’m not in that “game condition” anymore. I suggest that you walk the path that is most pleasing and rewarding to you as well. We will remain friends and blog together regardless though our iterations may tend away from closure.

    1. Chris, where did I say that the double slit experiments prove Scn is true? I was using them as part of a post about the actuality of spiritual things like postulates and free will. I never mentioned Scientology in that context. You are the one who has dubbed in what you assume is what I mean, as you have done a number of times on other comments today. But I decided to let them go because I get tired of the constant back and forth on the subject of “you think/believe this and that” and “no, Chris, I don’t”. And “Scientology is this and that” with nothing more than your own assumptions and beliefs to support what you’re saying.

      You say you were under the impression that I wanted to understand and be understood and it seems you are now implying that you no longer have that impression, now that I have tried to take the conversation in that direction. My efforts to do so all along have either been ignored or, as it seems you are doing now, outright rejected. That’s fine and you have every right to make that choice, but it’s noted that you never did give it an honest and sincere try, to actually discuss the subject itself, directly.

      You mock it up that I am completely incorrigible and I am aware of that, which was why I tried to give you some examples of things I’ve changed my mind about so it would be real to you that I’m open to that happening. It seems that it is you who haven’t actually confronted the subject and don’t wish to, at least not together with me.

      I’m truly not trying to change your path. I just thought that maybe you and I could have a real discussion about the body of knowledge that yet remains of an enormously beneficial philosophy and tech. It’s true, and I’ve admitted it more than once, that I feel you are operating under some false ideas about Scientology, as well as some true ones that relate to its corruption, and I’m sure I have similar things going on with me, which I figured you would be interested in setting me straight on to my own benefit. And that is honestly what was in my mind when I again tried to have the conversation about basic Scn actually begin, for the first time. Again, it is noted that you are not willing to accept this challenge to both of us.

      1. You are right that at one time I thought you should change your path. That was let’s say a year ago when I cajoled you to partake in solo-auditing. But as I changed, I realized that was a mistake on my part and that there is nothing wrong with your path for you. Not in a snide or dismissive way but in reality, your path is your own and it is perfect for you. If something about the path you walk ever seems rough or thorny, you are smart and able and can easily take stock and make corrections if you think they are needed.

        Ideas that I used to hold about the quality or quantity of other’s paths in life were based on the mistaken idea that I had a better or superior idea of how to walk.

        1. “You are right that at one time I thought you should change your path.”

          Chris, if something I said recently sounded like I was saying anything like the above, I want you to know I wasn’t. I don’t think either of us is trying to get the other to change their path. As for the one you are on, I’ve actually been impressed and pleased for you, and pleased with you as a friend. 🙂

          For the record, yes, I still see Scientology, or some form of it, as at least a part of my own path. And that’s not because of any religious belief in it but because I’ve looked for myself and see that the much of it is worth following and worth forwarding. (And on that last, I’m a rightly accused diehard. ;))

          1. Marildi, I think parishioners usually follow their predilected paths because they are “true” — not so much because of “religious beliefs.” We both use Scientology tools as part of our spiritual paths as we do each and every experience of our lives. We differ in degree of reverence to Scientology and to L. Ron Hubbard.

            1. Chris, don’t look now but in your comment it seems you have expressed a variation of “I am firm; you are obstinate; he is a pig-headed fool”.

              Your variation is “My considerations are true; yours are religious beliefs” 😉

              But since you keep using terms of religion (e.g. parishioners, religious beliefs, reverence) and in this thread you keep referring to LRH calling Scn a religion, here are some quotes on the subject from the Tech Dictionary (i.e. actual references):

              Firstly, he said that religion “could be called, with very broad use of the word, a philosophy”. (Phoenix Lectures)

              Generally speaking, LRH referred to Scientology as “a religious philosophy” and said that such a philosophy “implies study of spiritual manifestations, research on the nature of the spirit and study on the relationship of the spirit to the body; exercises devoted to the rehabilitation of abilities in a spirit”. (HCOB 18 Apr 67)

              And here’s the definition of Scientology itself: “an applied religious philosophy dealing with the study of knowledge, which through the application of its technology, can bring about desirable changes in the conditions of life”. (HCO PL A5 Apr 71R)

              JFYI 🙂

            2. Marildi you are correct to point out that those are Hubbard definitions.

              We each practice our religions according to our conscience.

            3. Chris, the actual point I was trying to make is that if we’re going to discuss LRH’s words (such as “Scientology is a religion”) it’s only fair to use those words the way he himself was using them.

            4. Point taken. And perhaps that is one reason why TRAINING is stressed and is at least as important for a Scientologist as auditing. 2ndxmr made this point quite well, with the descriptions of his own experiences. My personal experience with training has been the source of some of my biggest gains.

              While we’re on the subject of terminology (so greatly stressed in the Study Tapes), “Faith” is another word we’ve been bandying about. The following excerpts are from the book Scientology 8-8008:

              “In order to understand faith, one must be able to differentiate
              between Faith-in and Faith…”

              “Faith-in is an inflow of agreement and the placing of one’s beingness and doingness under the control of another, and is, in other words, the sacrifice of one’s universe…”

              “Faith itself would be without flow where one was in a full state of beingness and, with this condition, one could occasion Faith itself to occur within his own universe…”

              “Actually, Faith interchanges with Distrust in gradient levels all the way down the tone-scale and they alternate one with the other as one goes deeper and deeper into the MEST universe. The lowest level of this scale is not Distrust but complete Faith-in, which is the condition held by MEST which is supine to any sculptor.”

              I believe “Faith” is what Jesus possessed that enabled him to walk on water. “Faith-in” is what some Christians possess.

            5. Sorry, I clicked on the wrong reply button. That last comment should have gone here, so here it is again:

              It’s the same as when I use Scientology as an example sometimes – I have a certain amount of familiarity with each of the two (more so with Scientology). Christians, at least some of them, talk about surrendering to God’s will. (Or am I thinking of AA? LOL)

            6. Got you! It is real to me and a religious tenet of mine that each of these paths and methods work for people. The final judgement of this belongs to the walkers of these spiritual paths. The only pertinent question in my mind is “are they satisfied?” My own reality insists that I accept their answer.

            7. Slippery! But really I am only saying that people tend to think their beliefs are true. I did not expect to get such a rise out of you for that. To be clear, I think that my religious beliefs are just as valid as yours.

            8. Rise? Not really. My point was to address your various comments that Scn is a religion and consists of religious “belief”, which I took to mean accepting tenets on “faith”rather than because they are in agreement with one’s own personal reality (as per the Scn 8-8008 quotes above). Do you mean to say that you weren’t actually saying that? Rather, are you saying that you were using this definition of belief: “conviction of the truth of some statement or reality of a fact, esp. when well grounded”?

            9. Well, let me ask you the other way around, are you saying that you know people who have religious beliefs that are knowingly false to them?

            10. No, not at all – “belief” in this context actually means “conviction of truth”. The point I’m making is that there is belief (or faith) based on ONE’S OWN REALITY and there is belief that is ACCEPTANCE OF ANOTHER’S REALITY (as per “Scn 8-8008”).

              My understanding of the common usage of “religious belief” is the latter – acceptance of another’s reality. Whereas, in Scientology (in the basic materials) you are not asked to accept anything on faith but rather are instructed to determine for yourself what is true. This is why I objected to you referring to Scn as “religious belief”.

              As for the point of workability, obviously that can exist for either of these two categories of belief, if only because of the placebo effect.

      2. I am not trying to shut you down. We can always discuss the merits of a particular process such as “Op Pro by Dup” and you can say why you think this process works or why it gets the result that it claims. This broader approach that you’ve suggested of tell me specifically what you think is wrong with Scientology so we can discuss it seems to have been an unsatisfactory activity for you and frustrating for me as I thought I was giving you particulars but obviously I was not.

        1. Chris: “This broader approach that you’ve suggested of tell me specifically what you think is wrong with Scientology so we can discuss it seems to have been an unsatisfactory activity for you and frustrating for me as I thought I was giving you particulars but obviously I was not.”

          To be exact, my dear sparring partner, I tried to differentiate and discuss the basic philosophy and tech rather than the warped version the CoS has put forth over the years. And yes, it was frustrating for me that you (and others) weren’t giving particulars on anything but the altered version. That was why I came up with the idea yesterday of discussing only the basic books and the HCOB’s.

          On second thought, though, rather than discussing both the basic books and the HCOB’s, I guess it would be a better discussion to limit it to the basic books. The HCOB’s, which include the tech and the processes, are based on the principles in those basic books – but if we were to try discussing tech it would be without our being on the same page as regards their underlying principles.

          The basic books may or may not be a topic of discussion that truly interests you, however. So if you really aren’t into it, it’s enough for me to know that you weren’t trying to shut me down. And if you are into it, as I said yesterday you would be the man for the job. 🙂 Sleep on it, if you wish. Or as Ferenc put it, give your mind some “time to bring up new ideas from your unconsciousness”. (You might even decide to argue with me about unconsciousness… ;))

  26. Since marildi is worried about poor Ferenc getting bored (marildi 2012-10-01 at 04:52), I wrote this comment. (¡q.d.! marildi). (For people who doesn’t know the meaning of q.d.: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ 🙂 )

    Re: OP Discussions on the Net.

    This is my style of posting meaningful comments on blogs:

    I write the comments off-line in a word processor.

    I keep doing the following, and correcting accordingly, until I have a good feeling about what I wrote:
    • I look at my feeling-intuition to see if I feel if something is wrong or missing.
    • I look in (online) dictionaries for meanings I’m not sure.
    • I look for connotation(s) which may distort the meaning of my comment.
    • I look for alter-is-ness.
    • I look for anything where I’m defending myself instead of looking for the truth.
    • I look for miss-emotions or low tone emotions.
    • I look for ad hominem.

    I try to engage in exchanges, not debates. If I feel others response to my comment is just defending themself or ad hominem, I suspend or stop blogging, because it’s just a waste of time.

    I look at different possibilities, and try to figure out more possibilities.

    Usually, I post once a day in the same thread (exceptions: just fun, clarification, or acknowledgment), because my mind usually brings me new ideas or insights after sleeping; also, I give time to my mind to bring up new ideas from my unconsciousness.

    1. Just to make sure Marildiv is not worried about poor Ferenc getting bored :-), I’m expanding my comment above.

      Addendum to my style of posting meaningful comments on blogs:

      I also keep doing the following, and correcting accordingly, until I have a good feeling about what I wrote:
      • I look for covertly defending myself instead of looking for the truth.
      • I look for covert expressions of miss-emotions or low tone emotions.
      • I look for covert expressions of ad hominem.

      Sometimes, it takes me more than 1 day to post on the same thread.

      After posting, I keep my comments already written off-line in a word processor. If I find something not OK or not good enough, I make fast notes highlighting, etc. Next time I write something, probably I’ll remember.

      I’m trying to learn from Marildiv how to validate, acknowledge, and cheering up at the same time. She does it so well!

      1. Ferenc, reading this extension to your checklist, it occurred to me that it’s like an auditing process. A process that has one look closely at impulses and intentions. It’s an invitation to look into one’s own heart. Wow. Nice!

        And thank you very much for the kind compliment. 🙂

        1. Marildiv,

          Long time ago, when I started in Dn & Scn, I cognited that, when I was talking and writing, I was making a lot of alter-is-ness to make look my life and myself better than it really was. I also cognited that putting alter-is-ness in my comm makes life increasingly difficult, because in my new comm I needed to remember all the previous comm alter-is-ness in order to not contradict them and not show inconsistency. I also cognited that I was handling my life in part based on my previous alter-is-ness comms instead of the real thing.

          So, I decided that I wanted (to improve) the real thing, and at the same time to make my life easier: I started to increasingly skip and stop my comm alter-is-ness impulses. A good practice were my co-auditing reports where I needed to correct with red any (unwilling or willing) alter-is-ness.

          > Marildiv: “it’s like an auditing process. A process that has one look closely at impulses and intentions. It’s an invitation to look into one’s own heart.”

          You have made a good description. I was trying to put in words this concept.

          1. Ferenc, thanks for that! I should mention that my phrasing of “look into one’s own heart” was a result of your previous post, which put me in a poetic frame of mind ;).

            As for this last post, I understand what you’re talking about. It seems no one has escaped that very basic and universal impulse to be RIGHT. On the Bridge, it’s supposed to get handled at Grade 4, so for you to have had such a cog early on in Dn & Scn I would say is unusual, to put it mildly.

            Another interesting thing about the impulse to be right is that it obviously doesn’t get handled terminatedly, once-and-for-all, at Grade 4 – which is the reason LRH made the cert “Provisional” (as with all lower Grade certificates). So it’s something to be aware of all along the way. Wise of you to create a “tech” for it. I saw it as a process but it could also be a drill. A drill for personal integrity. Thatwould be a very good addition to an evolving Scientology :).

            Btw, in one of your comments somewhere, I remember you mentioned something about “derivatives of Scn”, and I meant to ask you what you were referring to exactly,

            1. p.s. I should clarify – Grade 4 handles the impulse to be “RIGHT no matter what” (in my own words).

            2. > Marildiv: “I saw it as a process but it could also be a drill.”

              I think when I started to do it, it was more like a drill. Nowadays is more like a process because what I’m doing is spot and as-is-ness (according to the check list).

              > Marildiv: “impulse to be ‘RIGHT no matter what’ ”

              I didn’t think about what I was doing in that way, but after reading you, I cognited I was handling this impulse (in addition to other impulses, etc.).

              > Marildiv: “a result of your previous post, which put me in a poetic frame of mind”

              ♪ ♫ ♪ ♫ 🙂

              Marildiv, I’m not forgetting about the derivatives.

            3. ♪ ♫ ♪ ♫♪ ♫ ♪ ♫♪ ♫ ♪ ♫♪ ♪ ♫ ♪ ♫♪ ♫ 🙂

  27. Wow, Ferenc. This is a very thorough approach to rational and productive blog participation. It is also a very responsible and kind approach. Thanks very much for writing it up! I am inspired to be more thought-full and more thoughtful.

    Awesome post! And I can see I don’t have to worry about you ever being bored. 🙂

    1. But not necessarily in that order… (Kidding! :D)

      Dragos, you are a breath of fresh air. 🙂

        1. Including Dragos. 🙂

          We might have come close to needing a good conciliator such as you could qualify for. But Chris and I always seem to weather any storms regardless of their magnitude. And I think Ferenc probably always manages to remain in the eye of the hurricane.

            1. Ha ha! Well, you are pretty powerful, that’s true :D. But you only get part of the credit. A few others here get some too ;).

            1. It’s the same as when I use Scientology as an example sometimes – I have a certain amount of familiarity with each of the two (more so with Scientology). Christians, at least some of them, talk about surrendering to God’s will. (Or am I thinking of AA? LOL)

      1. Very nice of you, but I know my limits. According to my daily job, the only reason for me to enter the Swedish Academy is when they encounter back or neck problems 🙂

  28. These threads sometimes respond slowly on our computers because of their length. I have done a side by side comparison of the Explorer browser compared to the Google Chrome and found the google browser to respond very much faster.

    1. Google is faster in EVERYTHING compared to Microsoft. Change the browser, Chris.
      In Europe we use mostly Firefox and in Eastern Europe the most appreciated browser is Opera (which is Norwegian). For me too, Opera is the best, too bad that many webmasters in America doesn’t support it for the websites.

      1. yes, I’ve been using google for a few years but noticed that some of us complained about speed of loading etc., these are problems I was not having. Lately I’ve had reason to manipulate some state and county government websites and they won’t operate with anything but Explorer! So I was using Explorer for a change and decided to browse Geir’s and other wordpress and realized that it takes something like 3X as long to use Explorer as Google. I’ve never tried Firefox though it is available. Never heard of Opera until you’ve mentioned it here.

  29. @2ndXmer: Master of Innuendo should be an OT level. As Scientologists, we are so immersed in and inured to the suggestive arts that we hardly know when we are hearing it or spreading it like so much manure. A prominent example would be when Hubbard declines to actually discuss his own OT abilities with the dismissive “we will not here speculate on how I came to rise above the bank.” You see, he doesn’t say that he has risen above above the bank, he just says we won’t discuss it.

    Likewise, when you write, “. . . I must admit that many OTs I know also are less than I’d expect. Less, but probably much more than you’d give them credit for.” This implies that you agree with me but you really say that I won’t give credit for OT powers. Why would that be? For me to back off from giving people credit for these imaginary OT powers has been the challenge for me. I was a true believer by any standard. So dialing it back has been the challenge. I am naturally prone to believe people when they tell me something — naturally gullible.

  30. @2nd Transformer: (to Chris) You say “Who can say? Life is complicated.” I’d say I find it fairly simple and getting simpler all the time. The toughest part is like what Geir said in the OP – getting other viewpoints to agree (‘speshly them durn Thom cats).

    Chris: haha, well as we age, we tend to pare down the complications, seem to want the simpler life. It all becomes very simple when we are dead… once the iteration stops.

    But while we live live on Earth, life is complicated. And agreement? Agreement is a quality of this universe toward which we strive! hahaha! First we pop up with different realities for the purpose of _______ (fill in blank.) Then we as individuals work our asses off to resolve the problem of agreement by becoming more individualized! hahaha! This is a very crazy game! At the root, at the potential, before the iteration begins, there is already simplicity. If simplicity is a goal, then we need to stop being complicated.

    Life is a contextual experience lived by an unimaginably complex Being! (Just an opinion.)

  31. @Chris: Avoiding being derided as a liar is easy if one simply does not lie and tells the truth about OT phenomena.

    2x: And if the truth is there is OT phenomena (what is telepathy but that?) and if I did not lie about telepathic experiences I have had, would you not say something like “Prove it to Randi and then maybe I’ll consider your stories.” I may not be ready to face Randi and be 100% but there have been consecutive instances with particular beings where I was damn near 100%. I’ve got a good idea of what it takes and have certainty it can be developed by many.

    1. Well, speaking of liars, James Randi isn’t exactly as pure as the driven snow:
      His hoax challenge has been exposed by Victor Zammit, an attorney:

      Here’s the challenge he made:
      One million dollars is offered to any closed minded skeptic who can rebut the existing evidence for the afterlife. Read more…

      Closed-minded skeptics and other materialists: some of those whom are psychologists, ex-magicians, biologists, physicists and others, have miserably failed to technically rebut the expressly stated evidence for the existence of the afterlife.

      By contrast, more scientists, more physicists, more psychologists and more people in the professions and others are conceding the empirical evidence for the afterlife is just irrefutable.

      ***Victor Zammit has the only $1 million challenge in the world guaranteed by way of a legal document on oath which is subject to up to five years imprisonment if the funding does not exist.

      The skeptic with the alleged one million dollar challenge has refused to match my guarantee! An interpretation of this is that he’s fooling the public that he has the funding to support the challenge.

      You can also read up on Victor’s cross-examination of Randi and his methods.

        1. Please bring some salted kipper next time. The smell of red herring is getting to be too much.

      1. Victor Zammit New definitions:
        Open-minded skeptic: A skeptic who changes their mind to believe there is an after-life.
        Closed-minded skeptic: A skeptic who does not believe that there is an after-life.

        Big website that victorzammit.com. I couldn’t dig through the whole thing so settled on “empirically proving the existence of God.” Following is a recap of the 10 points proof which objectively, demonstrably, and repeatably show the existence of God without resorting to religion. These are as follows:

        1. The Universe: We see intelligence in there.The Universe is an effect of the first cause.
        2. Order: We observe order. Laws which are unbreakable and unchangeable and all powerful proceed as an effect of the First Cause.
        3. Quantum Physics: Shows us that there is consciousness in sub-atomic particles.
        4. Atoms: If the speed of the swirling atoms were any faster, we wouldn’t be able to see each other. That’s intelligence. That’s effect from the First Cause.
        5. Gravity; We observe gravity. Without gravity, the Universe would collapse. So gravity is an intelligence response from the First Cause.
        6. Growth: We observe the growth process. We understand that there is an energy behind this growth process. Growth has been a fantastic study for scientists and the growth response is an effect from the First Cause.
        7. Evolution: Science has convinced us that there has always been going on evolution. What’s fascinating about evolution is the energy behind evolution. Darwin didn’t talk about the energy behind this evolution. But his partner, the co-founder, co-discoverer of evolution — Arthur Wallace — implicit and imputed that it was that it was intelligence responsible for evolution, especially when we know that the biologically inheritable traits bring about more advanced species and there is intelligence in that.
        8. The Universe: When we look again as I said in the universe, the laws; the atom; gravity; growth; evolution; you see intelligence everywhere. And that intelligence, all these intelligent responses came from the First Cause. That we call God.
        9. Now we know that over history in every country in the world, people believed that there was a God. My particular interest was in the after-life investigators who used scientific method to prove what there is claiming is correct; is verifiable; is valid. Now they are all stating that they are getting and we are getting information transmitted from the other side saying, “Yes, there is God, but you are limited in the understanding of who and what God is. In the future, you will get to know more about God.”
        10. And finally, I want to share with you something rather amusing in a way. A friend of mine of over 30 years, who is a hard-core atheist, and closed-minded skeptic, uh, I explained to him all about God, just as I did explain it to you just now, and interesting, very very interesting, you know what his response was, he said, “Well, if you put it that way, uh, intelligence that we can observe, uh, pfffft, well, yes, of course!”

        Until next time, this is Victor Zammit. I wish you well.

            1. hehehe that only show i am not perfet… that i have far to go… I have no problem being wrong Chris.. say that in that blog after what i have writen.. that should please some readers…

          1. Elizabeth, just go up and read Maria’s post where she chimed in on 2nd transformer’s post. The whole thing was a joke. No I did not experience a big loss. And Gravity doesn’t seem heavy to me.

            1. there you go…. i am wrong again… things are looking up… more stuff to audit.. So if gravity is no problem than you can float, yes? Never get tired, never feel heavy, body dont sag at places, when walking cant hear the sound of foot steps, because the foot hardly touches the ground. the mattress and seats dont sag under the weight of the body. in fact the scale is not effected when you step on it… the needle dont move… I thought I just throw this in the pot, since i have nothing better to do..

  32. By reading this one post alone I can see two things :
    Debate, where two someones are arguing over which one set view-points is the “rightest”
    Discussions where two or more someones are expressing their viewpoints and asking
    open, honest questions about this or that interpretation to really understand it,
    and thus being able to outline possible or necessary implications of these view-points
    which again will make the others ask abount interpretations etc. and so on …

    As far sa i know this is the classical open-minded dialectics that bring a thesis
    (viewpoint) and an “anti”-thesis (another viewpoint(s)) into one (or more)

    I find the discussions the most enlighting to read and the most polite and open-minded.
    I also think that by aiming for the discussions, one always will initiate debates, as there are always people who are not open minded, debates are like the necessary evil to actually get someone to go past in start the Discussions.

    And, however one dislikes it,in my opinion the gain from the discussions more than outweighs the “loss” or unproductiveness of the debates …

    1. And with Scientology – the tech – we run right into Hubbard’s redefinition of the word Open-minded, resembling the 1984 way of redefenition in the name of propaganda. He did the same to the word reasonable. In Scientology, it will get you into hefty trouble if you show yourself to be open-minded or reasonable.

        1. Hi Tor Ivar,

          Here is what was originally stated in the Scn materials about open-mindedness:

          “Persons who ‘have an open mind’ but no personal hopes for auditing or knowingness should be ignored, as they really don’t have an open mind at all, but a lack of ability to decide about things and are seldom found to be very responsibile and waste anyone’s efforts to ‘to convince them'”.

          The context of that, as you can see, includes “…BUT no personal hopes or desires for auditing or knowingness…”

          It was only later, when the there was a “reversal” of Scientology principles, that that the whole idea got twisted into something else. JFYI 🙂

          1. Good question! I see now there are two interpretations for “no personal hopes for auditing”, depending on which definition of “hope” you are using: (1) “desire accompanied by expectation of or belief in fulfillment” or (2) “something hoped for”
            (Merriam Webster Dictionary)

            I believe the intended meaning to be the second definition, based on the whole context of the quote.

            1. Also, the word “for” I understand to mean “concerning”.(Merriam Webster) So the idea I get is that a so-called “open-minded” person doesn’t have “things hoped for” concerning auditing or knowingness.

            2. Tot Ivar because you are not one of the IN PEOPLE: you are doomed and going to Hell in handbasket…. just because it is written by scientologiest if not becoming the enlighten that will be your destiny ! 🙂

            3. Hehe Erszebet, I guess Tot Ivar was a misspelling, I’m sure you know what Tot means in German … 🙂

              But, yes I see. … Luckily though my life has changed from the bottom of the tone scale to the top in appx 10 years …

              However, I do have some ideas of what I could gain from auditing, it’s the uncertainty about it I’m troubled with, and all those other things I might experience …

            4. Hi Tor,
              Open minded is a good thing if we want to let ideas in. As opposed to closed minded where we won’t let ideas in. Hubbard’s slam against open-minded seems to me a control mechanism. He was building a religion and needed people to be true believers; to be on-board with whatever he wrote; to be of a mind to say “Ron said it, I believe it, that settles it!” Within the context; within the framework of a new religion, I think this type of management can make sense and become consistent.

              From the context; from the frame of reference of being outside the religion, or possibly coming from a context of wanting to be personally more consistent; to trust oneself more; to be more happy; to understand one’s fellows in a pan determined way, then these kinds of special definitions can begin to look outrageous.

              Auditing is the process of getting answers to one’s life from inside oneself.
              All types of training is the process of getting answers to one’s life from outside oneslf.
              I like to think that a balance these in life is good and well, . . . balanced!
              My advice to an obviously smart and adventurous guy like I’ve come to know you is to trust your gut! If you’d like to try some auditing what could be the harm? (you alluded to a fear or worry about it that I didn’t quite understand what you meant.)

            5. Chris: “Hubbard’s slam against open-minded seems to me a control mechanism.”

              Can you give an actual quote of “Hubbard’s slam against open-minded…”? The quote I gave indicates something very different from what you assert..

              Through this whole thread (alone) I’ve observed that you either can’t or won’t give actual references for your opinions and assertions, no matter how many times or how nicely you are asked to. And I imagine that people like Tor Ivar are turned away from reaching for the good in Scn because they hear so much about the alterations of it – which are kept alive by people like you whose verbal opinion is based on other verbal opinion (also having no actual documentation) or else it is based on others’ deliberate alteration.

            6. Chris, by “people like you” I meant those who criticize LRH and Scn in an unbalanced way in that they seldom comment on the plus points – even though they consider the plus points to be good enough that they actually use Scn themselves. It seems to me that the fact that you continue to choose auditing as the tech for your own spiritual advance shows that you must consider it the best tech available for such.

              My point is that I think it is doing more harm than good to emphasize the evils of what the CoS turned Scn into – when that is already abundantly clear to almost anybody. There should be far more attention put on the incredible good that can still be had in the Independent field with the use of unadulterated Scn.

              But I must confess that after I wrote that last comment I was thinking that I’m sorry these discussions seem to have put a damper on the ARC between us and I once again wished that I were better at making the above points in a way that doesn’t offend.

              A funny question just popped in my mind: “Can we ever be friends?” (I hope you see the humor. And the sentiment. :))

            7. Marildi, Of course we are friends! Why would we let a conversation on the blog about “discussions on the net” ruin our friendship? Shouldn’t this discussion raise the ARC since we are discussing it?

              Or if the ARC break is caused by a break in reality, then does only one of us need to enlarge our reality in order to heal it? . . . or should we both enlarge our realities in order to envelope the other’s, take responsibility for it, and make it our own? Your reality on Scientology is a reality of my own. It became my own through many years of toil and study. It can never be otherwise. The caveat as I see it is that it is not my only reality on mental and spiritual health.

              The reason that Scientology will lose the war against the field of mental health is because as a body of knowledge, it does not coach its parishioners to do this — to envelope all mental and spiritual health knowledge. The Tech of Scientology teaches its students to be single minded and to front up to counter-intention without flinching and to fight as though their lives depend on it. Teaches its students to remove from existence all technologies and applications of other mental technologies without a second thought. This is a fascist view similar to the Tech of Islam. And as a counterpoint, I would suggest that the all-embracing, all-encompassing view of the LDS Mormons is one of the correct whys for their perennial success.

              To quote myself by misquoting (squirreling) the great man himself, “On the day that we can truly trust EMBRACE each other, there will be peace on earth.” The old man’s idea of being trustworthy was one who would parrot the party line without deviation and this is native to the Tech of Scientology one of the correct whys for its trouble.

            8. Well, here we are once again, just in time for our Sunday night devotionals :). First, let me quote my dear friend, Chris (I actually like it when the politicians use that phrase, “my dear friend_____”, when referring to someone on the other side of the aisle ;)).

              (1) You said, “. . . or should we both enlarge our realities in order to envelope the other’s, take responsibility for it, and make it our own?”

              I think that is a very positive tack to take, and it would be great if we understood each other’s reality and point of view. So first, let me try in a new unit of time to understand your reality. From your post, it seems clear that when you use the word “Scientology” and talk about it as “a body of knowledge”, you include all the materials in current use by the CoS and their interpretation of those materials, as well as all the current practices being carried on by the Church. In other words, “Scientology” in your meaning is equivalent to and a synonym for the Church of Scientology. Okay, I can accept that as your reality and can even understand the viewpoint.

              (2) You also said this about my reality: “Your reality on Scientology is a reality of my own. It became my own through many years of toil and study. It can never be otherwise. The caveat as I see it is that it is not my only reality on mental and spiritual health.”

              You didn’t specifically describe my reality in the above but from what was more or less implied, it seems that you do understand the use of the word Scientology the way I use it. To be sure of that, though, I’ll state what I mean: For me “Scientology” is the basic philosophy and tech that existed before the changes started occurring in the direction of, to use your word, fascism.

              I can even say that I have the same viewpoint as you as regards your last sentence, “The caveat as I see it is that it is not my only reality on mental and spiritual health.” So, the difference between us doesn’t seem to any more than this: You use the word Scientology to mean the CoS and I use it to mean something distinctly different from the CoS, as per the above.

              So what do you think – does my description of yours and my realities in (1) and (2) above describe your understanding of each of them as well? 🙂

            9. Hi Marildi, No. When I refer to the Tech of Scientology, I am referring to the scriptures and trying to honor your wishes to discuss the group of believers in Scientology separate from discussing the Tech of Scientology. Regarding your reality, yes I get you completely and have walked many miles in your shoes so to speak. Letting go of anchoring points; letting go of fixed ideas about the goodness and value of a subject once one has honorably committed most of their life to these values is fraught with unknowns; misgivings; worrisome expectations. The beauty of this is that if a person has built their mental expectations; their mental foundations upon reliable concepts, then that person never needs to fear questioning those concepts for if they hold true then no harm was done and if they are found to be cracked then the new and improved opportunity to make personal changes in those mental foundations. A person can always go back to thinking like they used to can’t they?

              I like that you have resurrected the old “Can We Ever Be Friends” tape from the 70’s. This was produced at the direction of Hubbard and issued while he was still at Golden Era Studios before his blow from Int’l HQ in 1982. A complete copy of this tape is probably readily available to anyone interested but I was able to find this clip of a portion of this tape being played into the court record of a case involving disconnection. I will let the PTS/SP tech speak for itself:

            10. Okay, Chris, let me see if I’ve got it better. When you use the word Scientology you are referring to the scriptures (i.e. the materials) and are including EVERYTHING that has been written up to PT. As well, from your various posts I get that you are referring to those scriptures in terms of how they are being INTERPRETED by the CoS and thus how they are PRACTICED by the CoS.

              And, to reiterate my use of the word Scientology, I do NOT include ALL the materials or how any of the materials are necessarily INTERPRETED and PRACTICED by the CoS. I simply mean the BASIC PHILOSOPHY and TECH that aligns with the basic books particularly. This concept specifically does not include later written materials that resulted in a reversal in management and brought about the cult that exists today in the CoS. That is the difference in what each of us is calling Scientology, and I believe it is why we have locked horns so much – different viewpoints of what the word Scientology means.

              One thing you haven’t mentioned at all in the last couple of posts is Independent Scientologists. Many of them have my reality, which is to carry forward what is truly valuable in Scn as well as being open to and incorporating improvements. That form of practice is what I consider to be the true future of Scientology as I am using the word.

              As regards that “Can We Ever Be Friends” tape, I should point out that I’m also not interested in what Hubbard did or didn’t do as that doesn’t alter the workability and value of the tech, which is the only thing that really matters at this point, as I see it.

              But I did think it was pretty funny to ask you the question, “Can we ever be friends?” since that tape was used for people highly antagonistic to Scientology (hahaha). Kidding aside, I also asked it out of sincere ARC and as you always do when push comes to shove, you responded with ARC. 🙂

            11. Marildi; I am curious about where you draw the “line of perversion”. When do you think Scientology went astray from its core beliefs and practices?

            12. That’s a big question and I don’t personally have many of the answers. In fact, I imagine that to sort it out completely would be a mammoth undertaking and would take a group of highly experienced Scientologists trained in ethics, tech and admin. But there are obvious things like the change to ethics tech, where application was no longer done as “a personal thing” as LRH originally had it, but basically became the greatest good for the CoS.. With auditing tech, at a certain point the pc no longer felt safe in session because of new policies. Or the 3-swing F/N and other DM arbitraries. The 6-month “refreshers” are one of the grossest forms of out tech, per my understanding, as they violate the no-interference zone. And all the things Debbie Cook listed in her email, like the clear-cut financial policy violations, and I’m sure you could give some other admin tech examples. This is off the top of my head. 🙂

            13. Are you including elements such as redefinition of the terms “opem-minded” and “reasonable” and policies on handling of enemies and perhaps certain policies on SP declares (and maybe other elements?) in the “moving away from basic Scn”/perversion?

            14. Yes, of course. All of those things contradict the philosophy found in basic books, including the axioms, scales, codes, and creeds

            15. So, let’s leave the applications aside for now – when, according to your own observations of tech and policy would you say the perversion started to creep in – at the latest?

            16. From what I know, the changes started taking place in the 60’s when Scn was being attacked with the intention to eliminate it, either altogether or in its benevolent form. You may remember that this was what I posted a comment on before, where I said that LRH could reasonably have seen himself in the position of needing to use a great amount of force to handle the life-and-death situation. Use of heavy force at times would be in accordance with his basic principle that both force and intelligence are needed at optimum levels for a given situation. That period of time, the 60’s, I believe was when sec checks came into use, disconnection policies, and the destruction of enemies.

              It seems, however, that he also intended that these were to be short-term measures to handle a dangerous situation since he later canceled disconnection and fair game policies, for example. However, the temporary “frankenstein monster” got away from him.

            17. Geir, that was probably too quick an answer I gave. It would probably depend on exactly which policies you had in mind. Certainly some of them I would include in “moving away from basic Scientology” – or at least how they have been interpreted and applied. And that’s why I said earlier that I think it would take some doing to sort it all out, if one wanted to determine what actually did and didn’t align with basic principles.

            18. Can you try to see if you can spot the earliest moment of deviation – from your observation and experience with policy – regardless of what may have justified it at the time? “60’s” is a whole decade… early 60’s or late 60’s?

            19. I’m not at all well enough versed on the track of Scn policy to be able to authoritatively answer that. But first let me say that, just from what I do know about ethics, tech and admin, it seems to me that the root of all the evil would have been the perversion of the basic principles of ethics –just as ethics would be the primary factor for any group or sphere of activity. Scn ethics is supposed to be based on reason toward the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics (the “optimum solution”), and “the highest ethics level would mean long-term survival concepts with minimal destruction along any of the dynamics” (Science of Survival).

              The gross alteration of that optimum solution occurred in the “mid-60’s”, according to Marty Rathbun in his recently published book. That was the time when the only acceptable solution became one that placed that particular 3rd dynamic (the CoS itself) as more important than any other dynamic. And with that as an operating basis, it’s easy to see how off the rails things could and would and did get IF this temporary op basis (just assuming it was temporary) never got reversed, which it didn’t.

              What is your answer to this question?

            20. Elizabeth, I answered the question as best I could. Geir asked for a point in time when the perversion of Scn STARTED to creep in. Based on my understanding of Scn principles in general, my answer was that, to begin with, a reversal of the Scn movement would have to have been caused by ethics going out in the organization. And since I wasn’t there to know for myself when that occurred, I would have to base my views on the data of others. I gave him Marty’s educated view of when it occurred as I consider Marty a reliable source on the subjects ethics, tech, admin, as well as management history, and he himself apparently can’t narrow down that point in time more specifically than “mid-60’s”.

            21. It’s not what I can or cannot. I simply wanted your viewpoint.

              Was Marty’s pointing this out in his book a decisive factor for you to form this viewpoint?

            22. No. Marty didn’t express the viewpoint I have – that the change that occurred in the basis of ethics (since it wasn’t just a temporary stopgap) was the point where the reversal in direction of Scn occurred. Actually, he writes about a number of destructive changes that occurred along the way, and if I remember right some of them occurred before the mid-60’s. Nevertheless, all of them, in order to be sustained, would have to be supported by that basic violation of ethics tech, it seems to me.

              Also, my question to you wasn’t meant to imply anything about whether you could or couldn’t answer it. Like you, I just was interested in your own point of view.

            23. E, Geir said “from your observation and experience with policy” and where I answered “from what I do know about ethics, tech and admin [meaning policy]” I was also referring to my personal experience with it.

            24. my latest.. i love it when I am being wrong in the Mest universe… it is fun.. not be be correct, not be be right, not to fit in, not to be part of, not to be in reality with..it is a joy to know, there is no value of what i say… my presence is meaningless…. that should say a lot but i know means nothing to those who happen to read these few lines…

            25. I read a comment by Marty on his latest blog post thread that got me to reconsider this part of what I wrote above: “In fact, I imagine that to sort it out completely would be a mammoth undertaking and would take a group of highly experienced Scientologists trained in ethics, tech and admin.” In response to a comment similar to that, Marty wrote:

              “The problem such groups create is elevation of literalism. There are an infinity of contradictions or paradoxes within Scientology writings when so analyzed. Only when one understands the lot and experiences many results through applications does one see that the only paradoxes are those created by one’s own literal-thinking mind. To create a board to solve some problem that only exists in minds that don’t understand the subject as a whole and apply it to result will result in the exportation of literalist interpretations du jour – to wit, corporation scientology II.”

            26. I had some other thoughts I wanted to write down in this virtual forum/journal that Geir so graciously provides :).

              The approach Marty described in the comment quoted above would also be the simple handling for the question of whether or not LRH policies that evidentally created a “reversal” of Scn were merely part of a strategy to withstand efforts from powerful quarters to control Scn and were only meant to be temporary. And it would handle the questions of which policy issues may have been the result of (1) LRH’s own case, (2) his discovery of “entities” and their influence, and (3) the parapsychological mind control activities going on in that era and the possibility of LRH having been the victim of such (and/or the reason he felt the need to “hide” for some years) – all possibilities that Ferenc pointed out in his post on the “What Culture does it foster” thread. https://isene.me/2012/08/25/culture/#comment-22526)

              In other words, these probably irresolvable “questions” don’t even need to be “handled”/resolved in order to successfully apply admin tech. (Incidentally, I think this approach would extend as well to questions about auditing tech alterations or improvements.)

              More specifically, the approach in the quote above would be the handling for such questions as whether or not the hierarchal form of management laid out in LRH policy must be adopted by anyone using LRH admin tech, as well as other controversial points of admin tech that exist in policies written even before the reversal – things that Geir and many Independents would consider unworkable, especially in modern times. The choice to follow or not follow a given policy is right there in policy itself – IF, as Marty expressed, policy is understood as a whole through experience and thus not interpreted literally. And in the burgeoning Independent Scn field the wise use of policy (and tech) will no doubt determine which Independents and which “brand” of Scn flourishes and prospers. My bet is on the brand that most closely follows the core philosophic principles.

            27. Now that is funny… 🙂 I am ever sory….You are never be dead only the body stops working, my dear.. you are a wonderful, powerful being.
              What you are missing in this life is to find that out that you are a ”’infinite”while you still have the body: while being audited you could experience other lifes… but soon as you separate from it: the body at the end of this cycle… trust me you will know it that you are a spirit and not a body..
              And i would not worry about getting audited now, because that activitywill be avalable, and you can have it in the future..
              This is not a horse race which be over in 3 minutes… and the univese will end than…no… Eternity is looooooong. 🙂 very long

        2. p.s. Tor Ivar, here’s the reference for “reasonable” also:

          “A staff member or executive can be ‘reasonable” and accept reasons why something cannot be done, accept incomplete cycles as complete and fail to follow through and get completions”. (HCOB 30 Jan 69R)

          Note that the word ‘reasonable’ is in quotation marks, which indicates that it is a specialized “definition” – or more simply, indicates a use of the word as expressed in the context. The use of “reasonable” is always in the context of alerting executives not to be convinced by anyone who says “Come on, be reasonable!” if that actually means accepting incomplete work and thus not getting the job done.

          However, it’s important to know that the vast majority of time in his writing, LRH used the word “reasonable” with the same meaning as the definition in the dictionary, which is to say that he didn’t actually change its meaning at all. Others after him may have altered and abused what he said for their own purposes, or out of sheer ignorance when they generalized its meaning to other or all contexts.

          1. I won’t enter the for or against LRH, Marilyn dear, I really have no background to do that.
            But I understand and recognize when whoever start redefining internal values, have seen it to often with changes in mgmt in diff companies …

            1. And neither do I want you to enter “the for or against LRH”. I’m just glad to talk to a neutral party once in a while! 🙂

              What Geir and others post about Scn and LRH is correct, in terms of how they changed. I just try to point out what they omit – i.e. what the basic philosophy and tech were before they were corrupted – and still are in the independent field. 🙂

            2. Marildi get this one.. I just met sombody who was AUDITED on OT levels 1 and 2 and 3.. She do not solo audiedt those levels, was audited by a indepented auditor! And she believes I am off the wall because I talk about solo auditing and what that can accoplish… That I cant possibly solo audit.. hehehe… she and her auditor can take the cake!

          2. LRH uses reasonable and reasonableness in several places without the use of quotation marks. Here’s one:

            Illogic occurs when one or more data is misplaced into the wrong body of data for it. An example would be “Los Angeles smog is growing worse so we fined New York.” “I am sorry, madam, but you cannot travel first class on a third class passport.” Humanoid response to such displacements is to be reasonable. A new false datum is dreamed up and put into the body of data to explain why that datum is included. (Reasonableness is often inserted as explanation of other out-points also.) In the smog one, it could be dreamed up that New York’s exports or imports were causing L.A. smog. In the train one, it could be in- serted that in that country, passports were used instead of tickets. (HCO PL 23 June 70)

            1. Point HALF taken. 🙂

              Part of the context of that PL is this sentence, where the word “reasonable” is in quotes:

              “If a person has trouble relating data to its proper body of data (if he were unaware or ‘reasonable’) he would have an awful lot of trouble finding his way around an org or routing dispatches or getting things or wearing his own hat”.

              In my experience as a word clearer I found that most readers of PL’s would know by the general context whether LRH was using a word according to a specialized admin meaning or otherwise, with or without quotation marks. If they didn’t, I would refer them to HCOB “The Misunderstood Word Defined” – the part explaining that besides words and symbols, concepts can be misunderstood.

              Also, there are many places where LRH uses “reasonable” in the regular English sense, I think you would agree.

      1. Maybe I better reply for me on this is that I’ve seen that when the going gets tough, it’s easy to adopt restrictions, strong-man-management and similar, incl redefining values (like definitions of important terms like “open minded” and “reasonable”, usually to “focus” more …

        Especially in organisations existing from creative thinking or has or who should have open mindedness as a goal, this tends to in disaster …

    2. … or to be a bit more precise, I think in internet discussions, thecor gain from the discussions more than outweighs the “loss” or unproductiveness of the debates. In real world / face to face / internal corporation wise discussions the not always do, depending on the ethics or value systems they are happening within. A culture of debates (rather than discussions) may suffocate all creativity and open mindedness.

  33. Chris asked this question in his blog….and of course my comment follows it.

    “If we remove space, what remains?”.
    I have looked at this question and it is interesting what I have ‘’’seen’’’
    It is emptiness, void of energy; no movements, no shapes, no colors, no sounds of course
    Which is unimaginable to a humans.. Since the planet Earth is made out of all those things and so is the Universe.
    The only example I can give what is VOID seems appears feels like to our senses: if one would walk through a ghost town, which was once very lively energetic once when we were there the last time by now has become empty of all living creators; humans for a long time: that space the towns would SEEMS void to the senses now..
    Because the “time” flow can erase the human energy flows its traces dissolve by this I mean: that Natures .. since the Planets energy flows are much stronger heavier than the humans was at the time and this strong energy flows can override the humans creative flows.
    But the Planets energy in comparison to human’s energy flows is in HARMONY so to experience Natures energy is experiencing harmony for any human who walks about in Nature which is void of human occupants. Human energy flows are not in harmony, human state is an aberrated state void of harmony.[ more auditing the person has, more of the harmony returns..]
    Second example would be every person experienced this: winter time and overnight the falling snow blanketed everything under very thick blanket.
    The human creativity, its energies are over ridden by the cold- thin air– and the falling snow which is like cleaning powder coming down through the thin air eliminates the sounds which are of course simple energy flows, currents, movements…
    This of course, this partial emptiness can be experienced walking the streets of a big city at early down let say between 4-5 am among the office towers where the least activity exists at that time… Would be very noticeable and easy to experience void but of course that would not be a true void because as I said on this planet that do not exist…and buildings are created out of energy…But the streets are empty… void of presently of humans so their personal space-energy is not cluttering the streets this would make the streets feel void of energy.
    Large Cathedrals have the sensations of void inside…[lacking creative energies] since the created solid items are old and they don’t emanate strong energy flows and people do not go there to created but to empty self, and to connect to spiritual realm therefore this spirituality void of creation can be experienced in the churches….
    Of course the same goes for forests too.. One feels the space the creative energy flow of nature but it is void of human energy flows therefore that space for the human who is used to experience the heavy concentrated thick energy flows seems the forest, or being in the wide open spaces, void of humans activities these spaces seems ‘’ empty , hallow, vacant, free, clear.
    Here in these spaces one is spiritual… one can be nothing by leaving the human self behind … and be one with: become nature, its energy flow and that flow in comparison to the heavy concentrated human energy flows is ‘’nothing.’’.
    So if we remove ‘’space’’’ which is everything created than we have a void… we would not have the universe…

      1. 🙂 right you are…… since you know too well what considerations are… just that? and no more?
        How I understand it, this is my reality: the Universe will remain the same as now after one as-is all the considerations… because we in reality do not as is the thoughts its self, the knowledge, the understanding what the universe is about…. we still know what table is.. or a carrot… On the contrary, we expand our knowledge with every session-cognition but we just remove the stimulations: the charge, the confusion and by as-ising the energy, the underlying sticky solidity… The knowledge one gains is phenomenal… can’t be described with words..
        Geir, I just don’t think any more, but when a question is asked the answer comes instantly.
        .Also, if something like on unknown concept enters in my space in that instant my attention is on it since it is an body of strange unknown energy after all and at the same moment I as-is that energy… puff … gone but the understanding what it was, what was its purpose, what it was used for will remain, but the thoughts are not alive like before… It is like holding a dead piece of wire which holds no energy… But I know all about the wire..
        This happens to the Universe when one as-is its energy but the universe is still there, I only have removed my connection, the energies -considerations which made me stuck to it..

        1. Elizabeth: “This happens to the Universe when one as-is its energy but the universe is still there, I only have removed my connection, the energies -considerations which made me stuck to it.”

          Very good post, E. I have a much better understanding now of what you mean when you say you are “out of the MEST” or “out of the physical universe”. The “dead piece of wire” analogy was really good :).

          1. Here is a bit of different reality for those of you who are looking for different viewpoints.
            Over the years in many sessions I have learned that there are many’’ why’’ the being goes back to the body over and over and over again: What are these attractions, what is so great to have a body, being in the body, acting out game and believing in “ having a life”.
            Well, all that is good and dandy… but not good enough…. I realize that the energies are stimulative… fun to have while one has the body… But there is more.
            When one is without the body that state do not feels like one is in control… But being in the body one do believes one is in control because the body can move things… objects.. You see we were made to believe that the only way one can control objects is by having the body.
            Because we went into agreement, we have given up our other abilities long way back…. very long way back.
            So now, when without the body we think we are nothing…powerless… can’t even move a toothpick… never mind other objects….
            This beliefs has come about because once upon the time this reality was new, was fun to believe to carry out, to pretend that we can’t do it… and we got stuck in those considerations: that without the body we are nothing but a ghost: Powerless, incapable, ineffective and unsuccessful, nonentities unknown to the universe. Hell. That is not so…
            So all you control freaks, you control enthusiasts, you control fanatics, control aficionados, in other words: addicts, now you know one of the main reason why you fight combat other spirits, duke it out in order to gain possession of the new body: to be able to control once more!!!
            Bloody Hell… we are all nuts…
            If you don’t believe this, OK by me… go find out for self and with that you be better off anyway.

            1. Eliz, it sounds like you are on a path leading to the state of Cleared Theta Clear: “one who has full recall of everything and full ability as a thetan”? (Scn 8-80)

              And here is another description of a Cleared Theta Clear: “a person who is able to create his own universe; or, living in the MEST universe is able to create illusions perceivable by others at will, to handle MEST universe objects without mechanical means and to have and feel no need of bodies or even the MEST universe to keep himself and his friends interested in existence”. (Scn 8-8008)

              Obviously, just because LRH described such a state doesn’t mean that anyone in Scn has achieved it, but I got from some of your posts that you may be working towards it. If not, what would you say your ultimate goal actually is?

            2. geee….you can be insulting or ignorant take your pick… in this case you are both.
              “”Obviously just, because LRH describe such a state doesn’t mean that anyone in Scn has achieved it,””
              So who the Hell is LRH? Since when his words are written in stone? Who is he and has the power to say how far and what one can achieve? If he do not say so, it can’t happen? Can’t be real, can’t be achieved?
              Bloody Hell, he has dropped his body and you still look at him as some kind of God… who has the power over life and death!! Only can be, if ha say so? Has he walked in my shoes and because of that he knows where I am at, my reality?
              I really don’t go by what LRH had to say… since I don’t read that stuff… I have no reality of those tapes-lectures, none at all and I have no intention to study his writing in the future either.
              You can judge for yourself, by comparison of his writing and my writing but still the reality of the state—abilities gained by me remains beyond comprehension…. Because you on be comparing second-hand data and not having on experience..
              LRH has no mapped out my Path… I have walked alone…therefore alone I know where I am at.

            3. I wrote: “Obviously just, because LRH describe such a state doesn’t mean that anyone in Scn has achieved it,”

              Sorry to say but you have completely misunderstood that sentence. I meant exactly what it says – that LRH coming up with the description of such a state doesn’t mean that Scn (the Scn Bridge, that is) has taken anyone to that point. I wanted to be sure no one jumped to the conclusion that I was saying the Bridge achieves it, and I said nothing about whether it could or couldn’t be achieved apart from the Bridge. As a matter of fact, in those LRH quotes, neither does he claim that the Bridge achieves that state.

              I don’t think you have claimed to ahieved such a state either, although I was giving you credit for going in that direction, and I wanted to know if that was your goal or if you had a different goal. That’s all.

              I don’t have a big problem with someone making a mistake in understanding, but if you’re going to be so sensitive it just discourages having a discussion.

            4. Eliz, your objection to “second-hand knowledge” may the same as what LRH criticizes about traditional education. I searched this morning and found a quote for you (note also that what he calls “observation” seems to be
              what you would call “first-hand knowledge”):
              “So education has been in the past, or learning has been in the past, a system of avoiding observation. So a systematic avoidance of observation will sooner or later get something into trouble…” (from the Study Tapes lecture “Education”, 25 Oct 56)

              In that same lecture he also talks about the problem of accepting data that is based on “authority” – which I believe is the same objection you are making when you say “just because LRH said it…”):

              “But the whole alliance of authority and education is apt to bring people into a Fixed state of mind.”

              He also describes the type of second-hand knowledge that exists Scientology:

              “If what is being taught is true then they [students] themselves will recognize its truth, since nobody can be taught, thoroughly, anything that he himself does not already have some knowledge of. No matter how ghostily, no matter how thinly, there’s some knowledge of it. For instance, you can’t be taught usefully – so that you can use it – any datum about the human mind that you have not already agreed to. […]

              “So here we have, worked out in Scientology, a great many data which are apparently the common denominators of agreements on the whole track, arrived at evidently by the bulk of the people who perceive them now.”

              (Study Tapes lecture “Education”, 25 Oct 56)

            5. Thank you Rafael… I was not meant to be kind… I only say what is my reality on the subject.
              I do have admiration for part LRH’s work but I also have reality on what was his Bank and what he has caused, because he presented his BANKY view points as reality to others, with that act he caused great harm for many.. He has ENFORCED HIS REALITY to those who trusted.

            6. Rafael, in my reality how I see and understand the communication in the universe, how it spread without confinement since the berries don’t exist in the universe: the barriers are only seen by the eyes and exist as considerations but those considerations really can’t hold communication back.
              Therefore LRH’s teaching is out in the Universe but most importantly billions and billions of beings received auditing by those who solo audited the upper levels from OT 3 onward.
              Auditing, continuing up on the OT levels and after that still continuing with solo auditing has value importance of immeasurable magnitude.
              By Marildies evaluation I don’t know a bloody thing… but she knows nothing have no reality the affective-ness of communication- auditing, what is the real value of auditing, how it has its role in the Universe, effects the Universe at large and of course she has no reality what so ever on auditors.

            7. Dear Elizabeth, you say : ” what is the real value of auditing, how it has its role in the Universe ” . I find this topic of interest.
              Does auditing really have an universal role ? or is the metered ( and not metered ) auditing just a tool as a psychological and social aid ?

            8. Rafael, in session, the confrontation do erases the unwanted mass-items-negative, it works for me and by now you know it work for other too because people are being audited all over the world.

            9. Dear Elizabeth, people being audited all over the world erasing unwanted mass items in session feel it works ( you included ). I should assume that such mass items are subjective ones as it is in my case.

            10. Rafael, I really don’t care about LRH.. I don’t give a fig, about him, I never liked him enough to look at his images-pictures, he never appealed to me as a man, I did not found him charming, or magnetic, I did not like his energy flows.. I simply did not like the valance he put out… that is all.

            11. Dear Elizabeth, by sales talk I mean that trying to enhance the good concept of a product or service by promoting one of his creators/enablers, do not enhance the product or service itself but do helps to sell it at a better price, and it is of course a marketing tool to get increased profits.

      2. Geir, FOR YOUR EYES ONLY..
        Because you have asked a question… I looked closer… much closer than before
        I thank you for your communication.
        Space is a mocked up item it is concept idea awareness, same as anything else just created and this creation is real accordance of one’s reality and exist for that purpose the creator mocked –up that concept.
        I am not talking about the space between ones teeth but about the space outside of the outer casing of Earths which is called atmosphere.
        Here is the vastness of unimaginable proportion: empty outside of what eyes can see, or through the Hubble telescope, projected images.
        But what hold this space in place: our own considerations, it only exist because it is considered it exist for self.
        Let’s ask questions which force us to confront.
        What is space? Who makes space,? Who has Space? Who needs space? Who has given up space? What this space done to me?
        These are just on example which puts ones attention on space it self..
        I had a session on this so here are few of the things how I have seen it and I would like to share with you.
        Scared the hell out of me, being in that vastness without the meat body, made me feel small, being here given on impression of insignificant, unimportant, made me feel like I was nothing, unknown, nameless, unidentified faceless, minus personality, minus knowledge, powerless.
        When viewing space from the distance where I have a body –knowledge, identity individuality made me believe that unseen things are out there and those things are dangerous and could get me.
        The fears of those unknown things forced me hide in light and I use that light to barricade that darkness out which I felt were full of aliens, monstrosities, scary images which were all after me, wanted to get me, to destroy me once for all.
        Therefore I did not re-enter space ever again
        I have stayed in the vicinity of light because of my fears of what could be lurking in the space unseen, the unknown, unfamiliar, mysterious, which I have created myself of course.
        It seems there are created Overts on Space are in existence too, each person have they own, mine are: I blocked out space by creating strong light and existed within its limitation, its boundaries, and here I have created many different things filled the space, crammed it tight with objects, it seems object are barriers to keep away that void, the emptiness, the so called unknown ones fears of self.
        Being in light holds safety…. but is that really true?
        We have used Space as a tool, we abolished eliminated other beings by sentencing them into that vastness, and those who we have sentenced into that prison of nothingness of course of those we become afraid of, if and we thought those beings can reach out of space and get us. No wonder the Fear of space is so real
        Also space holds loses for us… we last many things valuable which were swallowed up, become covered up by space, by the invisible, that is the reason one must keep all valuables in the LIGHT, under the light, hold it close…. Hehehe.. It is safe if one “keeps on eye on things” were one can see things than no one can still it away from under ones nose. There are laws created for those reasons. Thou shall not steal!
        Also we use Space to separate self from things, considering that it can’t be bridged so it is used these considerations that something can’t be known seen, because the existing space separates one than one can’t be reached, touched effected, stimulated.. etc…
        I can see images I have put in space and they were real to me at once. But also the space than consideration holds many different realities beside mystery, dangerous etc..
        Being in space without the body can be peaceful, quiet, serene, one feel totally free, no limitation, and no barriers pressing down on one.
        Here one can sense the wholeness of self, happiness, completeness, totality and the same time the emptiness the void, the invisibility [no looking exist here] of course only than that becomes real after erasures of all considerations-assumptions-agreements.

      3. Chris asked.. Thank you, a great question…
        Elizabeth,” Do you feel that there is an imagination separate from a physical reality? If so, how would you describe that difference — where would you draw the line?””
        I have no idea Chris where that line is.
        It would be individual experience when the reality becomes reality. By this I mean: one has to erase mighty amount of crap “MEST” which seems very real to the person on EARTH since the occupants believe it10000%.
        When one audits out these believes assumption the confidence in this stuff [MEST] becomes shaky slowly disappears and one starting to realize yes something smells here: got to be a dead body under the flooring…nothing is right something is in fact very wrong….since what I see can’t be both ways, only one reality can be correct!
        But that uncertainty continues remains for long while because what one believes the newly gained reality as in cognitions has not been agreed by others, we have not gained total certainty yet, we have not found proof our self, it can’t be proved as in solidity, one can’t ask others and talk it over get on agreement or read about it, hear it on the 6 o’clock news which would verifies if it is true what I see, what I know what I have realized really-really true! Limbo time!
        The things one realizes that the cognitions are real and their contents have to be the truth: because we did believe in them from the very first we had one! and that is a fact!
        So one pushes on because the need to know grows which each session because finding it out and understanding that one lived in is a total illusion and was a prison and that is not easy to have.
        ONES HAVING-NESs is turning to loses! The values are gone: the solid rock beliefs are melting the ground one was standing on turning to quick sand!
        Than the certainty comes slowly because one has hard time believing the new reality because it is so different from what one believed in before and the body is in the MEST universe that makes it more difficult living in TWO DIFFERENT UNIVESES AT THE SAME TIME.
        But that is a challenge, a new lesson to learn from and that is the sessions for to do just that.
        But as a being moves into the Spiritual Universe AND HERE IS NO SOIDITY and THERE IS NO PROOF WHICH ONE COULD HOLD ON WITH HANDS!
        That is missing and that part is the most difficult to get used to, so more sessions are needed to get over that hump .Biiiiiig Huuump!
        But the knowledge, the certainty becomes stronger after each session that is inevitable because in the cognitions the truth is revealed discovered about this spiritual, intangible infinite universe!
        “” The trust in self slowly returns too”” and that is the greatest gain one can have: to believe in self no matter how others say one is wrong, crazy, pointing out that what one believes is not factual, not realistic, because it can’t be proven by one!
        Hehehe… the havingness returns and it is huge because it is not given by anyone… It is gained by self and it is very real!!!!!
        Nothing can shake ones reality, the believes in that knowledge one has gained since the MEST related believes-arguments are not real any more they can’t move destroy one newly gained facts knowledge.
        Cognitions are real what they contain is the truth… and that truth will not vanish.. Nothing can shake it, change it… can’t be as-ised.
        The MEST becomes what it is: thorough illusion deception a make believe.
        So what is real: the need to know-understand hunts one drives one and nothing else matter anymore but the quest !!! One turns away from the MEST.
        To me the MEST universe is like: I am watching a movie from a distance and nothing more… just a movie not even a good one… since movies are watched for the stimulation-entertainment and this one don’t do me a thing!!!
        The imagination is the MEST universe a dream a nightmare and it is very difficult to awaken from.

  34. I have no objection to’ ‘second hand knowledge” it is useful tool and that topic too was covered in Chris’s blog and on this planet it has its place…it is a spoke in the wheel of solidity… keeps it there, establishes continuum.

    1. My viewpoint about the “second-hand” data in Scientology is this:

      “Remember, you were clear once—trillions of years ago. Why didn’t you stay that way? Because the traps were well designed and you had no anatomy of traps. Well, Scientology does have the anatomy of the traps, the Axioms, the discipline and know-how necessary to handle and control the laws of the universe.” (from the Ability article, Does Clearing Cancel the Need for Training?”)

      1. Very well said…. You have emphasised many times that you are happy with what you have and that happiness is within the perimeters of the ‘’Thinking” the scientology thinking-game- believes and that is your life..
        Well pointed out, and from those viewpoints your reality you can see you are not qualified to debate- discuss spiritual existence outside of those view point of scientology of which you are well versed.

        1. Perhaps by your “qualifications” I am not qualified. But I don’t consider you the authority. IMO, anybody can discuss anything, whether from personal experience or from knowingness of whatever kind. I happen to believe there are different paths to knowingness. You seem to think there is only one.

          1. p.s. For the record, no one is the authority on my spirituality either. From a comment you made a little further down the thread, you apparently agree. Here is part of it:

            “…never ever tell each other that something can’t be real, could not been experienced because it is… not agreed by others therefore it is impossible to achieve…

            1. M..
              people who do not continues up on the bridge these people, every one of them has a wonderful excuse justification defence explanation, rationalization reason made up and ready for presentation: why they don’t continue, there are many excuses out there as those who do not continue carry on. The justifications are bank related… bank talk… the bank commands, not to continue… but be happy where you are..
              And there are no acceptation to the rules and I did not say that, LRH has.. And you belong to the same club…
              No matter how one prepare the chicken it still remains a chicken dish
              I am sure you can dig up some reference for you self what LRH said on this matter..

            2. There are two sides to the Bridge, both equally valuable. I have not completed the auditing side but am continuing on with the training for now; You have gone up the auditing side but still haven’t done the training side. It seems to be a similar comparison.

            3. i dont think so…. i am a very good example and the only example that I have had enough traning to take me out and there are dozens of CL 8 12 auditors who are wilting in their bodies, and in their mind stagnent.. overwhelmed by their bank and they all have the tech under their belt.. they are preserving the tech same as you and got stuck in it buried deeply and can’t move on each.
              AND THERE ARE NO EXPECTIONS RULEs, so don’t bend the rules to fit your justifications…. Who you are kidding here? Me? I know a bank one I see one.. and you are talking bank..
              YOU live by LRH ‘s WORDS, since it is you who live by them they are the chains on you, the barriers, the invisible walls which hold you in their prison.
              In my universe LRH’s words-rules means bloody nothing, I hope you got that…

            4. You are also a good example of someone who has no training and shows it by continual evaluation and invalidation at the drop of a hat. And in spite of your evaluation of Cl 8’s and 12’s, the ones I know of are doing great – including with respect to how they get along with others. Their cases may have been messed up by the out-tech in the CoS (which occurred after you were there) but they have the tech of life.

              I thought I would try again to have a discussion with you but you yourself seem to be the banky one. Maybe some other time.

            5. You have run for the hills before that:
              You forgotten to tell me why the LRH’s Rules don’t apply to you…
              What make your bank so special and why your justifications are valid?
              You have not pulled up from your sleeve what LRH said about what are”’ justifications”” what they mean and why are they being used..
              By now you would be hitting somebody else on the head with Quotations of LRH’s, If this communication would be with somebody else and not you..
              You are giving up the communication because you “””evaluated”” that it is not worthwhile talking to me because I am banky… Now that is very good…
              I wonder if this blog would be standing it would not be about the BANK-MEST and I wonder if any comments here are not about the BANK, than I should never ever have exchanged communication with you because you have the bank… RIGHT?
              I think this is your line of thinking reality!!!
              Are you for real? How come suddenly the debating rules dont apply to you, the same rules which you love to enfoce on others!

  35. Marildi, I know very well what you have written and implied….
    I believe your expertise is not in the field of “Spirituality” since so far you have had insignificant experience in receiving auditing and that minimal amount of confronting-cognitions taken you ‘’knowing about’’ but definitely not far enough to conduct a discussion on the matter.
    Far as I have read into your comments I see that you are well versed knowing what LRH has written, you have excellent memory-recall on those matters, ’’you can quote’ ’and you have better than average command on the English language: you know the definition of the words.
    I have not seen you communicating on any other subject outside that knowledge you have and that is a narrow field.
    I have not seen by you any write up about your spiritual journey, you have not posted any cognitions, or original awareness which has been gained by having experiences-practises in spirituality: as in having sessions.
    I have not read anything from you not even remotely indicating that you have spiritual experiences of any kind and you want to discuss spirituality.
    I give you A for being gutsy, believing that you can and believing that you know enough to discussing it.
    I do communicate with people who have gained reality what Spirituality means, who are actively pursuing knowledge: solo auditing.
    BUT We don’t discuss spirituality as a topic itself, we can share what we experience, but we never ever tell each other that something can’t be real, could not been experienced because it is not written down and not agreed by others therefore it is impossible to achieve, never have been achieved, consequently can’t exist as real to that person.
    We don’t have goals, we don’t believe in levels because those are limitations therefore solid barriers-wall which stops one at that point of achieving.
    We do not fit into levels, we do not have states, we do not label.
    We DO understand that we don’t have limitation, that our universes are no longer solid, it has become like” liquid-fluid ” because we daily confront the solid considerations – agreements as-ising them, therefore our universes continually shifts moves changes.
    Me being described by you as “SENSETIVE” that is disdain condescension, putting me into the restricted reality how you believe others feel because they don’t agree with your reality.
    I always welcome questions and happy to give… but what I give still remains my reality and not quotation from others.

    1. Elizabeth, I think I understand your viewpoint as compared to mine. You don’t have much interest (if any) in the physical universe and, in fact, you would like to be out of it completely. That’s why you have concentrated on auditing and gaining spiritual ability. I, on the other hand, still enjoy being in the physical universe game and have concentrated on training, which increases ability to operate successfully in the physical universe and interact better with others.

      The point I made about you being “sensitive”, meaning “easily offended”, may not be important from your viewpoint, but it is important from mine. Things like that are part of the general subject of how well one interacts with others, including on blog discussions. My comment was a suggestion that if you want to take part in discussions and have people discuss things with you and continue to do so, you shouldn’t be so sensitive as that will tend to discourage them. Obviously, though, it’s your choice.

      1. M….
        I like to use ‘’second hand knowledge’’ Because that how I see it, it my reality, because I am very sure they were not my original thoughts, and that body of knowledge was not my originations.
        I have learned it all , the words I speak, how I write, how cook my meals, use the stove, garden, trim my roses, use the bug spaying can, drive my car, put on my shoes I have learned all this stuff from somebody…
        I learned how to use the computer and how to flush the toilet, use the soap and what it is for, and how to use the towels, the pots and pans… hold the fork, polish the silver and turn on the vacuum cleaner..
        I have learned to look up toward the sky on make a judgement is it cloudy or sunny today.. I have learned everything what has meanings on this Planet what is life and death…
        I have learned how to audit, how to confront and what cognitions are and what they mean.
        I have learned all that from others who knew that and before and them were others who knew that and those people learned same from somebody else etc… etc… etc..
        I only have creation here, my very own which no one has ever seen, thought of and no one has reality these are the fruits of my labors here: they are my cognitions.
        They are totally completely belonging to me, unique to this universe and the rest I call second hand stuff because I like that expression… because that expression is real…
        If you don’t like it you have on ARCB’ because of it, you know how to use it… so confront it in session, you might even have a cognition of your own..

        1. E, I have no objection to your term “second-hand knowledge”. It describes the idea just fine. The only way we differ on that subject is that you do not see it as another path to truth – which I believe it is IF that second-hand knowledge itself is truth, as with the truths of Scn or any other source of truth.

          For example, if I had an ARC break because I didn’t like your term, I wouldn’t necessarily need to confront it in session. The things I’ve learned “second hand” (in training and study) have taught me how to handle the charge or the misunderstanding, whichever it is, with the use of the communication cycle. I could communicate with you or others about it, or I could communicate with written knowledge about it, or I could simply communicate with myself about it by confronting it and looking at what is actually there in my mind/universe.

          As-ising can be done in life and the above is one example of how training does in fact give spiritual abilities. Just because I haven’t done any of the upper Bridge, the OT levels, doesn’t mean I haven’t had gains in spiritual ability.

          Don’t get me wrong, I agree with you that confronting one’s own universe more deeply, as done in auditing, is necessary to take a person all the way to full spiritual ability. But I also believe that the path of knowledge can take a person quite a distance in that direction as well. And I dont’ believe that because LRH said it but because I have experienced it for myself “first hand”. Second-hand knowledge can result in first-hand experience and spiritual gains, in addition to playing a better game in life.

  36. After all these comments, my IQ definitely raised up like never before 🙂 Congrats to all of you!

      1. Marildi if you would read my answer to Chris’as question you might understand no matter what is said about my reality, how wrong i am dont make any difference..

        1. Elizabeth,
          (1) I have no problem with what you have observed first-hand in your auditing sessions. None whatsoever. In fact, quite often I have intuitively grasped that what you say is true and have said so, as you very well know. My ability to see the truth in many things you say is what LRH was talking about when he said that “If what is being taught is true then they [students] themselves will recognize its truth, since nobody can be taught, thoroughly, anything that he himself does not already have some knowledge of.”

          (2) What I sometimes DO have a problem with is the conclusions you draw, the extrapolations and interpretations you arrive at – outside of session. True, those conclusions are related to your first-hand observations in session, but they are a result of your own thinking processes about those session observations – and your thinking processes may be missing data. You only have the data of your own personal experiences on the whole time track, as well as your personal cognitions, but your experiences and cognitions do not include others’ experiences and cognitions and the knowledge gained from those.

          (3) You are probably thinking that the only reason I have the above idea is that I don’t know all that you know. Leaving that aside, then, there is still the major thing that I have a problem with – which, ironically, is the same thing you yourself have expressed having a problem with when others refuse to accept your reality and say that it “can’t be true because no one else has experienced the same and therefore it is impossible to achieve”. Can you see how that is exactly what you are saying to me and others when you say our realities and the roads to truth that we have chosen “can’t be true because YOU haven’t experienced the same and therefore it is impossible”?

          (4) Not only do you refuse to accept that any other reality or road to truth besides your own could possibly be valid but you refuse it in a way that evaluates for the person. By that I mean, you tell a person what they they think and why they think that, even though that person has not stated those things and in fact has said otherwise. That is the meaning of evaluation as I am using it – it means telling another person what to think about himself, his case, or his ideas. (It’s not the usual English meaning and isn’t referring to the general evaluation of data, which I believe is the definition you keep using.)

          (5) Lastly, it is very difficult to have a discussion with you when you become unnecessarily invalidative just because someone has the “audacity” (as you look at it) to disagree with your viewpoint, or even to express a viewpoint that is different from yours although that person is not saying anything at all about yours. This is what you sometimes arrogantly do. It’s fine to have a strong conviction and confidence in your own views and your reality, but discussion requires a certain attitude or it goes nowhere but into entheta and enturbulation for everyone. Even the wise things you have to say are thus given a disservice.

          1. Marildi.
            Evaluation is on interesting, since evaluation is original to the being, evaluation is how we see the others, the world around us.
            And that evaluation is usually kept undisclosed because one would have hard time fitting in if one would be truthful at all times or most of the time.
            Evaluation I believe also termed criticism censure valuation assessment, judgement conclusion deduction assumption theory verdict estimation ruling, result and guessing.
            Whatever word we use it boils down to the same: while there is communication received that incoming communication is assessed accordingly by the reality of the persons who receives that communication because that action is automatic.
            The Problem is, that assessment seldom expressed spoken stated openly because the social manners dictates the use of nice friendly valance. [ and the use of compliments niceties are encouraged even if they are not factual].
            The use of the valances causes trouble because there is a verbal communication put out but also the real thoughts –assessments unheard by the ears= but nevertheless that assessment judgement verdict too arrives at the same time! hehehe… good one!
            If this social valance would not be used there would be no cause for ARCB’x because one would understand how the other person sees one, and would act accordingly… would those to being form a friendship association after that assessment? If so, could that association be advantages to both parties and would bring benefits? This is beside my point here.
            But when the true assessments of each other’s revealed brought to the open by some coincidence like re-stimulation hells break loose…
            Fun time enters here: bombs away!!!….since now both parties can see that original assessment by the other person toward self and it is still intact… sitting there festering. Finally it is delightful to see the truth- genuineness…
            In my reality good relationship can’t exist if there are withholds, honesty is the requirement in every relationship regardless what kind that would be.

          2. M..
            PS: I must add on important factor that evaluation assessment itself never ever alters modifies changes that person’s core universe in any way…. Only some other thoughts considerations are created that is simply continuum… moving on!!!

            1. E, thanks for your thoughts. This is a big subject, about evaluation. I’m sure you remember that it has been brought up a number of times on various threads. I searched and found a comment that Maria made on one of them, where she quoted LRH on this subject. That quote expresses my viewpoint, not because LRH said it but because I have found out the hard way (and I’m still learning better) that it does work to take the attitude and viewpoint that he describes. Here’s her post:

              Auditor PLUS Preclear is greater than the reactive bank.

              Auditor = one who listens (without invalidation and without evaluation.)

              “It has been discovered that the two most important aspects of the code are the preservation of the preclear’s sense of reality and the trustworthiness of the auditor.”

              “Any two people in constant association who will conduct themselves according to the auditor’s code will soon find not only that they are clear or almost as a group of two but also that their knowledge of, and joy in human relationships has been immeasurably increased.”

              “Any breach of Auditor’s Code is serious, but invalidation of preclear’s data is the most serious.”

              Quotes from Notes on the Lectures


  37. My epiphany on the OP is that I blog to change and not to preserve the status quo ante bellum. Filtering my considerations through these discussions on the net is dialysis for my mind.

Have your say

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s