OT 8

My main philosophical realization in life is that I am ultimately responsible for all my experiences.

It is one thing to realize this and another to live it. I got to live that realization after I completed the spiritual level called OT 8 in Scientology.

I will relate here how I came to that conclusion in life by first taking you through a quick overview of the levels of Scientology as taught by L. Ron Hubbard. Then I will give my own understanding of these spiritual levels and why they gave me great personal gains. My understanding of why they work is quite different from reasons given in Scientology.

Bridge - photo by Anette

The spiritual levels of Scientology are lined up one after the other on what is termed “The Bridge to Total Freedom”.

The lowest part of the Bridge comprises some fundamental introductory levels that starts with cleaning up the body through a vitamin and sauna regimen called the Purification Rundown. Then you start the mental and spiritual counseling through levels that seek to help you get more focused in present time, get rid of the mental after-effects of drugs, and improving your memory through exercises in recalling past moments.

Then you start the Grades; Grade 0 releases a person to become free on the subject of communication. Grade 1 releases a person on the subject of problems. Grade 2 cleans up bad conscience. Grade 3 tackles your past losses while Grade 4 rids you of fixed ideas that hampers your life.

When I had done the Grades, I felt really alive – light and unhindered in life.

After the grades, you get to tackle the Reactive Mind as delineated by Hubbard in the book that started it all – Dianetics. Past trauma are inspected to the point where such dramatic experiences no longer have power over you – leaving you at a state called “Clear”.

From the bottom of the Bridge up through Clear, you receive counseling (called “auditing” in Scientology) by a trained counselor (auditor). After the state of Clear, you embark upon a set of three levels where you do the auditing by yourself – solo auditing. You get prepared and trained to start on the first of the OT levels. OT stands for “Operating Thetan” – it is where the Thetan (the spirit, the individual, the core of self) learns how to operate as a spiritual being. The goal as laid out by LRH is a being that can operate freely, independent of a body and with full spiritual powers.

On OT 1 you learn that you are able to positively affect others at a distance by cleaning up issues others have with you.

On OT 2 you run out “mental charge” (issues, tension) that you have on a large set of dichotomies such as “I should create – I shouldn’t create” or “I do remember – I don’t remember”. You run out any charge on these until any such mental tension is flat or gone.

Then you start on the (in)famous OT 3. Each of the OT levels 1-3 have two parts – one theory part where you learn the background and procedures, and the other part where you do the procedures as solo auditing. The OT 3 theory is the most ridiculed part of the Scientology teachings. This is where LRH tells the story of 75 million years ago when the galactic overlord “Xenu” gathered billions of people from overpopulated planets, shipping them to earth and blowing them up with nuclear bombs in volcanoes. Then the spirits of these poor people were “implanted” (brainwashed) with images and dichotomies and mental issues. Most became so degraded that they could no longer operate a body and instead sticking to other beings that were capable of running bodies. These degraded beings, called “body thetans” by Hubbard thusly infest every person on earth today. That includes you – until you have completed OT 7 where you rid yourself of the last infesting body thetan. It is not a new concept that people are possessed by lesser spirits, and are in need of exorcism techniques in order to become clean.

Originally LRH thought that completing OT 3 would leave a person free of lesser entities (body thetans). Before the early 80’s those who had completed OT 3 would go on to the old OT levels 4-7 where they would start practicing spiritual abilities such as telepathy and exteriorization (the spirit going outside the body). But Hubbard got the realization that OT 3 was not the end-all of infesting entities. Many were so dormant and hard to contact that they needed other techniques in order to wake them up and make them free to fly off and take on a body of their own (if they so wish). The old OT levels simply vanished from the Bridge without any explanation.

On OT 4 you wake up and run out/off body thetans that are dormant and buried under old effects of drugs.

On OT 5 you get to learn a whole new technique where you contact the most dormant of beings, wake them up, ask “What are you?” until they give you the answer to “what” they are being (can be anything from “an arm” or “an idea” to “the Sun” or “a shy being”). Then you ask them “Who are you?” until they get the epiphany that they are themselves (answering “me” to the question).

OT 4 and 5 are not run solo. You are given these two levels in a session with an auditor running the processes on you and you run them on each being that you contact.

On OT 6 you learn how to do the OT 5 techniques solo so you can run out the remaining body thetans yourself in solo sessions. Hubbard teaches that a Clear can still get mental issues – but these issues are served him by body thetans that themselves are not Clear.

Most people spend a few years with 4-6 solo auditing sessions every day to exorcise the remaining spirits attached to them. When there are no more to be found, you are given a thorough check to verify that you are indeed complete, and you are allowed to attest as an OT 7 completion. Then you are off to the Caribbean to do OT 8 on board the Scientology ship Freewinds.

OT 8 is the highest spiritual level delivered in the Church of Scientology. There are rumored to be more OT levels above, but that remains speculation.

OT 8 is a short level, usually taking about a week to complete. In the theory part you learn that many of your memories of past lives that has come up in earlier auditing sessions are in fact not your memories. Most are memories served to you by body thetans having had those experiences. On OT 8 you do an auditing procedure that let you sift out which past life memories are yours and which are from other beings. The end result is that you learn who you have not been and that you are ready to learn who you have been (presumably on the next level or so).

There you have it – a quick introduction to the Scientology Bridge to Total Freedom as taught by L. Ron Hubbard.

My own view is this:

The lower Bridge up to Clear runs nicely and for the reasons Hubbard gives. When one is Clear, one stops creating, in present time, past trauma. By not continually creating such mental issues, you are no longer the adverse effect of those dramatic experiences.

OT 1 runs as taught and for the reasons given in the theory. OT 2 resolves a person’s hang-ups on dichotomies in life. I do not care if the theory behind it about past life implants are correct or not. What I know is that I became very relaxed about contending thoughts and ideas in life.

I do not believe the OT 3 theory to be correct, or that one is in fact running out separate beings (body thetans) on OT 3-7. I believe what you run out is your own past viewpoints that you no longer take responsibility for. I believe that everyone have old viewpoints or roles that one is in present time distancing oneself from. By continually creating those viewpoints and separating them from oneself, one becomes less whole as a being. The solution is to take full responsibility for all one’s viewpoints and roles and retain those which serves one well in present time. When one asks the question “Who are you?” to such a viewpoint on OT 5-7, one is seeking to realize that the viewpoint is in fact oneself – hence one answers “me” to the question. It is not a “me” from another person that answers the question, it is one’s own realization that the viewpoint is “me”. One’s old viewpoints comes under one’s own control and responsibility.

That one is not running out and blowing off thousands of separate beings solves the conundrum that there are no verified records of any body thetans having shown up later in a body and continuing his spiritual journey in Scientology.

What puzzled me for a while was how OT 8 could fit into the picture. Running OT 3-7 gave me huge personal gains. OT 8 gave me the biggest gains of all, so what was one actually doing on that level if there were no separate beings being run on the previous levels?

That mystery was solved with a bang one day when I sat in a restaurant with Anette discussing the death of her father. I suddenly realized what happened on OT 8; I was detaching myself from my past. I was no longer creating my past in present time. It wasn’t that most of my past was someone else’s – it was that none of my past memories are me here and now. I am no longer defined by my past. I am me and only me, taking full responsibility for my creations and my experiences. No blame, shame or regret.

In closing I would like to add that I believe all of this is placebo at a fundamental level, and that Alan Watts was right when he said that you should simply “get off it”. I believe any path that a person could trust to help him become fully responsible, is a valid one – be it Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, Islam, atheism, quantum physics, Christianity or worshiping your old cheese. I further believe that the best placebo is the one that most people would trust as effective – and I believe that to be a simple procedure that asks the person to inspect what he is creating here in present time – to spot it and to take full responsibility for that creation.

UPDATE: OT 8 – follow-up

562 thoughts on “OT 8

    1. Hi Vin,
      I can relate to it much better now that you write observations instead of propositions.
      As for “the ultimate responsibility lies in removing all inconsistencies in oneself and in one’s vicinity” is true for me at a level of consciousness when one still considers oneself separate (the illusion of the I is there) that is divided. So one chooses this or that “method”, may it be a non-method, that is pure looking-non action. So one gets to be seemingly more responsible. At a deeper level, when one is in a non-divided “state”, one sees that Responsibility is a co-creation of all, the ONE SELF. The Ultimate Triangle (Geir’s). At an even deeper level even the concept of responsibility is gone. It’s just THAT. Consciousness. I am not saying that I live it full. It’s big glimpses of it by living with the Flow. What if it is forever consistent and complete at a level deeper than the mind?

      1. How agree with you am I! So very thanks to “re-stimulate” these data in the “us” “I am” as set of our viewpoints” 😉 Very Much Love.

    2. Could you please describe more specificaly the strategies, methods and patterns that you use in order to remove these inconsistences?

    3. Hi Vinaire. I would like to know what has been your greatest realization yet if you are willing to share it. I like the great realizations of any being very much and it really interests me! Thank you very much. 😉

  1. Here are my arguments leading to an understanding of SELF. It is knowledge itself that is incorporated as self. See THIRTY-NINE below.

    .

    OBSERVATIONS:

    ONE: There is looking and perceiving.

    TWO: There is something to be looked at and perceived.

    THREE: Thus there is manifestation and perception.

    FOUR: Physics is a study of manifestation.

    FIVE: Metaphysics is a study of perception.

    .

    PERCEPTION:

    SIX: All perception is thought to involve a “perception point”.

    SEVEN: Thus there is the consideration of SELF.

    EIGHT: All perception is thought to involve separation from manifestation.

    NINE: Thus there is the consideration of SPACE.

    TEN: Perception involves the prime considerations of SELF, SPACE and MANIFESTATION.

    .

    EXISTENCE:

    ELEVEN: Self, space and manifestations are thought to be present.

    TWELVE: Thus, there is the consideration of EXISTENCE.

    THIRTEEN: Existence is thought to be persisting even when changing continually.

    FOURTEEN: Here we meet Aristotle (384-322 BC).

    FIFTEEN: All these considerations are consistent with what we perceive.

    .

    CRITERION OF INVESTIGATION:

    SIXTEEN: Aristotle called the subjects of metaphysics “first philosophy”. He called the study of nature, or physics, “second philosophy”. This is consistent with the fact that study of manifestation is intrinsic to the study of perception.

    SEVENTEEN: The implication from Aristotle is that the primary task of philosophy is to search for first principles. Aristotle seems to describe the first principle as “the first basis from which a thing is known.”

    EIGHTEEN: By definition, a first principle would be a basic, foundational proposition or assumption that cannot be deduced from any other proposition or assumption.

    NINETEEN: In this investigation we start with the first principle of PERCEPTION. It is something that is universally there. It spurs thinking and further looking.

    TWENTY: Hence the criterion used in this investigation would be the determination of those thoughts and observations that are consistent with perception. These things can be found when actually looked for.

    .

    FIRST CAUSE:

    TWENTY-ONE: We cut a tree; it falls. We strike a match; it lights up. Thus, we have a phenomenon that is a direct consequence of another phenomenon. This makes us believe that all phenomena are caused. We, thus, assume that a manifestation must be a consequence of another manifestation. This belief leads to an infinite causal series.

    TWENTY-TWO: To resolve this inconsistency, we assume a First Cause that is not itself caused. But this makes the First Cause different from the way all other causes are understood. It allows the possibility that a manifestation may simply appear.

    TWENTY-THREE: All manifestations simply appear as we perceive them. They disappear as we stop perceiving them. Thus, we may consider “First Cause” to be the property of all manifestations.

    TWENTY-FOUR: The notions of CAUSE and EFFECT seem to indicate an association between two manifestations, which otherwise simply appear and disappear as we perceive or not perceive them.

    TWENTY-FIVE: Hence, consistency with perception tells us that “First Cause” is a property that applies to all manifestations. On the other hand, “cause and effect” is a special sequence observed between two manifestations.

    .

    GOD:

    TWENTY-SIX: When God is viewed as a Being with the properties of holiness, justice, sovereignty, omnipotence, omniscience, benevolence, omnipresence, and immortality it qualifies as a manifestation. The property of “First Cause” applies to God just as it applies to any other manifestation.

    TWENTY-SEVEN: The implication of Gödel’s incompleteness theorems is that no system can be described completely by using an aspect of that system for reference.

    TWENTY-EIGHT: Therefore, God, viewed as a manifestation, cannot completely describe the presence of all other manifestations

    TWENTY-NINE: Thus, God must be something that is beyond manifestation.

    THIRTY: God is THAT, which cannot be imagined and/or perceived.

    .

    KNOWLEDGE:

    THIRTY-ONE: Knowledge comes from the recognition of “first cause” characteristics of manifestations.

    THIRTY-TWO: Further knowledge comes from understanding of “cause and effect” relationships among manifestations.

    THIRTY-THREE: All knowledge is relative to perception. There is no absolute knowledge in itself.

    THIRTY-FOUR: Unknown generates desire to know. Desire to know generates perception.

    THIRTY-FIVE: All knowledge is derived from perception.

    .

    SELF:

    THIRTY-SIX: Perception starts with a desire to know. Almost immediately it becomes experience.

    THIRTY-SEVEN: Over time, experience is converted into information. Information then leads to hypothesis. Hypothesis generates theory. From theory are derived principles. Principles are consolidated into axioms. Axioms are then condensed and incorporated as self.

    THIRTY-EIGHT: Thus, the spectrum of knowledge consists of experience, information, hypotheses, theories, principles, axioms and finally self.

    THIRTY-NINE: Knowledge is incorporated as self.

    FORTY: Self is capable of consideration.

    .

    1. Vin,
      I like reading your works. Just a little reflection from here.

      ONE: is the ability/quality of the ONE (undivided) FLOW of life.

      TWO: the MIND enters….
      SIX: …..is thought to !!! yes, the perception point is the product of mind (illusion, no problem
      with illusions – it all depends on how “deep” one is willing to “surrender-stop creating/give
      up the illusion of individuality/ I / separate self.
      Thirty-six: yes, once the mind is there, it wants to know….great game of consciousness

      In “my reading” if INDIVIDUALITY is made being aware of first is not a problem – I am not
      this/I am not that……I am…..then comes the question: What/Who am I ?

      Post your changing “observations”….thanks! And you can call me Marianne – or….!!! can you
      give me a nice female name from India? Would be pleased if you did that!

    2. God/Self is perceivable. Just because you can’t perceive something doesn’t mean it is non existent Vinaire.

      It is true that those branch nerves stemming from the plexuses in the spine that energize the five senses and perceive the limited data stored by the five senses in the mind/brain of a human being is incapable of perceiving the infinite. Just like a voltage detector cannot measure the volume of water, the human mind limited by sense data cannot detect spirit. It is the wrong tool.

      There are other powers given to the human being to detect the so-called invisible.

      It is in a passionate spiritual adventure with daily practice that yeilds directly perceived truths like God, the soul, consciousness etc.

      You can know.

      This has been my experience.

      1. There seems to be two different levels of knowledge:

        (1) A level of knowledge before SELF comes into being.

        (2) Another level of knowledge, which is generated when SELF starts to react to the previous level of knowledge.

        Such a reaction may occur in chain resulting in ballooning of considerations. The only way to stop and reverse such ballooning of considerations would be to look non-judgmentally and see what is actually there.

        Then one is no longer reacting to what is there. Instead one is now continually realizing what is there. This starts to deflate the ballooning considerations. In other words, the ego, or self, gradually starts to dissolve.

        One can never predict where this process might lead to. 🙂

        1. Vinaire, how does the Self come into being? And how do you define Self?

          Concise would be nice.

          Let’s both of us assume that the other has at least a basic understanding of various practices, paths and doctrines from sundry sadhanas and there is no need to burden each other with too many words.

          How do you define Self? And how does a Self come into being?

          1. Here you go:

            SELF:

            [All perception ends as knowledge. Knowledge has many layers, such as, experience, information, hypotheses, theories, principles and axioms. Considerations arise as the perception point interacts with knowledge. As considerations become fixed, the perception point becomes a “center of consideration” analogous to the concept of “center of mass” in Physics. This is SELF.]

            THIRTY-SIX: Perception starts with a desire to know. Almost immediately it becomes experience.

            THIRTY-SEVEN: Over time, experience is converted into information. Information then leads to hypothesis. Hypothesis generates theory. From theory are derived principles. Principles are consolidated into axioms. Axioms are then condensed and incorporated as self.

            THIRTY-EIGHT: Thus, the spectrum of knowledge consists of experience, information, hypotheses, theories, principles, and axioms.

            THIRTY-NINE: Considerations arise as the perception point interacts with knowledge.

            FORTY: To the degree these considerations become fixed, the perception point becomes the “center of considerations” analogous to “center of mass” in Physics. This “center of considerations” is SELF.

            .
            The progression that leads to THIRTY-SIX above is given here:
            PHILOSOPHY PROJECT

            .

            1. So you are saying that the Self is a result of a process? The result of a cognitive functioning?

            2. Vin,
              “Considerations arise as the perception point interacts with knowledge”. True in my reality too.
              But what happens, in your reality, when there is no more a “consideration” of “point”? What are its consequences?

            3. Marianne, you asked,

              But what happens, in your reality, when there is no more a “consideration” of “point”? What are its consequences?

              All I get is this:

              PERCEPTION:

              [It is PERCEPTION that gives rise to the ideas of SELF, SPACE and all the MANIFESTATIONS around us. Our perception is the starting point of it all. Later we would be investigating what perception is. But first I want to establish the starting point of this investigation.]

              SIX: All perception is thought to involve a “perception point”.

              SEVEN: Thus there is the consideration of SELF.

              EIGHT: All perception is thought to involve separation from manifestation.

              NINE: Thus there is the consideration of SPACE.

              TEN: Perception primarily involves the considerations of SELF, SPACE and MANIFESTATION.

              I can only conjecture what happens when there is no more a “consideration” of “point”? What are its consequences? You may conjecture it too.

              I am simply writing here what is consistent with perception.

              .

            4. Vin,
              Right you are in Perception! My reality too.
              What is “happening” when there is no “point” ? I am describing it here……
              One is fluid……this fuid is flowing…..it is perceiving while flowing…..it is flowing through what it is perceiving (could be any kind of particle on the way perceived as it is being created without having any creation point.)…on its way the flow perceives “another one” still holding onto a “point”…..the flow flows through it too…..finally there is no-thing/no view point/….not even the flow any more……pure…….no word for that……its Truth can be verified when the “other one”, identifying again with the viewpoint “looking back” describes what “happened”….that’s my reality of it now….

            5. My conjecture is that manifestation and perception are two sides of the same coin. One side exists only because of the other side.

              Desire to “objectively” perceive creates the perception-point and the space between the perception-point and what is to be perceived.

              Now reverse this process to understand what you earlier asked.

              .

            6. Vin,
              I reversed….it’s not conjecture…..it’s perception….just instantly……it’s ONENESS !

            7. Very goof, Marrianne. Here is what i have:

              CRITERION OF INVESTIGATION:

              [It is important to establish the first principle from the outset. It then acts as the criterion for rest of the investigation. Here we are using PERCEPTION as the first principle and the criterion. One may figure-figure whatever one wants, but unless it is there to be perceived, it would not meet the criterion of this investigation.]

              SIXTEEN: Aristotle called the subjects of metaphysics “first philosophy”. He called the study of nature, or physics, “second philosophy”. This is consistent with the fact that study of manifestation (second philosophy) is intrinsic to the study of perception (first philosophy).

              SEVENTEEN: The implication from Aristotle is that the primary task of philosophy is to search for first principles. Aristotle seems to describe the first principle as “the first basis from which a thing is known.”

              EIGHTEEN: By definition, a first principle would be a basic, foundational proposition or assumption that cannot be deduced from any other proposition or assumption.

              NINETEEN: In this investigation we start with the first principle of PERCEPTION OF MANIFESTATION. It is something that is universally there. It spurs thinking and further looking.

              TWENTY: Hence the criterion used in this investigation would be the determination of those thoughts and observations that are consistent with ‘PERCEPTION OF MANIFESTATION’. These things can be found when actually looked for.

              .

  2. It depends on the definion of ‘experiences’.

    Clearly: we are embedded in a social network over which we have little control: parents die, children become sick …

    However, the way we interpret experiences is subjective.

    Even there, though, personal pain etc may distort perception and interpretation.

    I’m afraid I disagree.

      1. Best joke: PARALLEL UNIVERSES!!!! And unique? Hell no!
        We have played many games since we are very creative spirits and we have unbelievable knowledge and by have had all that we had adventures and lots of fun!
        Our creativity is boundless as the Universe itself since we created the Universe: whatever you see, whatever you feel and experience that is your creation.
        Just look around on this little Planet… millions of things you recognize you know you understand and that is only a fraction of what one knows because the rest of one’s knowledge is pretended that is not there and “forgotten” don’t exist one do not know, and also labeled that knowledge that information has happened is in the “past”. —–With that consideration, use of that belief one puts knowledge out of reach and pretends ignorance…helplessness etc..
        Denial ones knowledge with that one fakes and say: admit stupidity, ignorance, and that way one gives up responsibility for ones very universe, and also gives up the power of his ability to create…
        We are incredible inventive imaginative artistic resourceful which one only can understand when one starts to explore ones very own universe in sessions… by recalling confronting what one created.
        In my reality and by now I have very good grasp on the understanding the MEST Universe and the Spiritual Universe I know there is nothing out there or in here of which was done by others to us without our agreement… Things exist because we put it there.
        HEHEHE…Here is the joke… some scientologist believe in a WONDER of Parallel Universes…. They think it is incredible mind boggling, rare, unusual, exceptional and because they have recalled it in session they are them-self are the same, have a unusual case, important very different BANK… that their bank is exceptional need different handling and it is so different that the auditing tech is not good enough.
        But this people never went further, never explores the reason ‘’why’s the reasons there are ‘’two parallel universes’’ running at the same time can be viewed at the same time and experienced at the same time and these scientologist want to believe that is important to have such a case…BLOODY HELL by NOT THINKING by NOT EXPLORING FURTHER keeps one stuck trapped imprisoned locked in that same incident and they are FIXED INTO THAT BELIEF!
        PARALLEL UNIVERSES ARE NOTHING MORE THAT TWO IDENTTICAL IMPLANT STATIONS WERE RUNNING the SAME MATERIAL AT THE SAME TIME AND OBSERVED: VIEWED WATCHED BY THE BEING: these persons were implanted with that belief that they are in two different universes at the same time….They only viewed same movies running in two different location: ILLUSIONS, even the two location is a illusion..
        Way back there implant stations all over the Universe: The Joke is Implant Stations were like here on this Earth the Seven elevens, BP gas stations, Safeway’s the Implant Stations were franchises here on EARTH : Burger King….hehehe
        SO what the person has recalled having a Parallel Universe is nothing more than double implants and they can be handled in session as any ordinary items since they are just that: ordinary item with no importance what so ever.
        There are many overlapping incidents one can discover in sessions, make one believing that one is in two different place at the same time I know that is confusing can be puzzling mystifying … but those incidents are just overlapping implant materials the person have experienced and recalling them now..

        PS: I have written about this Parallel Universes in Geir Isene’s blog and not one person responded, not one person acknowledged not one person could understand this view points and their implications: this explain the reality level.

        PS PS: I just received on email in this email the person said that he dont have such as the Parallel Universe -reality, because his Universe is the REAL UNIVERSE THE RIGHT UNIVERSE !!! hehehe…. very funny… the bank has spoken produced a nother lie!
        I wonder what makes him belive that his universe is solid…. the right one and therefore it is real not an illusion…..
        I would love to audit out his item his belief that lie he thinks is real….

          1. Thank you Marianne..by the way your english is great.. I dont have ability in that direction..Kati also speaks it well but I need to brush up on my hungarian since it is mostly forgotten..and that too is a consideration….hehehe…

            1. Hi Elizabeth! We’ve just read “hungarian” and don’t want to resist to the idea to tell you we get a great Affinity for our Hungarian viewpoints while on a “renovation project” for AOSH EU & AF at htis time! Just wanted to say We have really liked Us from there! And looks to Us We are very the same Nice Beingness in the Elizabeth Hamre set of our viewpoints. 🙂

  3. Dear Geir, It’s sad to see how you were sold a false bridge by Church of Scientology. Fact is, you can read this in NOTs Series Nr. 1, that NOTs was created as a REMEDY for people who had been audited on Dianetics after they went Clear.and purpose was to handle all misconceptions, misownerships and misidentifications between yourself and other beings, NOT to clear or blow any being in your universe. NOTs series nr. 1 I am referring to is the issue which was on the very first NOTs course I did on Flag in 1978. How it has been perverted later I do not know, but what you describe is a false bridge.

        1. Per… one judges others by their own values… judging –evaluating assessing a person how that person understand one singular subject and labeling that person saying that person is low tone that assessment only indicates shows how the assessor that judge-evaluator see others…that is their reality indication of their own tone level.
          Any value on any subject is only a consideration and those considerations are the bank it’ self from which that person evaluates calculates from….
          Values exist only in the bank-MEST Universe..

          1. Eliz, “one judges others by their own values” – yes. The root of the word “value” is “worth” and the root/first meaning of worth is TO
            BECOME. From this follows that there is an identification with what one is creating in the very “instant” of creation and the person “views” everything from that identification since then on.
            Only when one HAS AS-IS-ED one’s own creation is one free of a value.
            Interesting word is this “has” here…..it’s “havingness” and -ed is past (solid, fixed). That is one, by as-is-ing, has less MEST which means more “reaching out” which means less solidity which means no-thingness which means infinity…

      1. So, what is your “true” Bridge? I mean, do you think that somewhere someone here deliver “a true one”? What do you think of Ron’s Org Bridge? or has a true Bridge existed in your viewpoints? Any could fit? unless as we know, infinite-RESPONSIBILITY is fully taken? … as it looks to me you tends to state.

  4. Once again Geir, you make sense of the seemingly insensible. Thanks for these insights. Although I have critical viewpoint of these beliefs and practices, this gives me the means to understand why some people consider it helpful.

  5. Nice summary.

    Personally I think more can be said about “bts” from a framework of jungian symbolism. But, however they may be categorized or be imagined to exist, I fully agree that the effect which is apparently produced from “bts” is one which is a result of self-creation. And that is not to say it is without meaning or sense.

  6. Thanks Geir, great post and video of Alan Watts.

    I particularly like your brief straight to the point summation of the scientology Bridge. While Alan’s message to just “get off it” may be be ultimately true, it is simply out gradient for most people, don’t you think? That’s why you have posted this AFTER going up the Bridge, not BEFORE going up the Bridge, isn’t it? If you had been able to simply “get off it” before doing the Bridge, wouldn’t you have done so already years ago? I think in the beginning, a Bridge is needed for most people, and today most people don’t even know there is a Bridge.

    So it’s kind of a case of, “That’s easy for you to say”…….

    It seems LRH had a similar message,as the Alan Watts quote in the video.

    “Now, where, wherever—wherever man—wherever man finds himself deeply instilled and engrossed and surrounded with mystery, he is actually in conflict with himself, and himself alone. That is why processing works.

    “THE ONLY ABERRATION IS DENIAL OF SELF.”

    “Nobody else can do anything to you but you. That’s a horrible state of affairs. You can do something to you, but it requires your postulate, your agreement or your disagreement before anything could happen to you.

    “People have to agree to be ill. They have to agree to be stupid. They have to agree to be in mystery. And actually, early on the track did agree to being hornswoggled.”

    — L. Ron Hubbard
    *Hornswoggled: cheated or tricked.

    Excerpted from the lecture Survive & Succumb, delivered on 5 July 1959. This lecture can be found in the Theta Clear Congress.

    Buddha is reported to have said virtually the same thing, that all one is is the result of what one has thought and one is entrapped and then set free by one’s own self.

    I’ve seen references to there having been 4 or 5 different versions of OT VIII delivered by the CoS since the 1980s, and that some of these were very truncated versions which delivered as little as half the level, which is apparently what has led to many so-called “OT VIII completions” having extreme problems in life such as illness, accidents and even deaths.

    Do you know which version you received, vis-a-vis LRH’s original unexpurgated version?

    I think this might be useful information for some of your readers.

    1. It is easy for me to say 🙂

      … that is why I validate any and all paths that work for any individual.

      I got the current CoS version of OT 8 – which is the half part that LRH created after he researched NOTs. The other half he created in 1968 and entirely something else. But as with the old OT levels, the old OT 8 is also gone from the delivery lineup in the church.

      As for people getting into trouble after OT 8 or wherever; I believe people get into trouble because they think they should get into trouble.

      1. That’s one possibilty; another is they get into trouble because they trust what they are told they are getting, but instead receive only part of it or even something else entirely, which fails to put them into good shape. The goods are not delivered and the person could even be put in worse shape instead of better.

        In the CoS, I think a large factor may be a failure to deliver the prerequisites. If a person has received quickie Grades or has failed to achieve the full EPs of actions leading up to OT VIII, s/he is at greater risk of “getting into trouble”, even if the OT levels are delivered correctly and fully, they may be outgradient for that person.

        This is the responsibilty of the C/Ses primarily, isn’t it? To say they get in trouble because they think they should get in trouble strikes me as “blaming the victim”. If a person was fully pan-determined, s/he wouldn’t be there getting the auditing in the first place – wouldn’t need it.

        And the other factor I see could be a lack of training. If a person trained up the Bridge, he would be more pan-determined right there and more likely to be able to spot any outness in his progress up. I think that’s why LRH pushed training and co-auditing over just being a public pc/pre-OT.

        1. Valkov,
          My experience of it… one IS responsible for CREATING one’s viewpoint and what one is
          CREATING with it all along….as long as one CONSIDERS oneself in a divided state…it can happen so that one is creating the victim with it to such an extent that it finally
          blows the whole mind and one is in present time….it happens in life when one is in a fatal illness
          and recovers in a short time….the viewpoint is invisible…even the creations may not register as
          charge….I agree with Geir…the person has a consideration that s/he should get into trouble….with the viewpoint (I) gone, one sees that even this should is/has been part of a “bigger” picture…of a bigger “game of life”….

      2. G wrote:

        As for people getting into trouble after OT 8 or wherever; I believe people get into trouble because they think they should get into trouble.”

        It’s great to take total responsibility, but you should remember that there are four flows, not just one.

        Don’t overlook the fact that, as a Scientologist, Hubbard tells you when you should “get into trouble”, too. If your auditor is late, or does not show up for a session, or any other Auditor’s Code break, this is an opportunity for you “get into trouble”. If you have an “out-list”, or any of the other things suggested on a CS53, or any other correction list, these are other triggers for you to “get into trouble”.

        Once you accept that you have a reactive mind, or any kind of “case”, as described by LRH, you then become subject (as in “the effect of”) all the suggestions he laid in along with it.

        People will dramatize Hubbard’s hypnotic suggestions in Scientology. That’s why he created the subject and recruited members for it in the first place.

        Alanzo

      3. Geir
        ” I think people get into trouble because they think they should get into trouble.” I have been recalling this sentence of yours many times. I think this is one of the deepest truths.
        I have my own understanding of it based on experience and I am interested in yours.

        Will you explain it what some reasons or the source could be behind that “should” ?

        1. Marianne, didn’t LRH say the same?

          AXIOM 39. LIFE POSES PROBLEMS FOR ITS OWN SOLUTION.

  7. Geir, after having read your postings and blogs for a couple years now, this is the first time that I have fully duplicated you. Thank you so very, very much for your outline of the Bridge. A more concise and comprehensible rendition I have never come across. You have certainly given me the stable data to use in my approach towards OT 8. Thank you so much.

  8. The perspective of the bridge that I gained as an auditor was that the real purpose of the different auditing levels was to bring to being to a point of cause over the audited aspect of the bank. Take objectives. The purpose of objectives is to get the pc to a point where he knows he can control pictures and execute an auditing command despite the command value his bank may be exerting on him. This simply is necessary to allow auditing to occur. Then we have the grades. On completion of the grades the pc will not be the effect of this LT communication difficulties, problems, transgressions, losses and fixed ideas. The desired outcome is for the pc to gain a level of understanding so that the pc is at cause when faced with future this-life situations that would have previously driven him downtone and interfered with auditing at higher levels. At the level of cause gained from the grades he sees the charge as it is and it does not get added to his bank.

    Engram auditing has a similar desired outcome: the pc is at cause over his engram bank and does not restimulate from it.

    Although I did not audit on the processes of the OT levels, I left the church as a trained and validated Clear. Years later when my OT case started to give me trouble, I thought it was – as you’ve said, Geir – just my own uninspected engrams, valences or case. I took responsibility for it and blew the charges by inspection. I blew many hundreds of these before I found out I was dealing with what was being called the entity case.

    I would much rather have it be that this stuff was just my own old valences. If it was I’d be comfortable continuing to dismantle it the way I had been for some years i.e., spot it and as is it on an as-needed basis. I feel that I am fully at cause of that ability and that segment of my case.

    I can, however, also see the distinct possibility that we are dealing with beings in this entity case and, as such, we have an extra level of responsibility. The idea that one of these beings could be “cleared” by the two step process of “What are you?” “Who are you?” just did not make any sense to me. Here we have beings that are so degraded that they think they are a body part or that they have to run a body part. They’re largely unconscious and are depending on the pc for sensory input – such as it is. I could not see the OT processes doing more than clearing these entities off the body any more differently than you’d clear garbage off a floor. They may be cleared of being a zorch but were they being made “Clear”? Knowing what it takes to audit a pc up to Clear, I’m pretty sure the entities have got even further to go and it wouldn’t suprise me that most of the entities that OT auditing release from the preOT simply go and accrue to another person. That would be one major reason why we haven’t seen or heard of anyone claiming to have been an entity previous to being the thetan at the helm of the current body.

    My own cognition in handling these entities was that I could be at cause over their continued existence around me: I could dispense with them as I spotted them or if they tried to influence me with their aberrations. When I learned more of their nature, that former method of handling began to seem cold and harsh. I wanted to do more for the entity than just toss it from my body. I wanted to take responsibility for these beings and find a way to bring them up to… – to what? That was the question and I had no answer.

    Discussing this matter with a friend led to a different viewpoint and strategy in handling the entity case. The viewpoint suggested to me was to grant these entities “becomingness”. This is very different from granting beingness. It’s more of the idea “I’ll fix you up once I find out how. In the mean time I’ll run the body and you’re welcome to fly standby.” (Who knows, maybe the humor of the mixed metaphors soothes them but that intention of taking responsibility for them in a non-destructive way made for a very calm space about me that continues to this day.)

    The upshot of this is that, again, it seems to be this matter of achieving a point of knowing cause over a level of the case that is as or more important than running it. It is certainly that way at all lower levels up to Clear. I see no reason that idea should not extrapolate to levels above Clear.

    An experience I had just a week ago has added some amount of confirmation to these ideas that: a) the entirety of the entity case does not have to be audited out, just a cause level over it attained, and b) it is very likely that a large amount of entities can be dealt with at once.

    What occurred was that while considering a mechanism of spacation I went exterior with a greater energy and serenity level than I have for many years. The high energy exteriorization – coupled with a developed ability to be in knowing telepathic communication with the entities – allowed an interesting handling of a bunch. From the exterior view I was aware of a number of entities around me and the perception was of having woken up something sleeping and it was slightly agitated. I was basically able to hold my position in space while holding them in their positions and I telepathed the thought to look around and view PT. I felt a much higher ARC for them than I ever have before. The entity fear and confusion (from being pulled up to PT) quickly blew off and very shortly a number left. The intention of the command was to get them to differentiate between what they were being and what was really there. In a sense it was a simple objective process. Two things I was aware of over the duration were that it was easy to hold them while they were enturbulated and also easy to release them when they felt disenturbulated.

    While the consequence of what I did may not be majorly different from the OT process (as some left of their own volition), the difference for me was I wasn’t kicking them out – and while hardly making them Clear they were at least able to detach. What was significant about this for me was that I was more certain of what to do in the situation and was able to leave the entities in better shape.

    The point I’m trying to make is that my experiences with this entity case leads me to differ from Geir: I would rather treat them with ARC as entities rather than as my own valences. That is not to say that one does not have one’s own valence case but I don’t think the entirety of the entity case can be dismissed as such. I don’t see that there is less personal responsibility taken in handling an entity than in considering it a valence. From my own perspective it felt like an overt to blow them off after I really became aware of what they were, and that was what I had to take responsibility for.

    As for the means and potentials of the exteriorization, those were also interesting and I hope to be able to present a posting on that in the near future.

    1. BTs are not Cleared via the What/Who questions – they are simply blown. But some are so hard to blow that they must be Cleared (or “OT’ed”) before they leave. This requires a specific procedure covered in the bulletin “Clearing BTs”. All this according to LRH.

      I believe those who run the OT levels would regain far more responsibility and power if they understood that they ran their own creations rather than “understanding” that they were Not fully responsible for this case. This may be why I see very few highly responsible OTs around. It may be why so many OTs are t effect in the Church and not taking responsibility for the demise of their own religion – walking the line as sheep.

      1. Hi Geir,
        First, I love scientology. It is a workable technology both by studying it and getting/giving auditing. And I love any practice/philosophy which leads to more wisdom.
        I find what you write about the “viewpoint(s) valid, as well as the Alan W. video. How come?
        Two “miraculous” things happened to me that alow me to say that. One was after an auditing cycle when out of the blue the “I am, I know, I perceive, I am responsible..” was born. With it a complete package of “wisdom” of what the Bridge is about. And a vision of all is right, inside-outside (it’s a consideration)…everybody is just doing his/job. So it was done. No more studying and auditing. But there was still the “I”. The second miraculous thing happened some three years later, while travelling on a bus abroad. Out of the blue again there was just a complete STOP. With it the “I” and a huge part of the collective Bank (cultural patterns) blew and evaporated. So, as Alan Watts says, there happened to be a “get off it”. It’s called: awakening from the dream state. LIFE awakens in the one – it’s a kind of Flow. There is still the body, the personality – but no more sense of “I am doing it, it will be as I want it to.” The Flow is like Free Will – operating for all. And yes, there is still some “garbage to be cleared” (hard to get over it at times especially when it comes to universal considerations). In this “state”, the Viewpoint, may it be where the body/personality is, can be created and uncreated, as well as most viewpoints of “others”. What makes it possible is the FLOW, the field of the game as you would say. Shortly this.
        Thanks for writing about your understanding. Hoping the three “camps” will come to an understanding of the Field. Our True Nature.

      2. I agree.
        What if……(can be thought matter for the mind or wisdom, if it is let sink deeper into the Heart)

        1.There is the ONE. It “divides” itself into two – two viewpoints. From then on the two viewpoints,
        given they have different positions, will view whatever there is differently and create it differently.
        So from then on the ONE and equally the two divided “ones” are responsible for what’s being created. When “one” has found that very first created viewpoint, one has taken responsibility for all one’s creations – that is one can say: I AM. I am creating from this viewpoint…..

        2.Given the complexity of the body (creation by many ones)
        What if the underlying substance of a body is really that pure energy of LOVE? “Second” ( ! – the one in a divided state) dynamics—love-creation-sex. “Looking back” one can see the “dance” of “bodies” OF pure energy…(tantric love)….here we have “solid” bodies.

        If we put together 1 and 2……..”entities” or “theta bodies” – and you ask the question ” Who/ What are you?” and you look at it and you get it’s ME, it is TRUE as the SUBSTANCE OF ME and THAT ENTITY/BODY is the same. ONE. (why healing works is for the same reason – another, the ” healer” sees the patient’s problem as-it-is that IS THETA). If the” I ” takes responsibility for that SAME SUBSTANCE (LOVE), the illusion of separateness “blows”

        This is what I see from here in present time going with the Flow…Thanks Geir for writing about the viewpoint stuff and others about the BT, entity stuff….

        1. Geir,
          The above was meant to agree with you Geir ( on viewpoint, BT, entity ), but it landed here.
          Waiting for you and others to comment on what I have written from their experience.

          1. Thanks. ONE means completeness/wholeness/undividedness/no-separatedness/the Consciousness/the Field/theZone/theViewpoint/theSource/thePerceiver….it’s not a number.

    2. 2ndxmr, this is a meaty and inspiring post.

      I guess it’s obvious that the crux of the matter is – whose perception is correct? Are the entities actual beings or simply, as Geir sees it, “viewpoints”, i.e. circuits, motivated masses, valences. I know an OT VII who, like you, is completely certain that they are actual beings. If that is the case, then the responsibility being taken, using your method of handling, would not just be for one’s own universe, but for the universes of those other beings. And that would seem to be an excellent exercise in responsibility level.

      Maybe both “perceptions” and methods of handling work equally well in freeing a being from the effects of entities – whatever they are. Geir disagrees that they are thetans but does say he got the expected gains when they were run as such. However, your method is obviously a streamlined way of handling and, as you pointed out, aligns better with other Bridge levels that have the goal of simply bringing the person up to being cause over that part of case.

      I’m really looking forward to your posting of the method you used that promises to get individuals up to that point – especially in view of the fact that it also gave you “greater energy and serenity level than I have for many years”! 🙂

      1. My change in viewpoint regarding the entity case paralleled the changes we have seen in cultures accepting other cultures and all too often seen as the cycle: non-acceptance of differences; individuation and dehumanization; justified atrocity; externally forced recognition; rehabilitation; acceptance.

        In just the past century we have seen multiple examples of culture “A” simply considering culture “B” to be a bunch of savage degenerates that really are so far below the human qualities of “A” that “A” is justified in committing genocidal acts against “B”.

        The first change of consideration that a more dominant “A” must take is to recognize that “B” isn’t just some subhuman that can be killed off at the whim of “A”, but that “B” must be granted the basic right of being considered human and must therefore be protected from genocidal attack not only from “A” but also from “C” and “D” who themselves may not recognize any humanistic quality of “B”.

        The fact that “B” is degraded and seemingly inferior to “A”, “C” and “D”, or that “B” can be a total PITA does not change the basic issue that “B” is also of human origin. It may mean that A, C and D have to be very aware of the nature of B and the tendency of B to act in ways that are anathema to A, C and D, and that A, C and D may have to guard themselves against attack from B, but beyond that ARC must be used to help civilize and educate B to the point where B can begin to functionally integrate with the others.

        Scientologists consider themselves at the forefront of understanding the nature of the being. We can accept that we each are a thetan trapped in a body and that we have a back-history full of pain and unconsciousness that we want to rid ourselves of. Some of us feel ourselves bettered by auditing and made more aware of our spiritual nature. In others we may see failed cases, antisocial personalities and degraded beings, but we still accept them amongst the ranks of thetans.

        If we can see that, why is it so hard not to be able to extrapolate spiritual condition downwards to where the spirit is left in this condition we call an entity?

        Should we consider the entity to be sub-spiritual, “better off dead” and dissolve it? If I considered an entity to be just a former valence of my own, that would be its fate.

        If we accept its basic nature as being a “being”, a part of the 7th dynamic, how do our responsibilities change? If we want our own rights as spiritual entities acknowledged and preserved, do we not owe those same rights to “lesser beings”? Can we get beyond the 7th dynamic if we don’t fully embrace it? I don’t think we can because at the point we come to realize we are capable of committing a 7th dynamic overt – capable of destroying theta in a physical sense – we also need to understand the consequence of that level of an overt act. To borrow from an apt line, “Along with great ability goes great responsibility.”

          1. Some of those “inconsistencies” act with a force that begs the question “Where the hell did that come from?” If the force is inconsistent with anything that should be related to this LT, what is it? An inconsistent inconsistency?

            Call them whatever you want, some you have to own and some you have to recognize as not your own.

            1. At the bottom of it all is the idea of SELF. Owning and not owning has to do with self. Entities has to do with some kind of self. Looking and thinking has to be done by some kind of self. Now you are attaching force to some kind of intention and self.

              What is self really? What is a THETAN really?

              Everything is BEing. But we think of SELF when we say ‘a being’. That is a special kind of BEing.

              What makes a BEing into a being? That is an unanswered question for most. Isn’t it?

              .

            1. V… see all the zeros you got from us? put them under your pillow tonight and you will sleep better, you might even dream that we having a wonderful dinner in Vancouver ….you own me one!

            2. I want to add to zeros given to Vin in a post somewhere from Eliz + 1000000000000000.
              I agree that he owes you a dinner.

        1. I would agree that it shouldn’t be hard “to extrapolate spiritual condition downwards to where the spirit is left in this condition we call an entity”.

          And you make a great case for the importance of knowing for sure whether the entities are actual beings. If they are, then it would have to be as you say – a matter of responsibility for the 7th dynamic, just the same as it is for the 3rd or 4th or other dynamics.

          For me, the likelihood that entities are beings relates to the auditing principles of as-isness and ownership. Things don’t as-is if they are not duplicated or if they are misowned – which makes it hard to reconcile all those NOTs pcs (the ones who are winning, like Geir was) misowning their own creations, session after session, and yet having the tremendous gains that they do. That’s the factor I’m looking at. Maybe you as a trained and experienced tech terminal can say something more about this.

          1. Misownership is only a real issue if there ever was any others that could own the charge. If it was only you creating the charge in the first place, you already have misowned it. Indicating another misownership only dampens the release of the charge, it doesn’t really harm you. It will not get you fully responsible, though. Which is what I believe we are seeing with the sheep OTs in the church.

            1. Geir: “Indicating another misownership only dampens the release of the charge…”

              Wouldn’t the “dampening” (i.e. diminishing) of the release of charge mean that the charge hasn’t been fully released, i.e. not fully as-ised and blown? And wouldn’t that BPC be harmful?

            2. No. The rule is any charge off the case is beneficial. Consider that the grades do not as-is all the charge. They merely release charge — its not all gone but it now has a lessened effect. The case is the total sum of by-passed charge. Life circumstances and conflicts and upsets itself bypasses charge and until it is entirely addressed i.e. the person assumes full responsibility for it, it will continue to be a factor. Peeling onions.

              For me, the cognition that Geir had occurred right after doing my grades — my life had become an unending series of cognitions — I was a very diligent student of life itself before, during and after and so I continued to inspect and blow all kinds of considerations just in my walk-a-day world. With or without Scientology I would have done this, I was well on my way when I met up with Scientology and understood very well about the placebo effect. I knew it was so and reading about considerations and mechanics was the number one selling point on Scientology for me. I just wasn`t very skilled at using it. I still get caught up in the nocebo effect from time to time — bad habits in social interactions die hard especially when one is very much involved with all kinds of people who have varying degrees of awareness about these effects. I had tremendous problems with C of S staff and public who seemed to have very little awareness of either placebo or nocebo effects and wanted me to use all kinds of mechanical methods to address my life so I would fit in or fall in with their plans and targets — but life didn`t work that way for me any more.

            3. Understood about any charge off case being beneficial. I wasn’t saying anything about not all charge being gotten off the case – that would probably be a Cleared Theta Clear, no track and no charge. I was looking at the effects of charge being BY-PASSED IN SESSION. And if it is being bypassed with every session, as it would be if misownership was constantly occurring, I would think that would create an escalating amount of BPC – which I imagine would be restimulated more and more with succeeding sessions.

              Btw, I too liked the aspect of mechanics being integral to Scientology. I realized that when I first read DMSMH as a new Comm Course student. And my appreciation for that has grown the more I learn about the energy aspects of the mind.

            4. No, it is simply a matter of validating who’s charge the pc believes it is – whether that item is true or not. It may be true for him at the time and he is not yet ready to take full responsibility for it. No harm in that, and the viewpoint is partially blown. I have, as many, rerun stuff on 3-7.

            5. I got a different understanding, based on what I’ve read about pc’s running Dianetics, for example. If they run an item as their own when it’s actually a BT’s item, they get into trouble and need repair sessions – although they believed it to be their own item. Per mentioned this in a comment at the beginning of this thread, and said that this was the reason NOTs was originally developed, and I’ve read that description of misownership in NOTs materials that are online.

            6. That would only be a real issue if there are any BTs in the first place. Otherwise, we are all misowning 99.99999999999999999% of our creations already (add a whole bunch of 9s there)

            7. But then what is being remedied where the pc crashes after running an item as his own, gets a review session, and it all gets as-ised and handled when the item is run not as his own but another’s?

            8. Some of the stuff may as-is while other stuff remains – same as with the mind – an engarm is as-is’ed while other stuff remains. Charge is not black/white and there are no defined units of charge – parts of engrams can as-is, parts of mind can as-is, parts of whatever can as-is. The mare as-is’ness, the more the person comes uptone and becomes more responsible. Very gradient. I believe there is a seamless gradient from the mind to the physical universe. A gradient scale of as-is’ness if you may.

            9. Everything you just wrote seems quite plausible to me. Gradient scale of as-isness I can have. But I don’t see how that answers the question I just asked. Can you say be more specific to that?

            10. p.s. The end of the question should have read “… when the item is run not as his own but as a BT’s”.

            11. I think BT’s simply allow a gradient of confront. The person can confront that charge on a gradient by thinking that he is not responsible for it.

              .

            12. You really need another “think” about that. I find it is far easier for me to confront my own creations and deal with them than it is to consider unmocking others or the creations of others.

            13. I encourage you to look and think about what you say:
              Vin:”I think BT’s simply allow a gradient of confront.”
              Vin:”(1) I think that knowledge exists before self comes to be manifested.”

              I have no problem with you speculating. But you must be prepared to have your viewpoints questioned, especially when someone else’s observations (from looking, from experience) don’t match your “think”.

            14. I have stated my observations numerous times. In short, I have “observed” that charge can have location; I have “observed” that charge can be as-ised by a number of means, the simplest being to make a perfect duplicate of it; I have “observed” that it is possible to cause charge to move a distance away from the body. All these observations have come from personal experience and the application of the fundamental knowledge of Dianetics and Scientology.

            15. I find it interesting that the viewpoint that charge is easiest blown by creating a duplicate seems to be prevalent here, whereas the utmost fastest and safest way is to stop creating the charge itself. right here and now…

            16. One has to first understand the exact mechanism of creation of the charge in order to stop using it. That would be an Ability Gained. If the mechanism is on an automaticity that is uninspected and therefore as good as unknown to the person, possibly “uninspectable” through whatever occlussion exists in the bank, then knowledge and processing might be the real requirement to “just get off it”.

            17. I understand your viewpoint. To me “Bank” is no “why” for anything compared with the fact that I am creating it myself.. The real “why” is ME… !! Uninspectable, unknown are equally wrong why’s… or justifications.. The one not inspecting is ME… Occlusions are put there by ME.. Therefore the fastest is to stop doing these things, you could even say: “Stop being me” if you like that better… be my guest.. I will know you anyway.. and myself too, not being me – you see what I mean? There is one handling in Bills materials: “Return to the moment of creation”!! This actually works very well…
              Everlove,
              Per

            18. I understand that concept from the point of view of charge one is creating in present time that is most closely connected with a PT issue. That charge can be undone by ceasing to create it. Anything that is possible to inspect and recognize can be handled that way. However, I’ll submit that if you had that whole mechanism fully under control and that applied to your whole track, you would be a full OT incapable of being anywhere near a body without converting it and any others in the vicinity to cinders any time you had something on the equivalent of a theta sneeze.

            19. “…you would be a full OT incapable of …..”

              THIS does not compute in my universe..
              “A full OT would be able to…” computes..

              Everlove
              Per

            20. I think that the idea of somebody is creating the charge is superfluous. It doesn’t matter who is creating the charge. One simply looks closer and closer until it dissolves.

              .

            21. We could say the charge goes away; or we could say our perception of dissonance goes away as we see more clearly what is there. To-ma-toe/To-mah-to.

            22. Yes. The point is, “Is anybody creating the charge, or the charge is simply there?”

              What is this thing called self, which is supposed to be creating the charge? Is self part of the charge itself?

              .

              .

            23. Well of course, except if I look and look at one of your charges and you decide to keep it, I guess it will stay there, otherwise you would have no power or be gone.. otherwise the charge should be there un-created….

            24. Per, the question is what is “I” and “you”? Thinking in these terms indicates a fixation on ‘self’. That fixation itself is charge.

              .

            25. I and you and me I see as viewpoints.
              Yhe next question is: what is fixation and attention?
              Fixation is charged, yes; attention doesn’t have to be…

            26. Regardless of how you see “I”, “you” and “me”, it is using ‘self’ as a reference point in these terms at every occasion, which seems to be a fixation. Do we need to keep using this reference point of ‘self’ all the time?

              ..

            27. What you seem to be disagreeing with is about my idea about self. I think that self itself is constituted of charge.

              .

            28. Rafael, Good and bad doesn’t apply because these are considerations generated by the self. Charge itself means some sort of tension or stress due to deviation from more natural state.

              The more natural state seems to be a perception-point that is not fixed at all, but which is completely fluid. Any ideas that are consistent seem to contribute to the generation of self by fixing the perception-point to some degree. The accumulated result of such ideas and considerations (that are relatively fixed in space) would be self.

              Just close your eyes and see what is there. If there is any lingering concern, it is a sign of self.

              .

            29. Geir, I probably shouldn’t be trying to discuss the tech of it as I’m not that well qualified.That aside, it seems to me your theory begs the question as it starts out by assuming what it then concludes – that there are only one’s own creations and no BT’s. I guess you might say the same about LRH’s theory of BT’s. so I go back to what I said earlier – that the thing to resolve is whether or not thetans can be recognized and differentiated from mental creations. Do you believe they can?

            30. “As-is” may not mean what we were taught as Scientologists. Upon close inspection, the “mass” or “charge” of mental travail may not disappear at all. The travail dissipates, yes, but this is our “take” on; our “perception and evaluation” of what we see there.

              What seems more likely is that close inspection of disharmony in the mind affords the mind the opportunity to “tune” into that wavelength, adapt its perception of that wavelength, and view it more nearly as it is and enfold that perception into harmony with the mind. A new evaluation occurs, but the mental manifestation remains.

              The reason that I write this is that recent research finds it counterintuitive to think that there are perceptions in the mind in which we manifest disagreement; then after looking closely at and facing up to what is there that we manifest new considerations about what is there.

              At this point, I see no reason to think that the ballooning sphere of mental considerations is slowing its expansion.

            31. “What seems more likely is that close inspection of disharmony in the mind affords the mind the opportunity to “tune” into that wavelength, adapt its perception of that wavelength, and view it more nearly as it is and enfold that perception into harmony with the mind. A new evaluation occurs, but the mental manifestation remains.”

              An interesting evaluation of a mental mechanism I could recognize as confronting but it does not address the phenomenon of erasure which fully eliminates the wavelengths from the mind. The proof of that is that both the energy of the engram (pains, sensations, emotions and attitudes; PSEAs) and the pictures of the incident are no longer there to restimulate after erasure i.e. the mental manifestation must be gone. Certainly confronting is good and can diminish the charge (PSEAs) of an engramic incident but erasure is far more preferable.

              re: “The reason that I write this is that recent research finds it counterintuitive to think that there are perceptions in the mind in which we manifest disagreement; then after looking closely at and facing up to what is there that we manifest new considerations about what is there.”

              Looking closely at things we have an initial disagreement with is a means of gaining understanding of the issue. What’s counterintuitive about changing one’s mind once something is understood?

            32. 2nd x, I didn’t write that very well. I was trying to assert that there is something in the mind, one looks at it, then there is still something in the mind and to that we add more considerations to that. I didn’t write very well that I think that there is what we put in our minds. If we cease putting it there, then it is no longer there. This is what I say that you are calling “erasure.” Whatever part we choose to remember remains. Whatever additional consideration we choose to add to that previous information balloons the mind. All-in-all expanding mind, but because of our continual efforts to understand its content — more harmonic.

            33. Hi, Chris.
              What about the fact that the chronic tone arm position of the e-meter keeps going down in the course of auditing? That seems to me to be proof (objective proof) that mental mass is being discharged, dissipated or blown – not that the mind is ballooning

            34. Marilidi,
              1. Would you say that you know more or less now than when you began Scientology?
              2. What things are no longer in your mind now as compared to when you began Scientology?

            35. Chris,
              1, More.
              2. Not sure what you mean by “things” in my mind. The only “thing” that isn’t in my mind now as compared to when I began Scientology is the charge that got blown. All the data of the time track would still be there. That’s the only thing that keeps growing – the consecutive, moment-to-moment facsimiles of the track. The exchange was about erasure, however, and that refers to charge.

            36. Chris,
              Is there anything inconsistent within the scope of science? Considering the phenomena that manifest on the e-meter.

            37. Hey Marildi, I’m not sure I understand your question. I was just saying that you are correct – no problem with what you wrote within the scope of Scientology.

              Regarding the emeter: I acknowledge that physics of the body are affected by mental activity. The Wheatstone Bridge measures the body’s change in resistance measured in Ohm(s) corresponding with a mental change. You can call it a charge. I have no problem with that. I’m just asking you to take a look at the possibility that something else besides a “magical disappearance” might be taking place.

            38. Chris, I already got what you said, and I was just saying that no problem exists within the scope of science either since charge (i.e. energy) is measured as such by the e-meter.

              The question I too would have about the “magical disappearance” of charge is where it goes or what exactly happens to it. Apart from that, however, what we already know from the e-meter is that mental mass can and does increase and decrease. It increases when the pc puts attention on charged items – i.e. actual energy in the mind (which can be located by the e-meter) – and it decreases as a result of running a given process. Then, over a period of time in processing, the chronic amount of mass that exists decreases – demonstrated by a lower chronic TA position.

            39. M… the process is very simple in fact the mass do not Decreases that is on illusion, But for the very first time that picture that concept is confronted really really looked at…. For the first time the lies is being ignored, since it was this lie which the person till now believed in and thought it is real and it was the fact.
              But the person for the very first time is ignoring that top layer that lie and the person is willing to look at the truth…. And finding the truth and seeing that basic picture one voices the reality which is called the cognition.
              You see my dear, when we are willing to find the truth… we have to be willing to give up that lie than we can see the truth… but not before..
              To be able to do that one must want that change… without wanting that change nothing can happen in one’s life…
              We are the one who are responsible for our actions…
              So what are sessions? What is that? We go into session for very simple reasons: we want the change, we want to give up the lies, we finally willing to live with the reality…

            40. Chris and Elizabeth, you got me thinking about this whole subject again. Firstly, it would align with the theory of digital physical and the Scn Axioms that there exists an old-as-time, automatic theta machine that is continuously recreating (i.e. as-ising and alter-ising in order to create an is-ness) the universe every Planck second. As well, theta mirrors each passing moment, which is to say that each moment is impressed upon theta and those impressions are the energy pictures (facsimiles) of the time track.

              Thus, we have the continuous as-isness of a creation along with an alter-isness (a lie) to make it persist as an isness. Subsequently, whenever an as-isness of that creation occurs that includes no alter-isness, the result is an end to the is-ness.

              Restimulation occurs when thought or something in the environment adequately matches the energy waves of a particular facsimile (similar to a tuning fork). And, as above, if those facsimiles are viewed as-is – i.e. fully confronted with no alter-isness – their creation ceases.

              So Elizabeth, this is in agreement with your comment about lies and confronting. And Chris, this is my answer to your question to me about what happens to the blown charge. In brief, it is no longer being created.

            41. Hi, I been wondering when you show up… you got your computer?
              M…
              “Restimulation occurs when thought or something in the environment adequately matches the energy waves of a particular facsimile (similar to a tuning fork).”
              I like the above example… but you left out the causes of lies -alterations.. what is the illusion… what the implans causes…

            42. 2nd X, Regarding changing one’s mind: There is the first consideration, and when viewed fully, we may cease to have that consideration as part of the framework of ourselves; though we may remember what that old consideration was. net gain/loss of zero considerations. Then we decide to have a newer “better” consideration. Net gain/loss of considerations of +1. = Ballooning sphere of considerations = growing mind.

            43. Charge is tension. It is very difficult to predict all the twists and turns that go into making up the charge. There are considerations involved of individuality, self, other, entity, ownership, responsibility, and so on.

              All these things sort themselves out as mindfulness is applied to the charge. Please see my detailed post earlier on this thread about mindfulness.

              .

            44. Charge is bypassed only when mindfulness is not practiced in a session. One should simply look at what appears in response to an auditing question. If mindfulness is being practiced and still no answer appears to an auditing question, then most probably that question is not charged.

              The needle may not float in spite of there being no charge on the question asked. This would be the case when there is some other charge sitting there, which requires a different question to be asked. Thus, wrong question, or wrong C/Sing is very likely to create bypassed charge.

              It is very difficult to do precise C/Sing ahead of time. C/Sing can be done only in broad terms. Auditing skill is required in this area.

              .

            45. Any charge is tension like in a wound up spring. The very idea idea of “individuality” has tension of ownership, responsibility, etc. When one is no longer fixated on individuality the problems of ownership and responsibility take care of themselves. All that is really important is mindfulness.

              The real issue is “individuality”.

              .

            46. Charge goes all the way back to when the individuality came into being. So, the charge is not going to be eliminated by any one process in one go. Charge is peeled off like the layers of an onion. When one is talking about as-ising the charge, it is as-ising that portion of the charge that has become visible.

              Grades simply as-is that portion of the charge that has become visible during the running of the grades. There seems to be confusion between “as-is” and “release”. “Release” is simply the “as-ising” a layer of the charge (remember the onion!)

              .

            47. To Vin,

              “charge goes all the way back to where the individuality came into being”
              Yes. But WHERE did this individuality came into BEING? Isn’t it only a co-ncept/illusion in/of the mind?

            48. Marrianne, Individuality comes to being as SELF. How I see it is fully described in my post on the current thread here:

              https://isene.me/2012/12/10/ot-8/#comment-25043

              Here is the relevant excerpt:

              SELF:

              THIRTY-SIX: Perception starts with a desire to know. Almost immediately it becomes experience.

              THIRTY-SEVEN: Over time, experience is converted into information. Information then leads to hypothesis. Hypothesis generates theory. From theory are derived principles. Principles are consolidated into axioms. Axioms are then condensed and incorporated as self.

              THIRTY-EIGHT: Thus, the spectrum of knowledge consists of experience, information, hypotheses, theories, principles, axioms and finally self.

              THIRTY-NINE: Knowledge is incorporated as self.

              FORTY: Self is capable of consideration.

              .

              The mind comes after self has come into being. In fact SELF is the beginning of the mind.

              .

          2. I feel like I’m in a classroom waving my hand at the teacher — me, me, me, pick me! Perhaps this article has some of the answer to do with the emeter, if nothing else, its a truly fascinating article with new research on the properties of cells in the body.
            http:// http://www.technologyreview.com/ news/ 409171/ lightning-bolts-within-cells/

            “Using novel voltage-sensitive nanoparticles, researchers have found electric fields inside cells as strong as those produced in lightning bolts. Previously, it has only been possible to measure electric fields across cell membranes, not within the main bulk of cells. It’s not clear what causes these strong fields or what they might mean. ”

            (take the spaces out or the link won’t work)

            1. + 8 was meant for electric fields and lightning (to Maria’s comment), it landed later in the chain.

            2. That’s an amazing article Maria. At first I thought you must have misunderstood but then they gave enough data to see how the minute charge within the cell (nano) grew fractally with the expansion of the size of the affected area… really amazing, and why not? It makes sense in the scope of things that something violent can and would be happening at the nano level.

            3. FEAR AND ITS GREAT VALUE!!!!!!!!!! 🙂 Bloody HelI, I love this Cog!!
              I thought I have realized by now what FEAR is… that by now I have seen all the viewpoints about that considerations..
              But again I have been wrong….good to be wrong that lives room for learning-new understanding.
              Fear as a sensation: is stimulating, a motivator brings on inspiration and excitement, stirs -moves one into action, and thought-provoking: people-humans want that and have the need the constant requirement for stimulation in order to FEEL BEING ALIVE-LIVING and Fear supply that constant daily dosage….
              Fear is a built in automatic thing a gadget an invisible machine which supplies that constant energy which keep the nerves rattling all the time.. keeps one in constant state of alert… That one must hang on to things not to lose those valuables like: body-life.. Belongings.. Possessions
              The game is bringing on the FEAR: example: End of the World: let’s have some terror anxiety worry horror shock panic. Hehehe…
              FEAR is glue keeps one in the MEST…beautiful creation-consideration…

  9. So here we go! I was looking forward to this for so long that I almost forgot about your promise. Well, “Tell it like it is” seems to be the motto of the day 🙂 Well done!
    I can see the Idenics-like explanation of BTs again. In between I met other beliefs about a real spiritual team of an individual. Whatever the truth is, could the issue be handled more effectively than the scn bridge (rhetorical)?

  10. You’re Clearing Confusions. A good start, but for it to be a consistent statement/logic/map, then, methodologically, at the end of your statement, should be: ‘After: ‘New: OT8’, is: ‘the: ‘Old OT Levels’’, i.e.: continue to describe: ‘What is done on what level’, etc. “Before the early 80′s those who had completed OT 3 would go on to the old OT levels 4-7 where they would start practicing spiritual abilities such as telepathy and exteriorization (the spirit going outside the body).” You can say: https://isene.me/2012/12/10/ot-8/: ‘Part II: ‘The Old OT Levels’’ – i.e.: reiterate/underline that you know that; thus are: ‘up with the play’; thus it’s a: ‘relevant statement’; etc: Per Schiøttz: 2012-12-10 at 05:37: “NOTs Series Nr. 1, that NOTs was created as a REMEDY for people who had been audited on Dianetics after they went Clear. and purpose was to handle all misconceptions, misownerships and misidentifications between yourself and other beings, NOT to clear or blow any being in your universe.” – And: Valkov 2012-12-10 at 08:38: “I’ve seen references to there having been 4 or 5 different versions of OT VIII delivered by the CoS since the 1980s, and that some of these were very truncated versions which delivered as little as half the level, which is apparently what has led to many so-called “OT VIII completions” having extreme problems in life such as illness, accidents and even deaths. Do you know which version you received, vis-a-vis LRH’s original unexpurgated version?”, etc. IF you want to be the answer, you will be: ‘Where there is a will there is a way.’ Hence: what we see, is possibly a map of, what will: is: ‘Blackops/lower levels got on top of Constructive levels (‘Inversion’); and imploded: ‘Fukushima; Fracking; WW3’; etc’. BlackOps’re like: ‘Inverted KSW’ (The: Policy Letter: ‘Keeping Scientology Working’: Steps: ‘1 to 10’): ‘Not only unforgiveable, but no other possibility of being anything other than unforgiveable, etc/gleeee’: methodical betrayalologies’. So, a: ‘Major Part’ of the: ‘PsychoScioTechnoBioSpheric’ answer, is (and they know it): ‘GET THE WORLD TO FLOWCHART IT’S INFO, AS AN: ‘ETHICS-TECH-ADMIN’ (‘ETA’)’. Between: ‘Awareness Level –1’; and: ‘+1’; is: ‘Awareness Level Zero’ (‘AL0’): ‘Order’: ‘Number the pages of the books’, etc: ‘Order’; etc. The stack of Levels above that collapse without: ‘AL0’; so: ‘Get people: to: ‘‘meditate’ on’/think/’ETA’ ways to: ‘RO (‘Restore Order’) PSI (‘Per Square Inch’): Now.’, etc.
    ==TWIG: (‘TheWhyIsGod’ – Google: ‘Search Term’ it (it’s written: as: ‘one word’ (not with spaces between the words); actually: ‘Search Term’ as: ‘TheWhyIsGod Facebook’ (the blog I write on (and should get back to writing on, etc. This’d be: ‘FB C806: ==SCIENTOLOGY FREEZONE:’ (i.e.: ‘FaceBook Comment: Number: 806’), there: they stack up off-line – might post them later; etc)))): On: ‘Space Ship Earth’ (‘SSE’), everyone has to be: ‘Totally Responsible (‘TR’) for everything’; hence: ‘World Wide Wiki’; etc, out: ‘Where are we wrong?’; ‘Where are we right?’; etc. ‘Low-Toners’ (‘LTs’)/glees are always creating/going on about: ‘how we are always wrong’ – each trying to outdo the other in supertopimplosionologies: obviously CE (‘Cause and Effect’) will be utterly CEX (‘Cause and Effect Break’ (broken: ‘no such part of their: ‘logic’, etc’)), because: CE wont/doesn’t ‘advantage their attacks/interest them’. ‘They make things to scorne’. They: ‘as easily/more easily’, could’ve been: ‘their/life’s salvation’, etc. So, at basic, it seems: ‘Force using them is what’s really expressing, NOT them’. Thus: the: ‘justifications’ on top, are just: ‘morphic-field: ‘realities’’, that set up around that/Force: i.e.: ‘they’re a: noise/’Bridge to Hell’’; not: ‘a: ‘signal/Bridge to Freedom’’; despite PRs. They’re usually obvious, but sometimes not obvious, etc. Hence the place is in a dive, and it’s salvation/life, relies in/on whatever automatically: ‘‘prevents relapse’; and: ‘leaverages recovery’’; i.e.: ‘World-Wide: xyz: ‘CAD (‘Computer Aided Design’: in: ’2D: (‘2 Dimensional’): Tablet ‘Mouse Inputs’’; and: ‘3D (‘3 Dimensional’): ‘Wand Inputs’’ (as in: AR: ’Argumented Reality’; and/or: VR: ‘Virtual Reality’))-Wiki’ NEE (‘Number and Entitle Everything’)-Flowcharts’ etc/‘iwgd/p3’ (Internet: 1.0: ‘International Information Infrastructure’; Internet: 2.0: ‘World Wide Web’; Internet: 3.0: ‘Giant Global Graph’; Internet: 4.0: ‘Dynamic Data Delivery?/Planetary Paradise’s Perfection?’; etc: ‘Desktops-Documents-Data-Dynamics’: Links/Connectivities/Intelligenceologic (‘Observation is Intelligence’) Upgrades, etc). ‘All the problems, replaced by all the answers’; etc: ‘Phase Change’. http://www.petitiononline.com/TWIG/petition.html; etc. Soon, it looks like there will be a War with Syria; which could easily become: WW3; which: given the many hundreds of Nuclear Plutonium Power Stations; Oil and Gas Wells; Monsanto attacks; etc: that have to be sorted out, could be pretty much the permanent end of life on Earth, etc. So probably, we have to make ‘the: ‘Phase Change’’: now. Clear all the: ‘implosionologies’ etc, away. BlackOps/imploders like to create: our: ‘reality’: they make a hell for us, and blame us for it: it’s supposed to be: ‘really funny’; etc; for: ‘KRC ripping/Blackops: ‘idea/level/intellect/’gradient’/’games’/’thrills’’, etc: ‘d/evolutions’, etc: memes, etc. So, to the degree we take the KRC back, like Geir has, we are: Co-Creators: ‘free of their/the noise, again’: “My main philosophical realization in life is that I am ultimately responsible for all my experiences. It is one thing to realize this and another to live it. I got to live that realization after I completed the spiritual level called OT 8 in Scientology.” Maths: Ethics/Logic: ‘IF we’re Co-Creators, THEN we can do better than this’, etc. They’re saying: they: ‘Could’ve created a better reality, but did this instead.’: I think that means they’ve ego-tripped/destroyed themselves, but I think they could always: ‘Get with the program’, instead, I guess. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_beliefs_and_practices#ARC_and_KRC_triangles; etc.

  11. Way to go, G.

    No one got pneumonia, no one died. No one even got sick.

    That was all a lie that L Ron Hubbard told people so he could remain in control of their minds, and as much of their lives as he possibly could.

    Speaking about this openly and honestly, as you have done here, helps to free people from the trap that LRH laid for them.

    Again, Geir, way to go.

    Alanzo

  12. Though I studied the bulletins quite extensively (as some extra in my free time related to the courses) I don’t remember where but Ron writes about the necessity of running out
    ALL viewpoints, including what you consider as yours. Can any of you find the reference(s)?
    (I don’t have the bulletins – I studied them in the mission.)

    In my experience it is indeed the question of viewpoints and taking full responsibiity for what one is creating in the present time.
    Thanks.

  13. Geir, thank you for this information and for a simple description of the Bridge that anyone could understand.

    I do have one bone to pick with you. Although you make it clear that you had huge gains by doing the Bridge, you then minimize and invalidate it by apparently saying the Bridge is nothing more than a placebo, no better than any other placebo, and that any route is as effective as any other so long as the person on the route believes in it.

    That seems to me to be like telling someone who would like to make their way out of an intricate labyrinth – which they themselves have been constructing since the beginning of time but have forgotten how they did it – to “Just get started in any old direction that you feel confident about, and you’ll make your way out, the same as I did”. Maybe they eventually would, I don’t know, but it might take them many, many lifetimes.

    I don’t disagree that the factor of one’s consideration that something is workable being a necessary part of why it is, but I don’t think you know of anyone who got the gains you did from “old cheese” or from Alan Watts’ advice to just “get off it” – or from any other route, for that matter. Correct me if I’m wrong about that.

    IMO, it’s not just a matter of “faith”. Getting out of the labyrinth includes the inherent validity of the route itself. And my understanding of the reason why Scientology does take people out of their self-constructed labyrinth is that it has guideposts that are based on the known considerations/agreements of all beings in this universe, as well as the fact that each individual’s self-created viewpoints are based on those universal considerations.

    1. Marildi: As regards placebos. They are defined as substances that mimic medicines, designed to humor or satisfy and rely on what is now called the placebo effect. Numerous studies have indicated that this effect is a result of expectations and conditioning — this changes response and subjective states, which has a greater or lesser impact on biological function. What is not quite so well known is that there are nocebos as well. These are the same as placebos, except they have a negative effect. Either way, the effect dissipates if the individual is told that the placebo or nocebo is ineffective or that their expectations are unrealistic or unwarranted. Both really only serve as a catalyst for changing expectation and response.

      As Watts points out, one just needs to “get off it” — so easy to say and for many with thoroughly grooved in patterns and stultified responses nearly impossible to do. Introduce a placebo then, something that humors or satisfies, but more importantly facilitates the exercise of changing expectations and stepping aside from responses that are debilitating. Of course, the best placebos would be exercises and practices that deliberately shift expectation and response in a way that the individual can observe and build on. Now we`re talking – for now we are letting the individual demonstrate to himself that he is indeed creating or accepting conditions and expectations and that monitors his state of mind and being. But it seems like many people aren`t really looking for that, they are looking for substitutes that can serve to humor and satisfy and then for the next substitute, and the next, and the…

      In any case, I believe that Geir meant to refer to the placebo effect, rather than to a placebo. Placebo effect, nocebo effect, both are powerful and based squarely on the very real power and capability of the individual whether associated with a tangible form or in an intangible state.

      As for me — I always thought that in the end the results and changes experienced with Scientology processes would be found to be a placebo effect. How could it be otherwise? After all, LRH, like so many teachers, researchers and so on, including Watts, pretty much stated up front that one is creating one`s own subjective experience! Like my 10 year nephew would say – like, duh!

      Yet saying this is so, and living it as so are seemingly worlds apart until one gets the hang of it and gets off it! Once you do, well, there`s just this little thing of remaining aware that one is doing it and it all unravels from there.

      1. Hi, Maria! We’ve missed your knowledgeable and insightful posts, and this one is no exception. One excellent comment was this:

        “Of course, the best placebos would be exercises and practices that deliberately shift expectation and response in a way that the individual can observe and build on”.

        My main point in the comment I made was that Scientology does use highly workable exercises and that not all practices do – and none that I know of do so as well or as efficiently as Scn. Do you know of any?

        As well, not all practices effectively enable a person to eventually “get the hang of it and get off of it”. I believe Scientology does do that. Here’s an excerpt from an LRH lecture that I believe speak to that:

        “You’re only trying to free him up to a point where he can recognize that he can have freedom. And after that, all the freedom he gets will be given to him by himself. But you get him up to a security where he knows he can have freedom, and he’s on his own. I mean, you can’t go any further with a thetan.
        9 Dec 53, Examples of SOP-8C Patter (Standard Op Procedure 8 Clinical).

        1. pla·ce·bo

          1. prescription without physical effect: something prescribed for a patient that contains no medicine, but is given for the positive psychological effect it may have because the patient believes that he or she is receiving treatment.
          2. inactive substance: a preparation containing no active ingredients, given to a patient participating in a clinical trial in order to assess the performance of a new drug given to other patients in the trial.
          3. something done to placate somebody: something of no inherent benefit that is done or said simply to placate or reassure somebody.

          The problem I have with this “placebo theory”, if it is based on the common definitions as stated above, is that the mind is composed of real actual physical energies. “Think” does not necessarily have much effect on the systems of the mind. Really, I don’t know why I’m posting this, it’s “dianetics/scientology kindergarten” stuff, I feel anyone reading/posting here ought to be aware of the basic concepts involved. Even going back to Freud, Reich, Jung, the mesmerists and before, student s of the mind perceived it as an actual energetic system or collection of systems. “Libido” was seen as actual physical energy.

          Now, a person can argue that there is no RWOT, but that is not the actuality for most people. That is plainly out-reality for most people. If there is no RWOT then there aren’t really any bosons, either, are there?

          Really, we are just hashing over ideas from old divergent viewpoints of ancient Hindu philosophy – the idealists, the realists, the materialists, the “mind-only” school referred to by Buddha, etc etc.

          Why bother? How about some new wine?

          1. What has affect on the mind is settling down of inconsistencies. It is letting the mind sort itself out by not interfering with it. This is mindfulness. Whenever a win occurs in Scientology it is because of mindfulness. Placebo effect is just that. Not worrying, not resisting, simply letting it be.

            To be mindful is to look attentively, to observe carefully, and to contemplate thoughtfully. The activity of mindfulness may be described as follows:

            Look attentively at what is right there in front of you.

            If there are many things in front of you, then start with the first thing that your attention goes to. Then look at the next thing, to which the attention goes naturally, and so on. If there are many issues you are concerned with, then start with the issue uppermost in your mind, then the next issue uppermost in your mind, and so on. Do not speculate. Do not go digging into the mind. Keep looking patiently at what comes up naturally to be scrutinized. Then observe it carefully.

            Observe things as they really are, not as they seem to be.

            As you look, do not expect anything, and do not assume anything. It is easy to assume what one normally expects to be there. For example, if you are looking at the profile of a person, you see only one ear, but you may believe that the person has two ears. Be mindful about what you actually see without taking anything for granted. Let your observation be completely non-judgmental.

            If something is missing do not dub something else in its place.

            If something is missing then recognize that it is missing. Do not imagine something in its place. If someone asks you a question and no answer comes up in your mind, then do not feel obliged to make up an answer. You will then end up defending an answer that was made-up and not honest in a natural way. If something is missing then continue to observe and contemplate until the realization dawns as to what is really there.

            If something does not make sense then do not explain it away.

            If something does not make sense, then recognize that it does not make sense. Do not try to explain it away. If you encounter a failure do not just blame it on yourself or on the circumstances. Contemplate upon it until all inconsistencies are resolved. When faced with an inconsistency, be alert to what you might be taking for granted. At times it may take some thinking outside the box to realize what is going on.

            Use physical senses as well as mental sense to observe.

            We associate the idea of sense organs with eye, ear, nose, tongue, and body. However, the mind is also a sense organ, which senses the ideas, thoughts, feelings, emotions, and sensations out there. When being mindful, use all your senses to observe, including your mind.

            Let the mind un-stack itself.

            Let the mind present what to look at. There should be no digging into the memory. There should be no effort to recall. Simply look at what is right there in front of the mind’s eye. Let the mind un-stack itself naturally through patient contemplation. When that is allowed, the mind will never present anything overwhelming.

            Experience fully what is there.

            An important aspect of mindfulness is to fully experience what is there, such as, feelings, emotions, efforts, etc. But before you do that, make sure that your environment is safe and free of disturbance. The mind should be free of stimulants. If the mind is racing, then simply experience that racing phenomenon without contributing to it. There should be no resistance when experiencing. Fully experience whatever the mind presents naturally.

            Do not suppress anything.

            It is the suppression of perceptions, memories, knowledge, visualizations, thinking, etc., that causes all difficulties in life. First make sure that your environment is safe and free of disturbances. Any medical condition should be addressed appropriately first. You then start observing whatever is there without suppressing it. If something shameful appears then you observe and experience the shame. If something threatening appears then you observe and experience the threat. Do not pre-judge and avoid something because you consider it to be painful. By not suppressing you establish complete integrity of perception.

            Associate data freely.

            Let the data be presented by the mind without being interfered with. Let the mind associate that data freely on its own. Mindfulness is observing the very activity of thinking itself.

            Do not get hung up on name and form.

            Simply be aware that name and form may act as built-in judgment of what is there. Your task is to see things as they are. There should be no effort to judge by deliberately supplying name and form to what is there.

            Contemplate thoughtfully.

            Let non-judgmental observation provide accurate input. Let free association provide thoughtful contemplation.

            Let it all be effortless.

            Any effort would come into play only when any of the above points are violated.

            .

            1. I have to say Vinay, this is one of your best summaries to date of all you have been working on. Very clear and concise. Nicely done!

        2. Marildi says: My main point in the comment I made was that Scientology does use highly workable exercises and that not all practices do – and none that I know of do so as well or as efficiently as Scn. Do you know of any?

          Here`s the problem with comparing it to one way or another — it is an impossible comparison. To make the comparison, you would have to somehow test first one set of exercises and then somehow test the other set without the first test affecting the results of the other. So what you are left with is getting information from others who have worked through other exercises and their statements of effectiveness. And they have to rely on your statements of effectiveness.

          There are millions of people who would testify to the effectiveness of Buddhism, Yoga, Meditation, Prayer, NLP, Regression, and so on. I think it would be safe to say that you will get a positive testimony from any adherent about their particular practice or exercise one way or another. And the sense of satisfaction is purely subjective as are the conditions and beliefs from which one begins working with a particular practice. You will also get a dissatisfaction from a particular starting point and more importantly, the evaluation will be based on a subjective expectation or aim.

          I am a particularly bad test subject for Scientology as I was already well into exploring terra incognito — the mind and spirit — when I began those exercises and I brought my world view to the practice. In retrospect, it had an enormous impact on what I did and learned.

          One thing that can be said of Scientology, very much in its favor, is that you don`t have to die to decide if you have satisfaction. You can say, well, I was hoping for more or wow, I am completely satisfied, or that was bust! before you die. You still have an opportunity to explore additional practices if it didn`t pan out. I think that`s its best feature!

          Beyond the veil of death, there is much speculation and even though we have had countless individuals report to us from the “other side” there is a tendency to disbelief of those communications. This is possibly why channeled information is considered to be so very valuable in comparison to the information from those still human bound. Consider the reception that Elizabeth gets — she reports on states that would be considered to be very unbound and her communication is often met with silence or disbelief, something she finds very surprising and even frustrating at times.

      2. ^^^Exactly so!

        The placebo most effective is that which makes most people trust it most strongly. Old cheese has less potential 🙂

        1. Yes Geir, and the genius of Scientology is in the carefully conceived method of ensuring that a process runs to an end phenomena and NO FURTHER. This guarantees a sense of satisfaction and desirable outcome subjectively. After a while you don`t need confirmation from an auditor or an e-meter, you recognize the sensation of a floating needle very easily and can self-acknowledge. A floating needle appears to be associated with easing dissonance and probably is the meter manifestation associated with the placebo effect.

          1. IMO, the genius of Scientology is not only “the carefully conceived method of ensuring that a process runs to an end phenomena and NO FURTHER” but all the other carefully conceived methods it uses. What appeals to me about Scientology compared to other practices is that its methods are much more systematic than others. It seems to me that it really does consist of a taped path – taped to a degree that other paths aren’t, at least none that I know of.

            1. Yes, it is extremely systematic and organized. But each and every element of it comes back to a basic concept that is summarized in this quotation:

              **************************
              The freedom of an individual depends upon that individual’s freedom to alter his considerations of space, energy, time and forms of life and his roles in it. If he cannot change his mind about these, he is then fixed and enslaved amidst barriers such as those of the physical universe, and barriers of his own creation. Man thus is seen to be enslaved by barriers of his own creation. He creates these barriers himself, or by agreeing with things which hold these barriers to be actual.
              **************************
              And of course, that is the placebo effect. If an individual does not get wins (satisfaction and expectations met or exceeded) they will not continue. So I hold that the true genius was in recognizing that you must acknowledge wins, gains and releases all along the way. This is the very heart of it. He tried to grapple with the nocebo effect as well. Those methods didn`t work out quite as well and to my way of thinking, most of what people dislike or have upsets about Scientology methods is very much related to that whole area.

              Along the way, along with others, and by working with others, he was able to identify various methods to approach and manage various conditions,problems and situations, some more comprehensive and useful than others, some very limited and even unworkable outside of a specific scope. Even the order of processes and used processes and techniques were often changed or refined, but the core of it, the freeing of ability to alter considerations and create remained the consistent underlying premise. Recognizing the importance of THAT was genius, the rest I believe was a LOT of diligent study, trial and error, and observation. His timing was good too — he was at the right time and place to meet up with Volney Matheson and his galvanometer.

            2. Thanks for another very knowledgeable post! If I understand it correctly, it is a more thorough way of saying what I commented on in another post here, as regards the tech being based on the Axioms – which is what makes it highly workable since those are the basic considerations universally held.

            3. Many problems seems to be embedded in the very concept of ‘individuality’. Scientology caters to individuality and that is the highest reality it recognizes. Thus, it cannot deal with problem inherent to individuality.

              Individuality is a fixation on ‘separation’. This is a phenomenon of MENTAL SPACE. The individual cannot expand beyond his consideration of himself. This is where Scientology is limited.

              .

            4. Vin: “Individuality is a fixation on ‘separation’. This is a phenomenon of MENTAL SPACE. The individual cannot expand beyond his consideration of himself. This is where Scientology is limited.”

              Scientology is about ARC which is a closure of space. Just the opposite of your idea. Scientology is about ARC on all 8 dynamics.

            5. To me the concept of ARC is inconsistent, when you look at reality as “agreement”. People can be very much be in ARC with each other thinking that earth is flat.

              .

            6. Vin: “To me the concept of ARC is inconsistent, when you look at reality as “agreement”. People can be very much be in ARC with each other thinking that earth is flat.”

              Yes, that is true but that is not what we’re talking about. Your premise was:

              “Individuality is a fixation on ‘separation’. This is a phenomenon of MENTAL SPACE. The individual cannot expand beyond his consideration of himself. This is where Scientology is limited.”

              Especially fallacious is “The individual cannot expand beyond his consideration of himself.” That’s completely contrary to the concept of Affinity in ARC.

            7. Please explain the concept of affinity and the inconsistency that you see. It is not clear from what you wrote. Thanks.

              .

            8. The concept of Affinity that fits the objection I had to your argument is the concept of space, particularly the concept of sharing space and occupying the same space. Your argument is indicating a fixation on self and individuation as being the result of Scientology. The purpose of auditing and training is to increase the individuals understanding of others and the mest universe and bring him to the point of being able to comfortably be in the space of another or, ultimately, the universe.

            9. I don’t think that fixation on self is a result of Scientology. Most people are already fixated on self even before they encounter Scientology.

              Scientology is fixated on self also, and provides methods to make self stronger. This appeals to most people because of their fixation on self.

              .

      3. The placebo exercises are there to loosen up the “I” and reduce it back to a simple perception-point.

        Perception goes beyond self, where the perception-point is not fixated as self or individuality. In this state the perception-point is fluid and ever changing.

        Existence is what is perceived physically and mentally. It includes one’s inferences drawn from perception. It also includes self-awareness and self and its fixation.
        .

        1. That sounds right to me Vinaire, especially the fixation element. It may be simply fixation, whether the fixation is on the self, things or on some idea, etc.

          1. Have you not felt the fixation on self diminish as you’ve gone further on the path to spiritual awareness? Have not your goals for the other dynamics expanded?

            1. Other dynamics can be looked upon from the viewpoint of self; and that would be the result of fixation on self. When there is no fixation on self, there are no dynamics.

              .

            2. Vin:”Other dynamics can be looked upon from the viewpoint of self; and that would be the result of fixation on self. When there is no fixation on self, there are no dynamics.”

              The consequence of that logic would be that when “you” eliminate the fixation you have on yourself, the entirety of the universe will disappear, since the universe falls under the dynamics and there will be “no dynamics”.

              Please inspect your tautologies for the logical fallacies and inconsistencies.

            3. Dynamics to me is a system of convenience of looking at things. If this system is discarded the existence is still there, only it is not being looked through the lens, or filter, of dynamics.

              .

            4. I now understand what you were trying to say but, nevertheless, “no dynamics”, even with the meaning you are intending, is not a logical consequence of “fixation on self ended”.

    2. Marildi says “I do have one bone to pick with you. Although you make it clear that you had huge gains by doing the Bridge, you then minimize and invalidate it by apparently saying the Bridge is nothing more than a placebo, no better than any other placebo, and that any route is as effective as any other so long as the person on the route believes in it.”

      Chris says “Hey Marildi, Understanding placebo at its ‘fundamental level’ is deeper than the simple fakery of a sugar pill. Placebo should be looked at as tapping into something underpinning normal reality. Writing that auditing is placebo is not meant as a degradation of auditing but rather a more fundamental look at how we experience.”

      1. Chris, yes! Placebo originally means (the root) “to please”. It leads to the Alan Watts video.
        Or, if you look at Geir’s Triangle: I am aware of what YOU consider valuable and what YOU desire, so I will give it to YOU. And when one REALIZES (not just thinks/feels/knows…) that YOU, well……Geir! Will you join us here?

      2. Chris and Geir,

        In the blog post, Geir wrote: “I believe all of this is placebo at a fundamental level…I further believe that the best placebo is the one that most people would trust as effective…”

        My reply was this: “IMO, it’s not just a matter of “faith” [using “faith with the same concept as Geir’s word “trust”]. Getting out of the labyrinth includes the inherent validity of the route itself.”

        I don’t think “most people” base their trust on considerations that ultimately parallel the mind and spirit. Not just LRH but Geir himself, in his article “On Will”, stated that there are layers and layers of considerations that overlay the basic ones held in common by all beings. The current considerations of individuals vary widely from person to person, depending on culture and many other things, so I don’t see how the most workable method could be a matter of what “most people” trust.

        Scientology has proven by results that it does parallel the mind and spirit and is based on the universal considerations. Actually, it even gets results when there isn’t any faith involved at all, such as in “coffee shop auditing”, where the individual may not be expecting anything whatsoever or even know that some method of improvement is being used on him – and he still gets improvement. That shows faith to be by far the lesser factor.

        I have no way of knowing that there are no other routes that get comparable results to Scn, but certainly not any “old cheese” – i.e. there are many that don’t even come close, including the instances where they were wholeheartedly “believed in”. This is why Geir’s statement, essentially equating all methods as equally workable based only on trust, amounts to an insidious invalidation of the high workability of Scientology compared to other “placebos”.

        1. To sum up my view – it is as simple as this: I don’t believe in a Real World Out There – thus placebo is all there is.

          1. If by “placebo is all there is” you mean “considerations are all there is”, I thought I had agreed with you on that. But in any case, that’s an oversimplification when comparing different spiritual routes if you don’t include along with it (1) the fact that not all considerations are the same and only certain ones are basic and universally-held and (2) the fact that not all methods are based on the universally-held considerations and (3) that the universal workability of a route would thus depend on whether or not it is based on those universal considerations – since, as we’ve agreed, considerations are all there is.

            In your blog post you basically acknowledge that Scientology is highly workable but then infer that anything else would be just as workable depending only on considerations of trust – leaving out the principle of universal considerations being the basis of a universally workable method. You seem to want to minimize and essentially invalidate Scientology for what it is. Why?

            1. Marildi: Here are some ideas I have been having on all this as I watch this blog post unfold.

              I think perhaps the reason is very simple. One can see what what one can see. And what one can see is very much based on what one believes is true. This applies to you, to me, to LRH, and to anyone at all. LRH was working with a particular group of individuals, and he may well have accurately determined what THEY had in common, and those individuals came together BECAUSE of what THEY had in common. The assumption is that those individuals who came together were wholly representative of all individuals and therefore what was found was universal. But it seems to me that this may not be so, because even in the earlier times, the drop off rate was enormous. I was in Div 6 in the late 1970s, and the factual statistic was that only 1 out of 100 people introduced continued for any length of time — and at that time costs were very reasonable, staffs were friendly, pcs had lots of wins. I would venture to say that that 1% were people who did have in common what LRH deemed universal. This does not dismiss or invalidate Scientology — but it does serve to remind that assuming a universal is a precarious position to take and there is every reason to allow that there are other paths that are workable for the remaining 99%. They might not work for you and you may not be able to even see them or recognize that they do work and they are a true path and so you will not consider them adequate.

              Consider the idea that the physical universe is very much like a mirror. It reflects what is created. That’s all it does. If you look in the mirror and you see a scowl, you know you cannot change the reflection itself, you can only change what is being created which is then being reflected. Each new change is a brand new creation, a brand new behavior, a brand new “you” and “universe.” And so it is that when one changes utterly then the old rules / definitions / meanings / ideas no longer apply and they are no longer true. Not only that, they are no longer true now, they were never true, and they will never be true. And so, even if at one time the “universal” truths were “universal,” it is entirely possible that the combined actions of auditors and other truth paths, who have been accelerating in interest and participation have irrevocably shifted what could be considered to be a lowest common denominator or universal truths or lies.

            2. Maria, the analogy to my view about universal considerations of the mind and spirit is the point 2ndxmr just alluded to in his post – i.e. the basic principles of the physical universe. I happen to think that those might very well be slowly evolving, but nevertheless there are certain laws of physics that can’t be denied. They exist and are universally agreed upon and perceived with tremendous agreement. I don’t think the “theta universe” is any different as it is basically a universe of energy as well.

            3. They cannot be denied in ratio to a person’s belief that they cannot. See also my answer to 2ndxmr

            4. Because everything has the power to make a person believe. Some things have more potential for belief – simply because it makes more people believe more. As long as it makes the person believe he can be more himself, it will work just like that.

            5. Geir: “Some things have more potential for belief – simply because it makes more people believe more.”

              You’re saying some things have more potential for belief because they “make” more people believe “more”. But how? Why? What exactly is it about something that “makes more people believe more”.

          2. It would seem to me that a consequence of there being no RWOT would be that physical laws should be able to be disagreed with or re-created as you, the creator of your Imaginary WOT (IWOT) see fit. You should be able to, for instance, breathe water instead of air. How do you account for your inability to do such?

            1. Of course. But if I did, you wouldn’t see it, would you? Unless you also created me doing that. But for me to make you see it, I would have to solicit your agreement – and then you would create that too.

            2. I wouldn’t have to see it. But you could empirically test your theory against my experimental protocol and tell us the result.

            3. You didn’t get the point. What I see is what I create. Everything I see is empirical from my point of view. The same with you. The only way that I can test something against your reality to get a match is if you also create those test results based on the same created reality.

            4. You, Geir, have an identifying body unit typically called Geir. That (body unit animated and called Geir) is the terminal unit that I would expect to pass / fail the water test. Not the ethereal unit as an ethereal unit with an ethereal set of mockups of water. So if you want to challenge the RWOT theory in a meaningful way, put the identifiable unit to the test. My reality is is that if you gave that body unit the water test in the identifiable terms of the reality known as RWOT, i.e. stuck your head in a bucket of water and took a deep breath, you’d minimally get a serious reality adjustment and maximally a whole new reality.

            5. Geir, true. The root of “agree” : at pleasure, at will, “gree” : favor, goodwill…..placebo =please /source/Alan Watts/oneness….

            6. 2ndxmr says: So if you want to challenge the RWOT theory in a meaningful way, put the identifiable unit to the test:

              Just for fun, I am exploring the concepts associated with sticking Geir’s head in a bucket of water to prove that there is a RWOT.

              I suggest that agreeing to the test in the first place immediately enforces compliance to the specific reality of a RWOT with all its limitations and rules in a way that all those who are in compliance can co-create to see it. Of course, this includes the identifiable unit that you want to name as Geir, a unit that is not a singular “unit” at all, but a massive aggregate construct of countless cells & their aggregations operating in concert from a particular reality. They are not passive in producing their own reality and own survival in that reality.

              To perform this experiment requires establishing agreement to the test from all associated life forms as well. So you not only need to get Geir’s agreement, you have to also get the agreement of all participating units that co-operate to form that body and the agreement of ALL participants in the experiment who are co-creating what is perceived.

              Looking at it from another angle, this is similar to someone thumping their fist on a table as proof that there is a table and that is “hard” evidence. And yet, when you examine a table closely, you find that it is not a table at all, but a mass of particles, particles that actually have no duration and are in a continual state of change in relations to one another and to surrounding particles.

              It seems to me that in sticking Geir’s head in water, this is akin to demanding tests on tables on fists, but the tests only allow fists and tables for testing. I’m pretty sure that fists don’t see or perceive quantum particles, do they? No, that requires special devices that one has to learn how to use and mathematics and so on.

              Of course, if fists do come to recognize quantum particles in a meaningful way, then it is unlikely that they are still functioning as fists, and the tables are no longer functioning as tables. And of course, since that’s the case the experiment would fail because they are no longer in the same form. The form would have to change so radically that it would cease to function as that form.
              Now it may very well be doing fine in a new form, but of course, that would have passed outside of the measurable requirements of the experiment. My guess is that it happens all the time, and those remaining see dead things — the last remaining husks of the forms that were once there.

            7. A weak, diversionary argument, Maria, as you are acknowledging what you are trying to defend against. You can’t, on the one hand, argue that making the test means agreeing with the RWOT and thus solidifying it – condensing it, if you will – and on the other hand if one agrees and condenses the quantum probabilities required to satisfy the test, that the condenser is as thick as mest.

              Simply put, if you make the argument that there is no RWOT, and you’re doing that with a keyboard, pixels and other miscellaneous quantum structures, all part of an identifiable structure commonly agreed upon as the RWOT, then you damn well can put up or…

              There are a definable, minimal set of actions you and every other pixel interpreting unit goes through in the collossal series of Planck units that constitute a “day”. I have proposed what goes on about half of that time – half a Planck cycle – and, yes, that half that likely wanders into a probabilistic, uncondensed mode may seem ethereal, but like the character from Ground Hog’s Day, that quantum bit is doomed to continue the cycle it was on and recondense to the same bit it was a half Planck-second ago unless acted upon by some external force.

              Quantum inertia is a most apt term that parallels at the quantum level what Newton observed at the classical level. Quantum inertia keeps an emitted electron as a particle until some dumbass double slit says “you now have to behave as a wave”.

              Yes, theta is pre-eminently poised to alter quantum structures and create whatever WOT it wants, but it has to learn how and the proof of that is that the identifiable unit known as Geir is not now going to pass the water test and no amount of clever, ethereal argument is going to cover for that.

              It is not simply ‘agreement’ that has solidified the dimensional context that we call the RWOT. It is a mechanism with the equivalent of a tone level; it is a continuing vibration that started with a big bang and is one which will continue the way a crystal glass continues to hum after the exciting finger rub is removed. It’s a vibration that makes the RWOT. It’s all there in the axioms, the factors and the Q’s. All waiting for us to find out. It’s only caveat is ‘Keep your head above water’.

            8. 2ndxmr: A weak, diversionary argument, Maria, as you are acknowledging what you are trying to defend against.

              Maria: My oh my, what an impassioned response! You took my post as some kind of defense? Defense of what? Read my post again — I said: “Just for fun, I am exploring the concepts associated with sticking Geir’s head in a bucket of water to prove that there is a RWOT.” Geez man, lighten up. No dire consequences will result from exploring concepts! And I don’t think Geir is planning to stick his head in a bucket of water after reading my post! LOL

            9. @Maria,

              I’m glad we’re just having fun here because then we can just take a look at what we just said and see that it is just not in defense of anything or anyone:

              Maria:
              “I suggest that agreeing to the test in the first place immediately enforces compliance to the specific reality of a RWOT with all its limitations and rules in a way that all those who are in
              compliance can co-create to see it.

              Looking at it from another angle, this is similar to someone thumping their fist on a table as proof that there is a table and that is “hard” evidence

              It seems to me that in sticking Geir’s head in water, this is akin to demanding tests on tables on fists, but the tests only allow fists and tables for testing.”

              The wonderful thing about all those fun suggestions is that none of them need to be followed up with a workable mechanic, or, heaven forbid, and empirical test.

              Maria:
              “To perform this experiment requires establishing agreement to the test from all associated life forms as well.”

              That simply begs the question “If you are the one creating it all, why do you need agreement from all associated life forms?” Not to mention the other question it begs: “Are all life forms always in agreement?” They’d have to be for the premise of your logic to have any basis.

              Now I’m not going to bother to chew through all the specious logic that comes up, since that might cease to be fun and just become work and the next thing you know someone will be bothered by what they think is a 1.1 comment, or something silly like that. So as long as we’re just having fun and don’t mind the taste of some else’s urine in our cornflakes, then by all means let’s carry on with logic and wisdom like: “And yet, when you examine a table closely, you find that it is not a table at all, but a mass of particles, particles that actually have no duration…”

              Particles that actually have no duration… Yes, that’s actually funny.

            10. I thought 2ndxmr’s tone was in the spirit of things. And what he says parallels what I was trying to say in my earlier comments.

              The Tech Dictionary definition of “basic truth” is this: “A static has no mass, meaning, mobility, no wavelength, no time, no location in space, no space. This has the technical name of ‘basic truth'”. (Phoenix Lectures)

              Basic truth – i.e. native state – is what I believe Scientology can ultimately deliver. And the reason it can do so is that it enables the individual to uncover the considerations that limit native ability to create. Those particular considerations are the ones that are referred to by LRH as universally agreed upon – and they include all the laws of physics and are what keeps the physical universe being continuously created. The fact that it is universally perceived is what makes it “real”, a RWOT. What could possibly be more real? It is “objective” reality rather than subjective since it is agreed upon by all. As well, those considerations include the laws of the mechanics of the mind.

            11. I should amend my previous comment where I said, “Basic truth – i.e. native state – is what I believe Scientology can ultimately deliver.” What I should have said is that Scientology will take a person in that direction. And at least in many cases it will take them far enough and give them enough ability, or “self-determinism”, that they have the resources to find the rest of the way themselves. LRH basically says this too,

            12. Eliz, I didn’t actually change my mind. On the first comment I just got carried away. 🙂

              Actually, I just misspoke – the amended comment was the idea I have had.

            13. The wonderful thing about all those fun suggestions is that none of them need to be followed up with a workable mechanic, or, heaven forbid, and empirical test.

              Maria: Sure, within the confines of what we now know, that what would be true, if one is wanting to manipulate specific aspects of the physical universe. Science offers much innovation and manipulation, but most of the sciences are observations of existing conditions and many physicists start after an assumption of a big bang that came out of nothing. To my mind, that’s about as magical as it gets.

              That simply begs the question “If you are the one creating it all, why do you need agreement from all associated life forms?” Not to mention the other question it begs: “Are all life forms always in agreement?” They’d have to be for the premise of your logic to have any basis.

              Maria: Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else’s arguments. I don’t have any problem with the idea that there are multiplicities of life forms. It certainly seems that way to me. They are definitely acting in a coordinated fashion, knowingly or not, with deliberation or not. If one of these life forms ceases to coordinate and participate with others, then it seems to me that there will be no shared perception or at the very least a different perception.

              “And yet, when you examine a table closely, you find that it is not a table at all, but a mass of particles, particles that actually have no duration…”

              Particles that actually have no duration… Yes, that’s actually funny.

              Maria: I agree, it is funny. I guess I should have specified point particle. “A point particle (ideal particle or point-like particle, often spelled pointlike particle) is an idealization of particles heavily used in physics. Its defining feature is that it lacks spatial extension: being zero-dimensional, it does not take up space…”

              “…there is good reason that an elementary particle is often called a point particle. Even if an elementary particle has a delocalized wavepacket, the wavepacket is in fact a quantum superposition of quantum states wherein the particle is exactly localized. This is not true for a composite particle, which can never be represented as a superposition of exactly-localized quantum states. It is in this sense that physicists can discuss the intrinsic “size” of a particle: The size of its internal structure, not the size of its wavepacket. The “size” of an elementary particle, in this sense, is exactly zero.”

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_particle

              Maria: Now perhaps I have completely misunderstood what I just quoted but let`s say I didn`t. So, an elementary or point particle`s size is zero and it is zero-dimensional, and does not take up space. Duration is the measure of continuance of any object or event within time. As far as I understand things to be, to be a part of a time-space continuum, there has to be at least one dimension and a size greater than zero.

              You know, I am no quantum physics PH D, but from all that I have been able to gather from what I have studied, the underpinnings of the reality of the physical universe as normally apprehended are downright weird and counter-intuitive, starting off with the premise of a big bang that erupts out of nothing and nowhere and starts the whole physical universe into motion. That`s a pretty mystical beginning.

            14. @Maria:

              2x:The wonderful thing about all those fun suggestions is that none of them need to be followed up with a workable mechanic, or, heaven forbid, and empirical test.

              Maria: Sure, within the confines of what we now know, that what would be true, if one is wanting to manipulate specific aspects of the physical universe.

              2x: That line leaves me completely unsure as to what it is a reply or answer to: “Sure” (…those … suggestions [don’t] need to be followed up with a workable mechanic or … empirical test) “within the confines of what we now know….”?

              And that would be the beauty of the armchair philosopher’s rationale to a straightforward proposition – one something like “if you think there’s no RWOT, try breathing water.” A simple test evaded by specious philosophical tautologies.

              As for particles with no duration, yes, you should have specified the zero point phenomena to be what you were talking about since particles having some degree of alignment with 3-space (those would be the ones making up the primary mass of the desk and fist) also have duration as they are now defined by Planck unit phenomena (length and time).

              As to that mechanism and the origin of the big bang and the subsequent persisting particles of the physical universe, it may be less mystical than one might surmise. Especially if theta had something to do with it. A very workable model can be derived from the Factors, Q’s, and axioms. It seems relatively simple and straightforward in my own mind and has led me to wonder “if LRH saw the god mechanism when he wrote the Factors, Q’s and axioms, was he reluctant to be explicit about “it”, instead couching “it” in the form of the Factors, Q’s and axioms?” That, to me, is an important question to answer. In the context of the time he may have derived that mechanism, Scientology was only newly formed and too small to be viable. Would messianic revelations have done any good for it then? Would the revelation of an understandable god mechanism ever be a good idea considering the barbaric responses many of the faith-based religions have towards infidels, non-believers and the like?

              And just for fun, should such discussions be had this close to the end of the Mayan calendar? If God were exposed, would she stop rubbing the rim of the crystal glass that gives us the RWOT? (Yes, God must be female because, as we all know, only a woman can make something out of nothing.) If God packed her bags and left, taking the bulk of the matter of the universe with her (her dark matter, our source of gravity), would the remainder of the physical universe simply fly apart, seeking that ultimate state of total entropy?

              How many inquiring minds really want to know?

            15. @2x, It IS a tautological universe so when the arguments become circular I don’t see a reason to be surprised. Putting a head in water to breath is fine for the frame of reference that you describe. The result is a forgone conclusion. But the conversation is both expanding from and shrinking from that frame of reference. You can make up “experiments” to prove that man cannot breath water and you can be right. But in any context, we should remember that truth is relative, conditioned, and impermanent. So what were we going for with these comments? — Were we trying to understand one another or were we trying to win an argument?

            16. That’s a good point Chris. A debate is very anti-research because it is ego-centric and it is trying to make one viewpoint right against another.

              On the other hand I prefer a discussion where everyone joins hand against ignorance with no attention on viewpoint, ego or self.

              .

            17. Ok 2ndxmr,
              If you get a reality adjustment and you get a new reality, how do you know that that “new reality”
              will not be powerful enough to get you over your “adjustment”, which is basically composed of
              your past agreements of sensations/considerations…..example: walking on fire. Not being burnt by it.
              If both of us “have walked on fire” (the same empirical point of view) than we won’t necessarily “talk” about it as it is the SAME point of view. THE VIEW if you like.
              Care to answer to me how you see my point?

            18. @ Chris — thanks for summarizing the way you did! I have no idea what I was supposedly defending. I still don`t know what I was supposedly defending. I was shifting the view and exploring concepts from that view.

              I find the whole idea of a RWOT fascinating particularly when one considers the basic theories of quantum physics, R – real and W – world operate with little semblance to “common” perception perspectives, and O – out, T – there lose much or most of conventional meaning with the introduction of point particles. I have to wonder where is THERE when its pinned to point particles with no mass, no dimension, no space, which is essentially no existence, appearing out of nowhere or out of the ruminations of a vast dark female aspect of Shiva who laughingly pulls the plug on all of it as she throws her wine glass into the cosmic fire. And if it is all holographic as posited in some theoretical circles, then it seems that it wouldn`t be out there at all — rather its in there and out there in every thing. And I wonder how can there be an out there without an in there? And how can there be a there to be in or out of at all in world dependent on point particles that are not even there i.e. zero traveling in wave packets of possibility that came into existence with a bang at the behest of what exactly? And did that God, theta, zero point cease to exist (oh wait a minute, it never really existed!) with no further ability to make more big bangs?

            19. These are all inconsistencies.

              What we have in Quantum Mechanics is mostly mathematics (thought experiments) with very little actual perception. Thus we suffer from inconsistency.

            20. Vinnie: Who would have thought mathematics could be so entertaining! I can`t help but be amused, enjoying the various ideas while I while away at the fabric of existence. Its lots of fun to look and examine and try ideas on for size.

              entertain (v.)
              late 15c., “to keep up, maintain, to keep (someone) in a certain frame of mind,” from M.Fr. entretenir (12c.), from O.Fr. entretenir “hold together, stick together, support,” from entre- “among” (from L. inter; see inter-) + tenir “to hold” (from L. tenere; see tenet).

            21. The whole purpose of mathematics is to help one think systematically. It is the highest form of logic that assures consistency.

              But like any logical conclusions, the conclusions from math must be verified by looking (experimentally) to be valid.

              .

            22. … the conclusions from math must be verified by looking (experimentally) to be assured of consistency on a broader scale..

              .

  14. Marildi,
    “,,,as the person on the route believes in it…” Marildi, read the last 7 lines again…Geir is not saying that…..( and find TRUST….key point).

    1. He says, “I believe any path that a person could trust to help him become fully responsible, is a valid one – be it Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, Islam, atheism, quantum physics, Christianity or worshiping your old cheese.”

      I’m using the word “believe” in the sense of “to have confidence in the truth, existence, reliability, or value of something”.

      And I “reliance on the integrity, strength, ability, surety, etc., of a person or thing; confidence”.

      Both words basically mean “confidence”.

      1. Oops, I left some words out. The sentence starting with “And” should say:

        And I think Geir is using “trust” to mean “reliance on the integrity, strength, ability, surety, etc., of a person or thing; confidence”.

        (Both definitions have the word “confidence” in them.)

        1. Marildi –

          I think you are taking Geir’s posts too literally.

          You probably took OT 3, past lives, and implant stations literally, too, didn’t you?

          Alanzo

          1. I think if I had misinterpreted what he said he would have said so by now.

            And I notice you aren’t telling me either what he actually meant that I didn’t get.

            1. I’m just not taking G’s writings and radio interviews so literally.

              If Geir is wrong or contradicted himself, or even lied, it means you are taking his writings too literally, right?

              Alanzo

            2. I’m not getting your gobbledygook, Al. But why don’t you just tell me your own “non-literal” understanding of what he’s saying as relates to my post.

            3. I’m just playin with you, Marildi.

              I don’t understand anything in Geir’s post. He has a very thick Norwegian accent.

              Plus, I was holding my hands up to my computer screen, trying to block out of the words having to do with the OT Levels so I would not get pneumonia and die from reading it. I am getting a scratchy throat, though. I think it’s because I saw that “X” word through the cracks of my fingers.

              Alanzo

  15. My take on Osho, Alan Watts and those kind of gurus who showed up in the 1950s and 1960s, bringing essentially consistent Eastern insights to England and the USA is this: They brought valid Eastern insights into life and existence, that have actually been floating around for thousands of years, but they did not bring a workable system that anyone could apply and use to achieve those same kind of insights for themselves.

    Really, all they were doing was evaluating for others and “feeding cognitions” to the public. No different really, than feeding the Clear cog or any OT cogs to people and saying “There. There’s your answer, now you can stop looking or worrying about it. Simple. Just get off it.”

    So now I can just say “oh, OK, now I know I am mocking it all up, the heart disease and the cancer or the chronic negative emotions, whatever I’m suffering from, great, problem solved! I’m creating my own experience so I guess I’ll just go ahead and die painfully because I have no clue, how to stop, how to get off this merry-go-round! But it’s OK, because I now know I am creating it all myself because Alan Watts told me so.”

    So the cognitions, insights, maybe right on, but in the absence of a workable system for each individual person to achieve them for himself/herself, they are useless or worse than useless to humanity at large. Just feeding the cogs out is a disservice to humanity, if that’s all one does.

    That’s why hardly anyone today knows who the heck Alan Watts was. He talked the talk, but did he walk the walk? I don’t know, but he sure didn’t transmit a teaching which enabled others to walk the walk. At best he was a publicist for unspecified others.

    1. Interesting. I’ll bite:

      Hubbard didn’t himself walk the walk either.

      And he did some serious evaluating and feeding of cogs right there on OT 3.

      1. I’ve read posts of several people who say that LRH wanted a pilot to be done of putting pc’s completed on OT II straight onto NOTs, However, this was when DM was in charge and the pilot was never done. It does seem that this part of the Bridge would have been revised.

        LRH always said that the tech isn’t the only route, but that it is a workable one. Had he lived longer I imagine it would have been improved.

        1. Are you sure this is the truth, Marildi?

          Or is it just an ad-hoc tack-on to reduce the cognitive dissonance you feel when you are faced with L Ron Hubbard contradicting himself?

          Alanzo

          1. Are you sure this is not the truth, Al? You’re a fine one to preach about another “contradicting himself”! You were once a die-hard Scientologist, weren’t you? I think you need to get Scientology audited out, off your track, so you can actually leave it behind and move on.

            1. I was a Scientologist before I had all the information about what Scientology actually was. Scientology is structured – by Hubbard and not by Miscavige – to keep information away from you that you need to have to make informed decisions about your participation in it.

              I saw enough to realize that I was lied to, and that if I passed on those lies, I would be lying to others about it.

              That was it for me. Once I knew, I was gone.

              Unlike others who find out the truth about Scientology and either ignore it or don’t, and find it perfectly okay to lie to others, or to not pass on what they know about Scientology to others, denying them the ability to make informed decisions about their participation in it.

              I refused to do that, and still do.

              Most people who were ever Scientologists leave it completely. This has been true since the 1950’s.

              What does that make the ones who stay?

              Alanzo

            2. Hi Al, By my math it makes them the remaining 0.09375% of everyone who ever was claimed by COS to be a Scientologist and I am being generous.

            3. Hopeful, stubborn, forgiving, foolish, deceptive, sincere, tolerant, fixated, ill-intended, delusional, visionary, idealistic, etc. — take your pick — its different for each individual based on whatever their experience, paradigm and knowledge is.

      2. You did bite, didn’t you, Geir.?

        Hubbard did get audited and did get processes tested on himself, as well as solo auditing. My understanding is that NOTs was developed when Mayo applied auditing tech to LRH. And previously LRH went Clear. So I think you are gravely mistaken. He walked the walk, for many years.

        There is no evidence that Watts did anything similar. What workable procedures applicable to most people did he develop? Name even one!. He may have been parroting cogs he picked up from Eastern literature or Eastern practitioners he met. I believe he was an intelligent and glib popularizer/promoter/intellectualizer who wrote many books interpreting Eastern ideas to the West. That’s not to say he was not a smart man and a decent academic, but “walked the walk”? No. Not even close.

        Why are you grasping at straws to opterm me?

        1. Ah, but you misunderstand, Val.

          I am talking about LRH walking the walk to OT. There is no evidence that Scientology did that for him. He evidently went downhill.

        2. Hi Valkov,
          When the “one” exhausts – gets so exhausted by all the pocesses one is “doing” , paths one “walkes on” with all the reasons, ideas why one must/should “do” “walk on” them, one STOPS.

          There is no intention in this STOP. It’s just STOP. What one “realizes” then is that what one has “called, labelled” processess and paths have existed only with just one purpose – to exhaust the seeker. These processes and paths are the illusionary products of the ONE for the one to enjoy/use/live by them to such a full extent (full ARC, full LIFE) that when there is a real STOP, one REALIZES (not cognites in the mind, but realizes in one’s full beingness) that
          there is no separation between an illusion and the creator of an illusion – it’s ONE. All it takes is to LET that STOP happen to the one. With it the “past” is gone, a live flow is allowed to flow in the one. Living by this flow one realizes that this flow is the same in all beings, all phenomena and there is no need to “do” “follow” anything because the FLOW is doing that for
          the sake of all one-s. The FLOW is the BE-CAUSE. (one lets it BE the CAUSE finally)

          That this is so cannot be grasped by the mind, cannot be “proved”. Even the word “experience” is not precise here. That this is so, one just kind of “un-knows” (by the mind), kind of “sees” (by the heart).
          To me what Alan Watts has realized doesn’t matter. When me=one is LISTENING to him=one, the underlying one=one is the ONE. Listening to not only his words/emotions/felt sense of his energy BUT to the source of them, which is basically the same source in the “me”.

          And the me is listening to you like that too, can you feel it?……stop….read over again what I have written…………what do you get?

            1. Thanks, I LOVE this place Geir is creating for us and each of YOU….enjoying it and learning
              when I am here! And we are from all over the world – wish more would join! And Will !

  16. The following ideas are inspired by the post from 2ndxmr.

    Guidance from another person is needed only when a person is very confused and has lost all his bearings. This is where the Objective Processing of Scientology comes in handy. It pulls a person out of introversion by making the physical universe real to the person. Now the person has some reality to hold on to while he tries to look.

    Still some guidance is needed to get the person started on the path to looking. The person’s mind is racing and he finds it hard to control. Meditation may help but it is not very structured. Some people may need more structured guidance. This is where lower grade Scientology auditing may come in handy. This auditing may be continued only to a point that a person has some realizations, and he is stabilized enough to start looking on his own.

    At this point, a person should be encouraged to start looking at inconsistencies that he finds in his life and environment. The KHTK approach is helpful here. Another person should guide him only when the person runs into difficulty, otherwise let that person get on with it. KHTK provides some exercises. To handle difficulties at this stage the IDENICS approach may be helpful. However, no further Scientology auditing is necessary. The person may simply get better and better with practice in looking at inconsistencies.

    By the way, during all the above sequence, Scientology E-meter is not needed. All that is needed is an understanding of mindfulness. Scientology lower grade processes can be run more easily with mindfulness in a friendly environment that allows for discussion.

    Engram running may require a bit of focus, but it becomes very natural if the KHTK rule of LETTING THE MIND UNSTACK ITSELF is followed. There aren’t many engrams. They just come out in the wash.

    There is no separate OT case. From beginning to end it is the same process of spotting and resolving inconsistencies. First easier inconsistencies get resolved and the person starts to become more capable for resolving greater inconsistencies.

    Thetan (being) is basically a point of knowledge. Suppose, we consider a PACKET OF KNOWLEDGE as an “object” then the thetan would be the “CENTER OF MASS” of that “object.” It is simply a convenient concept. Body thetans or more like “CHUNKS OF KNOWLEDGE” that are part of the whole packet of knowledge. The “chunk of knowledge” is simply not consistent with the whole “packet of knowledge.” That inconsistency needs to be dissolved. When that happens all the knowledge becomes consistent.

    .

  17. First, I just want to say that some old cheese can be very trustworthy.

    Second, those people who brought eastern religion to the US and England in the 1950’s and 1960’s were operating on very poor and incomplete translations, and also many missing texts which had yet to be translated and made available.

    By the time the 1990’s had arrived, there was an explosion of translations, and improvements to those translations, which have allowed a very workable path to the same place that LRH was pretending to promote. Whether any of these actually get you there, I have no idea.

    These updated Eastern routes don’t charge any money, or at least very little money, and they have no billion year contracts to sign, and they do not require you to remortgage your house to learn and apply them. And no one lies to you about whether they fought in world war two and were blinded and crippled and cured themselves with these updated eastern routes.

    In addition, like old cheese, these updated and more complete Eastern routes can be spread on a cracker and consumed with a nice cabernet.

    Unlike Scientology.

    Alanzo

    1. But can these updated Eastern routes be rolled and smoked? (I’m not muchof a drinker.)

      And did you know that Osho (Bagwan Shri Rajneesh) was actually from India, while Watts, who grew up in England but lived in the USA, had possibly never even visited India?

      1. Watts never visited India. He never visited China or Japan either. He wasn`t specifically eastern in his point of view — he had several focus areas — zen, taoism, vedic with a more or less equal concentration on western theology (he was an Anglican minister for a while). Freud, Adler, and Jung. He also studied under a Gurdjieff teacher. In later years he incorporated general semantics by Korzybski. As far as drinking or smoking goes, he preferred smoking and he also explored the alternate consciousness world of LSD in the 1960s. He was pretty much anti-establishment and radically non-conformist. His influence was enormous due to his long running radio show and many books and lectures.

  18. As usual, Alanzo, you refuse (or are unable) to differentiate between Scientology (the philosophy and tech) and the Church of Scientology, which is an utterly corrupted version of it. You are also guilty of Ad Hom once again.

    Other than that, I thought you last said you were done with this type of discussion. 😉

    1. Marildi –

      You should know that as an SP, I am completely unable to differentiate.

      I explode with anger and feel very threatened whenever anyone gets any better. I feel that I am being pursued and beaten up by Martians which makes me run wild on the Internet, attacking people taking the actions against them as if they were the Martians in my mad howling yesterday who I think are still beating me up.

      My only hope is Power 5a. But with Miscavige holding all the keys to my eternity, and with his having finally found out that I was an SP, I have no hope but to dramatize on the Earth’s Internet forever.

      Having said that, I applaud your courage in reading Geir’s write up of the OT levels. I remember what that was like for me when I got out of Scientology, and I know that it is a big step.

      Alanzo

      1. Ah, come on, Al. I’m overrun on listing out your Logical Fallacies, and this post is strewn with them. 😀

        1. Please don’t do that to me again.

          I can’t take it.

          It’s such a powerful tactic that I had to run away from it the last time.

          Alanzo

      2. “I remember what that was like for me when I got out of Scientology, and I know that it is a big step.” Yes, it can even take years and Geir puts the cherry on top with this post!

    2. marildi, something about Geir’s post evidently pushed some button of Al’s and apparently brought to view a bunch of confusion he wants help with. So he comes here and free associates!

  19. Geir said: I am no longer defined by my past. I am me and only me, taking full responsibility for my creations and my experiences. No blame, shame or regret.

    Ah! That is the essence of it! Responsibility can only be one`s own, after all, it is one`s own response!

    I like your version of OT 3 – 8. I will add that I always thought that I was addressing that which brought separation and dissonance into my universe — stultified past images reshuffling and shifting about, owned by who knows who. In the end it doesn`t matter who owns what, its the event of them being connected to and being brought to life and to bear in the present.

    I didn`t do the OT sections to fix me. I did them because I thought that they might assist in reducing the collective mind-set and bank that perpetuated a nose dive into greater and greater disassociation, disconnection, falsity and ignorance. It seemed completely logical to me that one would utilize images of nuclear holocausts, Armageddon, and religious symbols — after all the human race seemed to be rather fixated on these notions, particularly after the Hiroshima event. They still are! Look at all the attention on 2012 Mayan prophecies! Very much a recurring theme. Plus I do believe that our nice little human bodies are an aggregate and that aggregate can and does communicate on an astoundingly inter-connected level, not only with other human bodies, but with all life forms in a web of reality. I can`t think of anything that my body would be more afraid of than a holocaust of nuclear fire and radioactivity it cannot see or avoid.

    I was very hopeful that at some point we would get around to something for ME in Scientology, instead of working on dissipating old energies and releasing the lock-up and ignorance and destitution that results from paralyzing fear and pain and sorrow and loss — but I think that is up to me and up to you and up to Annette and up to Alanzo and up to Vinnie and up to [fill in the blank]. And that is why I am so thrilled about you and Annette and your newly forged co-creation. Downright exciting!

    1. I have been looking at what “I” or “me” is. It boils down to something resulting from perception. It is the “center of knowledge” that has accumulated at a location in space.

      .

    2. I have been looking at what “I” or “me” is. It boils down to something resulting from perception. It is the “center” of knowledge that has accumulated around a perception-point in space. It fixes the perception-point in space, so it becomes an “I”.

      All that “I” creates are considerations (assessment, speculations, judgments, justifications, assumptions, etc.). Taking responsibility of one’s creations simply means sorting out inconsistencies in what one perceives physically or mentally. That’s it.

      All “I’s” are connected to each other through perception and knowledge. Thus, there are inconsistencies that are common to “I’s”. There is perception and knowledge of bodies, which also precipitates down to contribution to the formation of “I”. And so there are inconsistencies connected with bodies.

      Scientology tried to deal with the subject of perception and knowledge, But it made “individuality” the focus and got fixated there. “I” or individuality are simply points of focus just like the assumed “center of mass” of an object.

      One needs to understand the “mass” and not merely get fixated on the “center” of it.
      .

      1. Awesome! Vin, the nature of that “mass” not from a “viewpoint” but form a “state” of non-dividedness….walk with me here….more about it later.

        1. Hi each of YOU

          Here is an example for the above. A MIRACULOUS thing happened this morning. I was supposed to work on a task with a group this morning but before we could start it, one person of the group said: there is a problem which concerns them as well as the bigger community, there is a meeting in a different place and we should go there. What happened was the following:
          I touched into my “knowledge” (as a package in “no-time”)
          1. scientology: you clear the present time problem before auditing can start (path)
          2.true! meditation: stop/don’t do/don’t resist (no path)
          3. physics: the field (knowledge)
          4. responsibility: Geir’s Triangle (life in action)

          I asked them to tell me what the problem was. They did so.
          I asked the group to STOP, that is to “silence their minds” and get a feel of that Stop-Silence.

          I drew 3 bubbles on the board: 1. empty (and labelled it with the word YOU)
          2. the problem
          3. the opposite of the problem
          I asked them to look at the bubbles from that Stop-Silence “feel”. At the same time I
          was talking to them a little about the connection of the bubbles – just a little, as a kind of “walk with me” style (my favourite phrase) while they were continuously “touching into the field and looking at the bubbles”.
          Then the “miracle” happened:
          There came about a very intense PEACE and LOVE and SPARKLES of LIGHT in the eyes,
          as well as in the space of the room. Like FIREWORKS! Without “talking” about it, each person had a feel of this happening so! It lasted for some time and then some put their IN-SIGHTS into words. What they said can be summed up by what one of them, a professional basketball player said: if you ARE and this YOU is actively involved in the ACTIVITY presented by life in the moment for you, then you are responsible not only for yourself but for the whole group, moreover, for the whole community. Being responsible in present time is the key to success, no other thing is needed for a successful future – for the person, as well as for the success of the community. So, let’s start doing our job here and now.
          Well, the experience (the field+MEST= fireworks) was amazing. The creation of the
          dichotomy in the mind stopped, the “fire of the field” burnt it. I would like to invite you to visit Brian Culkin again……thanks Brian! And if you follow this thread…..the topics we are writing about….there is “something big happening in the air”……….can you feel it?
          (as about the 4 points above: their CORE is the same – our true nature)
          Thanks to all of YOU !

          http://culkin.wordpress.com/2012/03/29/the-flow-like-experience-of-the-zone/

          1. wow. That’s wonderful! And yes, I do feel it – I have noticed several big shifts in the last several months and the air of positive expectancy. Love it!

            1. Hi Maria,
              Thanks! We haven’t “talked” yet but I have read many of your earlier posts. No wonder that Geir said that he missed you! So did I ! Joy to read what you write!

  20. I thought this was a fun exercise. Here is a definition of responsibility: “RESPONSIBILITY: THE NONRECOGNITION AND DENIAL OF THE RIGHT OF INTERVENTION BETWEEN ONESELF AND ANY BEING, IDEA, MATTER, ENERGY, SPACE, TIME OR FORM, AND THE ASSUMPTION OF FULL RIGHT OF DETERMINATION OVER IT.”

    I re-wrote it to make it a positive statement:

    The recognition and affirmation of the right of unification between oneself and any being, idea, matter, energy, space, time or form, and the assumption of full right of determination over it.

    What do you think?

    1. As I wrote above:

      All that “I” creates are considerations (assessment, speculations, judgments, justifications, assumptions, etc.). Taking responsibility of one’s creations simply means sorting out inconsistencies in what one perceives physically or mentally. That’s it.

      .

    2. The recognition and affirmation of the right of unification between oneself and any being, idea, matter, energy, space, time or form, and the assumption of full right of determination over it.

      I think this is fine as long as you realize that others exist, too, and they cause things that you experience and respond to.

      It is very true that you are the one to decide how to respond to what others put out. But LRH actually used TOTAL RESPONSIBILITY to blind Scientologists to the situations he was putting them in, and then called them a VICTIM if they recognized what he had done.

      Decide how you will respond to the other flows that others cause you to experience, and take full responsibility for your own responses. But do not blind yourself to the fact that you would not ever have to respond to abuse if others did not abuse you.

      Alanzo

      1. Do you think I chose the right word in choosing unification as the opposite of intervention?

        Perhaps a useful perspective comes from this idea of unity or unification — for it would then seem to follow that whatever you do to those “others” you do to yourself. Or whatever you don`t do to those “others” you don`t do to yourself.

        I find this to be a very simple idea in concept and not quite so clear-cut in practice. For example, if I decide that you are being cruel or deliberately trying to hurt me, then how shall I address this if I am coming from this responsibility definition? Seems to me I would need to find a way to resolve the situation so that your outcome is every bit as good as my outcome. But then, am I not making a decision on your behalf when I do this? Perhaps with a total assumption of unification, this is a no issue because then I would be acting as you and as me. Would you see my action as responsible if I did that or would you see my action as abusing your right? Its a thorny thicket for me.

        1. I see what you are saying, Maria, and I respect your attempt.

          I have something that you might be fascinated with. At least I was. Your questions to me are answered with Aristotle’s “Golden Mean”. With this ethics tool, there is little danger of you “misowning” my deeds as yours, and becoming blinded and stuck to them by taking “total responsibility” for something you did not cause or create.

          It is important to recognize the cause of phenomena that you experience, especially when you did not cause it.

          Aristotle’s “Nicomachean Ethics” contains many ideas that Hubbard put into basic Scientology, including the dynamics and the basic ethics structures. What is interesting is what Hubbard LEFT OUT of Scientology from Aristotle’s work here. Hubbard particularly left out Aristotle’s ideas about what you can be responsible for and Aristotle’s definition of “Good”, as in Hubbard’s “The greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics”.

          Aristotle answers many of these questions that we are discussing and he also gives a far superior guide to being ethical – his Golden Mean – than Hubbard’s “greatest good (undefined) for the greatest number of dynamics”.

          More here: http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.1.i.html

          Also here: http://librivox.org/the-nicomachean-ethics-by-aristotle/

          Aristotle’s answers are in his first few chapters, or “books”. Without studying this work from Aristotle, as Hubbard obviously did, it will be hard to come up with the answers to your questions yourself.

          There is a problem with beginning with Hubbard for developing a workable ethics system of your own: Hubbard’s work was derivative of others, and very incomplete. And he intentionally left out very important concepts in the subject of Ethics in order to control and brainwash Scientologists.

          Alanzo

        2. Problem comes when one starts to think in terms of “beings” or “selves” or individuality. One then wonders about separation and unification. “Selves” become fixed reference points and to that degree attention is fixated.

          There is no such problem when one thinks in terms of inconsistencies.

          .

        3. Thanks for the info guys! I was mainly curious as to what you thought about it and what insights you had on it. What I am lately working on is gaining greater understanding in both the realm of the “work-a-day“ world and the realm of the wider view with an eye to an ultimate view and the exploration of the apparent gap maybe even a lessening of that seeming gap. It is endlessly fascinating to observe my own responses and equally fascinating to hear of what others have learned and observed. Very rich. Right now I see my life as a landscape that is endlessly forming and i have been noting what occurs as I shift positions in terms of my own expectations and habits of thinking. I guess you could say it is a free flowing experiment that yields tremendous insight reflecting into my daily awareness.

        4. BTW Alanzo, the Aristotle treatise is remarkable in its scope and his thorough examination of so many aspects of the subject — I read it a long time ago and I remember being completely awed to understand that this man, this remarkable man, had pondered and considered and contemplated the very same aspects I have during my life some 2000 years earlier. Reviewing the links you gave me, I realize that his insights played an important role in my life, for I brought with me what I thought was the best of what he had to offer and indeed they have served me well through some of my most difficult times..

          1. I don’t doubt that, Maria.

            I am sometimes in awe of you, and how well you express yourself and how much you know and continue to study.

            I did not know much about Plato or Aristotle before Scientology. I started studying them after I got out. For me it’s been quite a (smack forehead) “I could have had a V-8!” kind of thing.

            Alanzo

    3. Maria,
      Ron’s definition looks to be one definition of Free Will as having the right of Creating manifestations from the perspective of the ONE.

  21. For those interested in the viewpoints and experiences of others who have done OT VIII, here are a couple of links to posts and comments on the subject from a couple of years ago:

    Excerpt from the blog post here:
    http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2011/03/16/truth-revealed-about-ot-viii/

    “Sometime between 1988 when OT VIII was first released and early in the new millennium (if
    not earlier) Miscavige ALTERED the End Phenomena of OT VIII so as to reverse its effect. This truth has been revealed by the combined testimonies of more than a dozen OT VIIIs who completed the level as early as 1988 and as late as 2010.”

    There is a lot of detail in the comments to this blog, as well as the next blog, also about OT VIII:
    http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2011/03/17/more-truth-revealed/

  22. Geir, you wrote that “On OT 8 you do an auditing procedure that lets you sift out which past life memories are yours and which are from other beings.”

    Since you didn’t change your mind about what the entities consist of until well after having done OT 8, and since you got “the biggest gains of all” on that level – I’m having trouble understanding how that could be, if you are right and it was all a matter of misownership. How would that huge amount of case have been as-ised if there was that degree of mis-duplication?

      1. This is actually quite a realization.

        And I am grateful to you for putting it here, G.

        I recently realized that I am not my mind. At all.

        And so this realization of yours is actually even an expansion of my recent one.

        My studies and continual realizations from Nagarjuna dovetail with yours quite nicely.

        Thanks.

        http://www.amazon.com/The-Fundamental-Wisdom-Middle-Mulamadhyamakakarika/dp/0195093364/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1355277006&sr=8-1&keywords=nagarjuna+the+philosophy+of+the+middle+way

        1. Hi Alanzo. I would like to know what has been your greatest realization yet if you are willing to share it. It really interests me! Thank you very much. 😉

      2. “I realized that my past isn’t me” …..MY past is not ME
        Can you say that what I CONSIDERED to be MY past is not ME?

        When me and you “part”-icipate in creating (situation, the physical universe…) it’s a co-creation. So you STOPPED YOUR participation in the co-creation of the past with others. True?

        Would you say that YOU ARE your OWN viewpoint now or, this YOU can create a viewpoint/
        viewpoints and equally uncreate them as a response to an issue on any dynamics?

        1. Geir,
          The above was meant to be addressed to you but it landed else where in the chain.

        2. Geir…
          In addition to the above. You write: “The solution is to take full responsibility for all one’s viewpoints and roles”. It’s true for me as the end result is pure wareness/consciousness/theta.

          “….and retain those which serves one right in present time”…….RETAIN…..
          Given the I AM “state” with huge THETA, can one rather say that that ” I ” can CREATE different VIEWPOINTS of THETA out of viewing present time that can serve well in a situation in present time?
          What do you say?

          1. And this universe is a miraculous place! To “myself” and to other “selves”….I left out “a” from
            awareness….why? Because when the “one” takes full responsibility for all one’s viewpoints and roles, that “one” is theta, but not “pure theta”. (the FLOW didn’t let me write down a partial truth). So, the question is: where is the remaining ignorance/part of irresponsibility?
            Can it be in solving who/what that “I” is?

            (and that this miraculous thing happened so is the truth – Marianne Toth)

      3. It was actually on OT8 that I realized that my past isn’t me – THAT’s the HUGE gain I got ON 8.

        This appears to be part of a much wider and longer process in Buddhism called “Anatta” which refers to the notion of “not-self” or the illusion of “self”.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatta

        Maybe not, though. Maybe it was just old cheese which seemed trustworthy at the time.

        Alanzo

  23. Fascinating take, Geir.
    At one point, LRH was reported to have considered the idea of doing away with OT III and in fact ordered David Mayo to do a pilot of taking Clears (or OT IIs) and putting them straight onto NOTs. I have seen the dispatch. The pilot never got done thanks to a little friend whose initials are also DM.

      1. I believe I actually saw this in practice at the AAC in 1983. There was a PC who had left the C of S around the same time as John Nelson and Deide Reisdorf. He was from Colorado and of a Zen bent and into Bruce Lee and I don’t think he was swallowing the OT III theme.

        I believe this was Steve Ayras who by my eaves dropping seemed to make an expedient pass from plain old 3 to a NOTS style. I cannot remember what I exactly heard him say, but he had recently rehabbed Clear at the time and was quickly using David’s technique. This was not common C/Sing policy there though. So I DO believe a dispensing of OT 3 might have been kicked around a bit as there were a lot of seemingly enlightened individuals appearing who weren’t relating to a motivator provided by any galactic villains and were embarrassed by this strange OUT-grades perspective.

      2. The reason I ask is because LRH wrote and issued OTIII in 1967, and if he waited till say, 1979 to figure out that he had made a mistake with it by giving people incidents in violation of his own Auditor’s Code, and all the other completely laughable and contradictory things everyone now knows about OT III – don’t you think that it would be a long time for an OT to take to figure that out?

        I know you probably won’t answer this, that’s not your purpose here. Your purpose is to place a detail-less rumor here for the faithful to grab on to to keep stringing them along.

        Dan, you could be giving people the information they need to make informed decisions about their own involvement in Scientology.

        Instead you are doing this.

        Tsk, tsk, Dan.

        Alanzo

  24. Marildi, the biggest thing that I got out of Scientology was its unique organization of data. It made things very clear for me. I am now continuing with the same approach in my research. That same approach is helping me uncover some basic inconsistencies in Hubbard’s thought. For example, take Scientology Factor One:

    “Beginning” implies the beginning of any manifestation. This includes the universe as an overall manifestation.

    If Cause is postulated to be there before the beginning then the question arises, “Can Cause be there all by itself before its effect manifests itself?” An overall effect would be the creation of the universe.

    If the answer is “yes” then Cause will be a manifestation on its own right, and the question then becomes, “What is the cause of the Cause?” This logic inevitably leads to an endless chain of causes, and the beginning keeps getting pushed back earlier and earlier.

    If the answer is “no” then the Cause must occur simultaneously with effect. “Cause-effect” would then be part of the same manifestation at the beginning. One may say that God and Universe must have appeared simultaneously as a pair.

    One tries to fix the dilemma in (3) by postulating “Uncaused cause.” But this postulate appears to be self-contradictory and simply a device of convenience.

    Thus, CAUSE seems to be part of the created considerations. This seems to be consistent with the idea that TIME itself would start at the beginning.

    Thus, there would be no such thing as “before the beginning.”

    Thus, CAUSE is part of a system of interdependent considerations. It is part of the creation like anything else. There is no linear chain of considerations as implied by the factor above.

    The idea “before the beginning” would then be a projection that is created after the fact of beginning. Thus, the idea of God as the Creator would appear after the fact of Creation.

    The assumption that CAUSE, a consideration in itself, can be separated from, and can be extended beyond, the system of considerations it generates, seems to be the basic inconsistency.

    Thus, it appears that beginning is simply there. We do not know how the beginning of creation comes to be. We may try to explain or justify it with arbitrary postulation, but the fact remains that we do not really know the answer.

    This conclusion is uncomfortable to face. That is why we get postulates like “Uncaused cause,” “God as the Creator,” and Scientology Factor #1.

    .

    1. I agree that the way LRH used technical writing techniques in Bulletins and policy letters was actually an advance for spiritual writing. And dividning these things into cradients and organizing them into course packs with checksheets – something I know that Dan Koon was very much involved in – was a huge contribution to spiritual knowledge.

      This is a very solid thing that really exists and which I think LRH was also responsible for, which is GOOD, and which I BENEFITED FROM in Scientology.

      (Emphasis mine, as in the original. And please do not forget that I said it here and that you read it from me, Alanzo.)

      Alanzo

  25. Maria provided this quotation from LRH:

    “The freedom of an individual depends upon that individual’s freedom to alter his considerations of space, energy, time and forms of life and his roles in it. If he cannot change his mind about these, he is then fixed and enslaved amidst barriers such as those of the physical universe, and barriers of his own creation. Man thus is seen to be enslaved by barriers of his own creation. He creates these barriers himself, or by agreeing with things which hold these barriers to be actual.”

    The highest reality provided in Scientology is “individuality”. This reality is enshrined in Scientology Axiom #1 as ‘Static’. This is still a limited reality.

    .

    The very first Axiom of Scientology states:

    AXIOM # 1: LIFE IS BASICALLY A STATIC.

    Definition: a Life Static has no mass, no motion, no wavelength, no location in space or in time. It has the ability to postulate and to perceive.

    .

    However, the axiom uses the article “a” before Static. It further assigns the abilities “to postulate and to perceive” to Life Static. In THE PHOENIX LECTURES, Hubbard states:

    “This is a peculiar and particular static, having these properties…”

    When describing THETA-MEST THEORY in SCIENTOLOGY 8-8008, Hubbard states:

    “In Scientology, the static is represented by the mathematical symbol theta; the kinetic is called MEST. Theta can be the property or beingness of any individual and is, for our purposes, considered to be individualistic for each individual.”

    The Life Static expresses itself through individuality.

    .

    This above is consistent with the following statement from THETA-MEST THEORY:

    “Scientology is essentially a study of statics and kinetics. If anything, it is more exact than what are called the physical sciences, for it is dealing with a theoretical static and a theoretical kinetic which are at the opposite ends of a spectrum of all motion.”

    It is consistent because the same fundamental characteristic must apply to all points of a spectrum. THETA (individuality) is as much a consideration as MEST (matter, energy, space and time) is. Both THETA and MEST are manifestations of considerations.

    However, THETA-MEST THEORY also states:

    “It is now considered that the origin of MEST lies with theta itself, and that MEST, as we know the physical universe, is a product of theta.”

    This statement is inconsistent because it assumes that one end of a spectrum produces the other end.

    MEST is not produced by THETA as assumed in Scientology. Both THETA and MEST are aspects of existence.

    .

    Any spectrum, or scale, is a manifestation as a whole. It must exist within the background of ‘no manifestation’. That ‘no manifestation’ cannot be THETA or Static as implied by Scientology Axiom #1.

    Thus, Scientology is limited to the concept of individuality. It doesn’t go beyond that. But Buddhism goes beyond the concept of individuality.

    .

    1. Vin:” However, THETA-MEST THEORY also states:

      “It is now considered that the origin of MEST lies with theta itself, and that MEST, as we know the physical universe, is a product of theta.”

      This statement is inconsistent because it assumes that one end of a spectrum produces the other end.”

      I was largely in agreement with you until this point. It is entirely conceivable for the thetan to be at both ends of the spectrum. This was part of a mechanic I was exploring last week when very unexpected phenomena occurred. I hope you will re-evaluate your reasoning along the lines of this hint. Once I can make a coherent, understandable statement of the whole works I will.

      1. Yes, the origin of MEST is in theta. When you ALLOW MEST to BE AS-IT-IS, you get theta! Example: if you let your body as-it-is, not resisting any charge that comes up, just by mere sitting, your body starts to change – I lost 15 kilograms, it’s fresh and alive, can do with it many movements that I could do as a gymnast as a child…..all by a STOP/NOT DO ANYTHING/NOT RESIST. There was no intention in all that happened….could give you numerous examples…..have you yourself got one?

        1. (1) I think that knowledge exists before self comes to be manifested.

          (2) It is only after self comes to be manifested that considerations come into play.

          (3) These considerations may produce the illusion of MEST for the self

          (4) However, looking at the bigger picture, self is part and parcel of a manifestation of a finer kind (center of knowledge)

          (5) I do not understand how origin of MEST is in THETA. THETA represent individuality. How did that individuality come into being according to you?

          .

          1. From Scn 8-80:

            “Any difference of potential played one against the other creates energy. Aesthetic waves against a static produce energy. Aesthetic waves against analytical waves produce energy. Analytical waves against emotional waves produce energy. Emotional waves against effort waves produce energy. Effort against matter produces energy.

            The last is the method used on Earth in generating electrical current for power. The others are equally valid and produce even higher flows. This is a gradient scale of beingness, from the zero-infinity of theta to the solidity of matter.

            The differences of potential most useful are easy to run.

            This is, actually, alternating current running. There can be DC running or chain fission running but these are very experimental at this writing.

            AC is created by the static holding first one, then the other, of a dichotomy of two differences of potential. A flow is run in one direction with one of the pair, then in the other direction with the other.”

            This is the essence of the subject and the basis for my future comment.

          2. Thank you Vin for what you sent to me about individuality and self! I am on the way of
            in-spect-ing that…..you collected a great knowledge by observation. It’s difficult sometimes to put into words the wisdom which is deeper than the know-able. That’s why some use the word
            ‘pointer’. Like void/emptiness/theta/static/consciousness/awareness – they have definitions, can be cleared, even beyond. Just like a table is not its definition, or the word emptiness cannot desribe that no-thing, I cannot prove you that theta/MEST is the two sides of the same
            coin. Just like birth/death, emptiness/universe…..the theta, which is me or you can form itself
            into an idea/thought/words like the ones I am writing down to you now……
            Life is “a” static may mean ” a unit of” static that is a unit of THAT which could be Axiom 0 or the Emptiness/Void that sorrounds the Bridge….that is a unit of the un-knowable…..it is of the same substance….as the void….able to postulate/perceive….just like the void….just like…..
            Please don’t think / look on with this…..go deeper than the mind….

      2. 2ndxmr, I do not have to data or reasoning to confirm your statement “It is entirely conceivable for the thetan to be at both ends of the spectrum.” since you have not provided it.

        According to my reasoning presented at https://isene.me/2012/12/10/ot-8/#comment-25043

        (1) Thetan is another word for self.
        (2) Self may be looked upon as the “center of knowledge”, referring to the knowledge accumualated around a “perception-point,
        (3) This accumulated knowledge fixes that “perception-point” at that location, and produces the consideration of individuality.
        (4) I still can’t see how the origin of MEST lies with theta itself. This is inconsistent to me.

        .

        1. I provided a reference from Scn 8-80 to a previous post of these questions (just a bit above).

          In regards to a thetan being at both ends of the spectrum: the thetan could mock up a very high tone – short wavelength – or a very low tone – long wavelength. The thetan could have a near zero wavelength (much, much shorter than the Planck length, very high energy) or it could go to static (infinitely long wavelength? or zero wavelength? or both at the same time?)

            1. You’re a nuclear engineer. I’m sure you understand the simple relationship between energy and wavelength. Look at it first from the point of view of high energy particles and extrapolate as wavelength goes to zero. As it does, energy goes to infinity.

              Then consider the thetan. In the purest, most perfect native state, a static. No wavelength. The equivalent of the wavelength of a high energy particle going to zero. Infinite energy or infinite potential energy? A static; zero wavelength or infinite wavelength? Infinite DC potential or infinite AC potential?

              Call it conjecture, if you like. If you do the math, either way it’s infinite energy whether potential or kinetic.

            2. Energy is a ripple through some medium. The particles of the medium are simply vibrating in place but the disturbance is moving forward like a wave. That is energy. Zero wavelength would no distance between two consecutive crests of the wave or no disturbance that is moving forward. It would be an ultimate solid medium with no elasticity. Infinite wavelength would be infinite distance between two consecutive crests. It would be the whole medium moving as disturbance. Again it would indicate an ultimate solid medium with no elasticity.

              So, what you are saying still does not make sense.

              .

            3. What I said as a way of getting you to grasp the concept was “extrapolate as wavelength goes to zero”. Treat it as a limit function. E=hc/(lambda), as lambda->0, E-> infinity

          1. Hi 2ndxmr,
            Read the example I have written today. Do you think that it is an example for the “both”?
            And….instead of “mock up” “have a wavelenght” “go” can we say BE ? You said you had experiences in life. Can you write about them? Would enjoy to read them!

    2. I think that the ultimate truth is that everything is an unity. It includes everything-both what is manifested and what is not manifested. This unity is IMO both all everythingnesses and nothingnesses. It includes all individualities and everything that is not individuality. I thing this is the ultimate ”THETA”.

  26. Placebo – nocebo. I had a personal difficulty accepting these lines of thought as they did not fit with my own experience.

    In looking at what I have observed over the course of my study of the mind – pre, during and post CoS periods – I would agree that I have seen evidence of placebo effect and nocebo effect in others.

    The nocebo effect often points to a hidden standard in the pc: the pc is measuring each command and answer and looking to see if it handles the pc’s goal post for achievement.

    The real benchmark for progress in Scientology is Ability Gained. Not wins, not cognitions, not feeling of well being. Abilities Gained, when fully achieved and not suppressed by invalidations, etc., put the thetan into a condition that would be impossible to attain through the placebo effect, only. The reason is that the thetan has had to gain an understanding or control over an aspect of the mind in order to achieve the ability gained. No amount of sugar pills or warm fuzzies will achieve that. It takes work either as a pc or as a student to gain an ability. You don’t just look at a jet fighter, feel all warm and fuzzy and “know” you’re an ace pilot. It takes years of work to get there and in the mean time many of the prospective pilots wash out for one reason or another.

    Scientology is no different. You’ve got to work and gain an understanding of the mind in order to advance up the bridge. Honest gains simply do not fit the placebo mechanism.

    1. Wow, well said! And I believe that in this thread you are the one best trained and experienced with the tech.

    2. I do not disagree with much of what you have said but I will add that in my estimation and experience, an ability gained is a win and directly results from cognitions, feelings of well being (i.e. raises in tone), due to barriers overcome such as past restricting considerations and postulates and a mastery of the very phenomenon that results in the placebo effect in the first place. The individual learns they can change their mind, expectations, beliefs, habits and so on. No one is suggesting that an individual is being given a pill or warm fuzzy here, but the ability that enables a change in state from a pill or warm fuzzy is the at the heart of what happens when these things do have a beneficial result. Individuals can and do change their state under necessity, or simply because they truly believe something will have a particular effect. The question is, do they know that they have done this or have they attributed it to something else like a method or device or substance?

      In the medical arena, doctors have become aware that their prognosis can have a very real bearing on whether a “tested” medication will work. If the doctor confidently predicts a successful outcome, the outcomes are much better. Consequently, in cancer wards, they are now careful to cultivate a positive frame of mind. A perfect example is a man who was given a test drug that the doctor told him was a trial but extremely successful. The man recovered fully from his illness. He then read in the paper that the drug was ineffective and had been withdrawn and his illness returned immediately and did not respond to that same medication that was so successful the first time. His entire attitude shifted and along with it the outcome.
      The newspaper article was an excellent example of a nocebo and his reversion to illness, the nocebo effect.

      Surround a person with naysayers, dooming and glooming and beliefs of failure enough to shift their agreement to that and they involuntarily create such things in their lives – the nocebo effect. That is largely what happens with a PTS and is undoubtedly why the handling so often shifts to disconnection. Its not that words or counter-intentions or pictures, etc. are even harmful in themselves, it is that the individual goes into agreement, shifts their considerations and “loses” their gains. It must be that way or else the suppressed person rundown would not have any effect.

      I believe it works on the basis that the faulty, false, old, messed up beliefs, ideas and expectations are recognized as such and the individual no longer carts them around applying the past (lies) to the present.

    3. 2ndxmr, You seem to indicate that there can be discrepancy between the goals of auditing (ability gained) and the goals of the pc (want handled). I see an inconsistency here. “Ability gained” seems to be judgmental of Scientology.

      “Want handled” is what needs to be addressed. The person is inherently able, so no abilities needs to be added to the person. All that needs to be done is the removal of additives that the person has acquired. It is the additive that causes a person’s “want.”

      .

      1. True. All abilities are there, they are just veiled. And it’s also interesting to see that these
        veils have a joyful function in the bigger picture of life, if you agree. As for myself, when I “tune into” the wavelenght of reasoning, I still have to “peel some layers” there….e.g meeting you here is a good practice for that. And Vin……you may never write back to me after this but I take the risk…..besides what you are writing about, can you show me/us some other parts of Vin? The poems/music/food…. you like, some real Indian stuff….from you, not just from the net….Thanks if you do so! marianne

  27. Reading and writing on a thread about OT8 I expect to see an infinite number of manifestations without so much as one expectation placed on another. It is a thread to strip away every impossibility. There is no standard tech except as regards a particular frame of reference. Example: Scientology which defines itself; what is consistent within its bounds; what is inconsistent; what is absolute and what is not. There are unlimited amounts of these frames of references. We can make them, discover them, share them with one another, and then when finished with them, move on leaving that frame to disintegrate through disuse.

    In the tautological universe of infinite possibilities, everything is possible; nothing is impossible; everything is manifested; and nothing is unmanifested. That’s what makes it the Tautological Universe . . . “TU” for those in the know! hahaha

    1. And Chris….isn’t it a joy to dive into the SERIOUSNESS of the knowingness of a wavelenght (the degree of it depending on the fixedness of the viewpoint) and equally into the unknowable unknown FIRE? What a joy to jump here and there and experience it all? What
      a joy to see it when one gets unfixed! This live com. among us is incredible! We may end up at Geir’s coffee place, sitting around the table having our coffees, nice music in the backround and we will only say: This coffee tastes fantastic! Can I get the recipe as I have never met a taste like this before? And we may even stand up and dance! If we are speeding up like this, Geir will have to ask the owner to get the place bigger fast!

  28. It is interesting to compare the Socratic Method to Scientology.

    The Socratic method is free inquiry into whatever suits one’s fancy. It is questioning all existence. It is focusing on inconsistencies and looking at them more and more closely.

    On the other hand, Scientology is a humongous fixation on individuality and self. This fixation is enshrined in Scientology Axiom #1.

    Compare Socrates to Hubbard. Socrates had no care about himself. Hubbard was all care about himself.

    Look at the current leader of Scientology. He is obsessed about being the greatest individual ever.

    All OT levels are there to enhance the individuality by fighting other individuals. What are entities but individuals?

    The whole focus of Scientology is on individuality, and that is its fixation. It appeals to those who are fixated on sorting out themselves.

    .

    1. In other words, Scientology has a very narrow focus. It cannot get away from that focus. And that is the unintended trap due to the very nature of Scientology.

      It does not mean that Scientology is bad. Scientology is good at lower levels in unfixing the attention on self. But then it doesn’t let go of its attention on self when it should.

      .

          1. Good, what is appropriate for your perception of
            this list, this discussion, just ONE specific…

            Everlove
            Per

            1. The inconsistency that presents itself..

              There is nothing fixed. An inconsistency presents itself. It is the components of that inconsistency that pose the inconsistency relative to each other.. There is no absolute fixed point.

              .

            2. It’s still from a viewpoint isn’t it? And therefore very individual as I see it…
              Love, Per

  29. I have to say something about “Total Responsibility” as a standard which LRH gave Scientologists to follow.

    I think it would be appropriate to use his writings to Scientologists about the OT Levels as a case study in making my point.

    If you use ““RESPONSIBILITY: THE NONRECOGNITION AND DENIAL OF THE RIGHT OF INTERVENTION BETWEEN ONESELF AND ANY BEING, IDEA, MATTER, ENERGY, SPACE, TIME OR FORM, AND THE ASSUMPTION OF FULL RIGHT OF DETERMINATION OVER IT.”” and compare the fundamentals of Scientology to evaluate this standard, you would see, beginning with the second word that “NONRECOGNITION AND DENIAL” would lead to “not-isness” of something which you did not cause, and you would then alter-is it as YOU having determined it, and not someone else.

    This is aberration.

    Again, if you evaluate this writing by LRH from the viewpoint of the Axioms, you can see that it is an invitation to blindness of cause and misownership. Therefore, if you follow LRH’s definition of responsibility you will see that it actually creates aberration.

    Example: The OT 3 story was given to Scientologists by LRH as the cause of the phenomena that people audit on OT 3. He also told Scientologists that they would get very sick and possibly die if they were exposed to this data, and its processes, before they were “ready” to receive it.

    Since millions, and maybe even billions, of people have been exposed to this data before they were “ready”, and there have been NO reported cases of sicknesses or deaths from this exposure, we can conclude that LRH’s statement here was false. That he never corrected this statement from 1967 to 1986 whehn he died, despite case surpervising thousands of OT cases and even developing corrections for the OT levels is also an important thing to observe.

    Look at his cause. Not yours.

    His.

    Now, if you took “responsibility” for this per LRH’s definition, you would not recognize and deny the right of intervention between yourself and LRH for giving you a falsehood. You would take responsibility for someone else lying to you. You would make yourself responsible for their lie to you. You would not recognize and deny that they lied to you – a very important perception for your survival – and you would “be responsible” for LRH’s lies.

    That is aberration.

    Aristotle said that you should be responsible for what you have created. Therefore, the non-aberrative path of responsibility would be to take responsibility for your responses to having been lied to by LRH.

    Did you deny that he lied and keep paying for more OT levels after you had been given the data that it was a lie? Did you look away from information that you needed to have to make informed decisions about your own involvement in Scientology? Good, you can take full responsibility for that. And taking responsibility for that will lead you to learn and to have a better life.

    But taking responsibility for someone else’s lies will lead you down the frikking chute, where most Scientologists, especially in the Church, are.

    So look for LRH’s lies in Scientology. Recognize them as such. Recognize and affirm that YOU DID NOT LIE, LRH did. Then you can begin to take responsibility for the mess you, and others, have caused with Scientology and begin to dig yourself out of it.

    And don’t be too hard on yourself. When a person joins a religion, he has an extremely sane and reasonable expectation to NOT be lied to by its founder. You are not stupid or bad or evil for trusting LRH. LRH is bad for lying to Scientologists, and for violating their trust and exploiting their spiritual vulnerabilities for his own gain.

    Alanzo

    1. I’ve understood what you’ve stated. I’m impressed with your viewpoint. Thank you Alanzo 🙂

  30. Also I want to say one thing about Geir Isene.

    I have been watching Geir for about 3 years now and reading most everything he writes. There is an intention which consistently shines through in his writing which I find extremely healthy, sane, and constructive.

    It is this: “I am going to find the most constructive, healthy, and sane responses I can to move on from having been involved in Scientology, and I am going to try to help others to do the same”.

    I have seen a lot of people climb up out of Scientology, and how Geir has approached this spiritual catastrophe is probably the most beneficial approach I have ever seen. I have personally benefited from his approach, and so have many others.

    Thanks, Gier.

    Alanzo

    1. Me too, Alan. I learned a lot here from you and Geir and everyone contributing. Together with my own private work, I improved more in these past two years than the previous 30 years in and out of Scientology.

        1. Thank you Geir, it is sincere. I have a make-up; a predilection if you will that is innate to my beingness and it manifested and became clear to me early in life. It is a bundle of curiosities and hunger to know — possibly very similar to each person blogging here. Growing up, leaving home, etc., gave me the freedom to pursue my hearts desires and it was at that time when I ran across Scientology. When I arrived at Scientology, I took an OCA personality test which graphed well up into a desirable range and this was explained to me as what is called a “glib” graph. And so it went. My fixation on self allowed Scientology to become a filter for me to sift every perception through before I could know what I was perceiving. Under that filter was the person who through curiosity came in contact with the cult of Scientology. Now that I have audited out Scientology, I understand that similarly to “going into” a body, I “went into” the body of Scientology. I assumed that beingness and that frame of reference. Within that frame of reference Scientology makes sense. Here, outside that frame of reference, I can more clearly see what was attractive about it; what was useful; what was marginally useful; and what was harmful. This process continues to run.

          Today, I’ve found and enjoy the person that I used to be before Scientology. I understand the purposes driving that person and I understand that person from a new frame of reference — one outside the metes and bounds of Scientology. I am excited like a child at Christmas, waiting to find out what tomorrow’s discoveries about Nature will bring.

        2. RESPONSIBILITY.
          Responsibility: sometimes back I have had the same cognition as Geir had, knowing understanding his cognition made me realizes that we have choice: to take responsibility for our creations-experiences for our existence that we are cause in the Universe or lets go for BLAME…[blame: make guilty, their fault, they are liable for existing conditions, my suffering is caused by others] blaming others for everything whatever we experience: that we been taken, that others did it to us…
          If we go for the Blame bit with that action we do give our power away and we say others caused everything what we experience and with that we declare our self-nothing power-less, useless, ineffective unsuccessful, hopeless, futile unproductive uncreative in other words we become the VICTIM of others!! In other we are f-ad…. Very simple..
          And with those Considerations thoughts believes in place we have become A TOTALL EFFECT OF THE MEST UNIVERSE….
          Responsibility is not when something good happens we say I have caused that, I am powerful…. That do not means we have taken responsibility for our universe, far from that… Taking responsibility accepting responsibility for self, for one’s life, for one’s Universe means we acknowledge what we have, what we experience regardless what that is: good or bad all that is equally our creation that we have created it and no one else have.
          That is power: knowing our abilities…accepting responsibility for them, with that acknowledging our creation… also we establish our-self here wherever that is and take place in the universal game of creation… having fun!!!!

            1. Most OT’s I’ve seen follow this definition:

              OT = Old and Tired…

            2. Real OT who operates in the Spiritual universe is Vibrant energetic creative effervescent full of the originality, has visions, fun loving, infinite.
              The persons you describe are humans and who just just crawled out from under 6’ dirt.
              OT’s do not mean dead tired old… those are concepts agreements considerations of the MEST universe.. that is what I call really banky out-look of on old human.

            3. Dear Elizabeth

              He/she who only takes jokes for jokes
              and seriousness only serious
              He/she has actually
              not understood either..
              (freely from Kumbel).

              Everlove
              Per

            4. Per, Kumbel do not impress’s me, matter fact quotations dont impress me at all. and to tell the truth I have no reality who is Kumbel… far as I know it can be sweet jam of some kind….

            5. Of course not, it wasn’t ment as a generality – more like a joke – please…

            6. Yea right Chris,

              It does take some observation of self and then some criticalness too..
              But mainly, still, it was ment as a joke which apparently some missed,
              even though I found it pretty obvious. Probably a matter of tone level.

              Love, Per

            7. I think it is unjust evaluation to say “probably a matter of tone level.” I question this theory of tone level.

              Sent from my iPad

            8. Really Vinaire…

              I suggest you try to crack the same joke at someone who is in grief and someone who is angry and someone who is happy and then see for yourself who will take it serious and who will take it as a joke.. Have fun..

              Love, Per

              NB: I am not trying to make just evaluations.
              Correct evaluations only use data, not opinions.

            9. You can bet on that Chris… and Thank God that here in north america we we go by different vesion what OT means than what Pers has heard it is.

            10. It is this kind of evaluation that makes Scientologists detestable. Such evaluations do not help anybody.

              .

      1. I can say that the development of the post-Scientology Internet has been quite fascinating to watch over the last 12 years. It used to be a very yuckky place, with few options. There were a LOT of battles and wars going on. It used to be a fair-gaming offense just to write posts on the Internet about Scientology.

        That kind of environment was filled with cognitive distortions and toxic emotions about the experience of having been through Scientology. It’s very to pick up these negative habits when these are the environments available to you to try to work things out. There were almost no alternatives to this toxic kind of environment in trying to move on from Scientology, or to get out of the Church.

        But Geir, for one at least, has continually tried to produce constructive, non-toxic environments for the examinations and discussions of Post-Church Scientology, and the road beyond. I believe he has influenced many others in a very constructive way.

        It can only get better for everybody.

        Chris – you have remained one of the most positive people I have ever seen coming out of all this. You have not only been a product of this more constructive environment, but a very wise and constructive contributor. Your contributions have been a positive series of lessons for me as well.

        The main thing I am continually reminded of here is that people can move on from Scientology, productively and positively, and they can incorporate their experiences in a way that strengthens them and propels them forward into ever better lives.

        Environments like this did not exist when I got out of Scientology.

        I’m grateful that they do now.

        Alanzo

        1. Wow! The handle moves the door! Joke aside, my favourite in Formula 1 is Alonzo! One
          letter difference…..or is it not?

    2. Geir, I was going to hold off, but since reading Alanzo last comment I will tell briefly now.
      First I agree with what he said about you although I have only been reading you less than a year.
      Second, this current post I kept putting it aside, finally got to it and the comments. On 12-12-12 (which by the way only realized date after my win) I had the Best Discovery ever! It… this had been with me since I was a little girl, through life and became overbearing after the loss of my husband and I tried and tried to understand it by various means including lots of scientology. I knew you were there for a reason. I said I’d be brief, so to the point.
      The major shift in Really realizing what was not me and taking responsibility for that thing. This has, and will change my life. I could go on and on …. Your helpful guidance through posts and most commenters is much appreciated —- I owe you BIG time for this one! I’m sending you a theta check through the universe. You can cash it here. Thank you dear friend. 🙂

      PS: you have no idea how much I needed that! Then again, you do know what’s needed and wanted and here you are. 🙂

  31. No Alonzo, this is a good definition based on our true nature (oneness=same consciousness/awareness/wholeness/love…)

    Let’s take a look at it.

    1.You (awareness unit) and Me (awareness unit) are the same “substance” AWARENESS.
    You have the Ability to create an idea/matter/energy/space/time/form and send it to me so that I understand it (ARC). If you create and/or send it in a way that I cannot fully duplicate it, that is you cause me a misunderstanding (not full ARC), I have the right of assuming and determining over the sent particle to “send” it back to you signalling that what you created cannot be an intervention between you and me, and I deny any Inability ! in you that your creation/way of sending it/me getting it is less than perfect. That is what/how you Create is your Responsibility, the Way you send it is your responsibility and it is also your responsibility that I Get it.

    2. You have the same right towards me.

    3. I can have the Ability to inspect and dissolve any “foreign/third party/mest particle which is
    intervening between YOU and ME, that is seeing you differently from who you are (awareness unit /love…) and by” doing” so, I let the flow of live communication happen (see
    the situation I wrote about today). That is knowing enough about MEST so as not to let it
    intervene between you and me.
    ALONZO!!!!!!! Live by your right to put me right if you don’t uderstand the above!

    1. Marianne –

      If you can’t see what I am saying then you have your own reasons for not seeing it. I’ll let you have those reasons for yourself.

      However, on a more fundamental topic, there is a simple but powerful lesson I’ve learned from Buddhism that might be helpful here.

      For a human being, there are TWO LEVELS OF TRUTH.

      One level of truth exists right here in the material, relative, MEST universe. Right here and now. It could be called the level of RELATIVE TRUTH. It is true on this level that you are you, and I am me, and we are *different people*, and different points of cause for what we experience. On this level of truth, it is not just an illusion – it is a whole and VALID level of truth.

      Another, different, level of truth exists as ultimate truth. This is the level you are talking about, where we are all ultimately awareness, etc.

      It is a mistake to bypass and ignore relative truth in the rush for ultimate truth. In fact, Nagarjuna teaches that it is ONLY through thorough and logical examination of, and experience of, relative truth that one can come to ultimate truth. Per him, that IS the process to enlightenment.

      This is a mistake I often see in people who have been influenced by Scientology in their spiritual path. They do not distinguish between these two levels of truth, and they look at a dead Lisa McPherson, for instance, and say, “that’s okay, she was a thetan, and thetans can’t really be harmed.”

      See? If you wish to apply compassion, etc, you simply can not get to ultimate truth from ultimate truth. Being stuck in ultimate truth without being willing to confront relative truth is what caused the Lisa McPheron tragedy in the first place. And I can tell you, that relative truth is NOT the consequence of understanding ultimate truth!

      You must recognize, examine, live with, and conquer things on the relative level of truth if you are ever going to get to ultimate truth.

      So I disagree that it is ever going to get anyone anywhere to nonrecognize and deny lies told to you by others, especially by those you look to for spiritual guidance to get you somewhere.

      But you can go on doing that.

      Knock yourself out.

      Alanzo

      1. Alanzo — somewhere along the way I realized that this is why Buddha taught the 8-fold path, which addresses the world of the relative and interactions in it. What has been working well for me is to address both the relative and the ultimate, a balance if you will. I have found that if I am experiencing conflict or some kind of dissonance in my relationships it is a huge opportunity for me to examine my own contribution that allowed it in the first place, richly rewarding. But at the same time, I think that part of being responsible is also allowing that others are responsible for their own actions. They have their own part and action to take care of from their point of responsibility and learning to do. You would like Ken Wilbur’s work on this, for he lays out a series of views both external and internal, objective and subjective — I think maybe you can’t really count a close encounter of the disturbing kind sorted out fully until it is addressed from all the different angles.

        1. I think that the formula from Buddha “Seeing things as they are”, gradually sorts everything out. It not only takes care of ownership but also the idea of “owner “.

          .

        2. You would like Ken Wilbur’s work on this, for he lays out a series of views both external and internal, objective and subjective…

          What is the name Mr. Wilbur’s publication?

          (crossing fingers) I hope it’s not “DIAMEST”.

          Alanzo

          1. I misspelled his name — it’s actually Ken Wilber: Wikipedia has a really good summary of his works — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Wilber. The article touches on the four quadrants I mentioned, though not with any great detail.

            He also has a website that lists his books, offers article and videos. http://www.kenwilber.com

            He also founded the Integral Institute: http://integralinstitute.org/ “Integral theory is an all-inclusive framework that draws on the key insights of the world’s greatest knowledge traditions. The awareness gained from drawing on all truths and perspectives allows the Integral thinker to bring new depth, clarity and compassion to every level of human endeavor — from unlocking individual potential to finding new approaches to global-scale problems.”

          2. I made a post with links in it and it is now sitting awaiting moderation! I forgot about that!

            If you are in a hurry, his name is actually spelled Ken Wilber. He’s on Wikipedia and the section on quadrants and truth was what I was referring to. He has a website: kenwilber dot com and he founded this one too: integralinstitute dot org

          3. Alanzo: I think you would also like this persona concept offered by Wilber — there is an excerpt from his book: http:// www. kenwilber . com/ editor/ nbshadow.pdf. You’ll have to take the spaces out so you can use the link. I put spaces in so this comment won’t get moderated.

            I hope you will read it. I also think Vinay, Geir and Chris — well, pretty much everybody on this blog — will like it too. Much food for thought.

            1. The person, according to Ken Wilbur, has walled his own undesirable characteristics from himself, and he is looking for someone to project them on. Well this may fit the scenario of OT3 entities. I wonder what Hubbard was going through when he came up with the ideas of body thetans.

              This is very likely to read on the e-meter because he is emotional about them. Only, he is interpreting the read as indicative of entities and not something origination from himself.

              But, then the question comes up about what is “he” and what are “others.” Where does the boundary of him ends and others begin?

              It seems to be a matter of what “knowledge” is felt as intimate and comfortable, and what “knowledge” is not. Self seems to be a representation of knowledge (experience, information, hypotheses, theories, principles and axioms) that is intimately associated with the perception-point, and it fixes the perception point with a certain perspective. Some of this knowledge is related to a body.

              Self seems to have a structure built around a perception point.

              .

  32. Bang, bang, bang! Al…..don’t hit the door with your fist! There is a handle, push it down softly!
    I see what you mean! Thanks for this Alonzo answer! Unmistakable! Did you read my other comment about what happened in the world of relative truth this morning?
    Next: war/peace ?

    1. No, I didn’t. It is hard for me to find all the different posts and their replies on this commenting interface.

      I’m not quite sure what you mean by your acknowledgement about the door handle, etc. Could you explain that one a little more to me?

      Alanzo

  33. It’s at one third up if you roll it from the bottom. It starts Hi each of you…..
    Finding the door handle is exactly what you wrote to Chris….under Geir’s answer….reading your comments for a couple months I can say that you have huge insights….and some misunderstandings – which ones? When one is angry, complaining, it’s a sign of missing data,
    misduplication etc. MEST can be sometimes complex, anyway, “get off” the wheel and be yourself! Like now, right above my comment.
    So – peace?

    1. First, there was never any war. So your “peace?” plea – there is no need to ask for peace.

      And yes, I found your experience and I read it. It was very profound.

      I have to tell you, though, I do not operate that way. And I don’t know if I ever did no matter how woo-woo Scientology or any other spiritual practice became.

      I just don’t see the benefit in operating with ultimate truth type concepts while here in the relative world. There is another important thing to recognize that was taught in Scientology and is not true: Ultimate truth concepts are NOT CAUSATIVE in the relative world. You can again see the Lisa McPherson examples, and the fallacy of “taking responsibility” for Hubbard’s lies to you on the OT Levels, and elsewhere, as examples of that.

      Relative truth concepts, like “I am me and you are you” and “what you cause is what you cause” and “what I cause is different” – those concepts are what are causative here in the relative world.

      Again, I believe that one can only reach ultimate truth by mastering relative truth. It is through thoroughly examining relative truth that ultimate truth is revealed.

      So my new book is called DIA – (THROUGH) MEST – (RELATIVE WORLD).

      “DIAMEST – The Modern Science of Living in the Real World!”

      Get your copy today!

      Alanzo :>

      1. Hi Alanzo,
        Yes, it was profound. That’s the nature of ultimate truth/awareness/conciousness/love.
        It’s Causative, it’s Free Will in Operation. One ( THE you,THE I …) cannot “reach”ultimate truth as it is the nature/essence/base/core of any person/being/object..any phenomena. (It was not “my” win, as one may say. There was not the sense of “me doing that”.)
        One cannot “reach” something when one is already FULLY THAT. The Truth “reveals” itself when “one” STOPS creating illusions. How much Truth is revealed depends on how full that Stop is. That’s why in some paths they use the word “Realized”, that is what is REAL is allowed/let reveal itself and when it happens so, this true nature “does the job” (dissolves the barriers/the best for all dynamics/…).
        It is doing so anyway. It’s all Free Will/Consciousness/Tone 40 all the time.
        As long as one has the “sense” of ” I “, one considers that one has a “position” and is ” doing” whatever activity is there, and “thinks/knows” that s/he is causing that. Yes, it’s true, as you say, in the relative world.With the sense of the ” I ” gone there is just the Flow of Life and when there is a “situation”, the person (as the body is still there and some personality too), the “wisdom” of the Flow “informs” the person of the right action (in the example it happened like that). Relative world… If you stop here and look at the word “relative”, it means interconnectedness – that is everybody/everything is in relation to everybody/everything. Game level in scientology, Web of Life by Alan Watts (google it if you like). The degree one sees that it is the same cosciousness/love/theta, the degree one is
        able to part-icipate in it to All’s joy. Education/training are important as this relative world is ever changing. So agreed, mastering relative truth is required. It is just easier, when one lets
        this truth do its job. That’s my experience.

  34. I’m not sure about the book, but Alanzo you do put some humor in and I love to laugh! A good cracking up is always fun AND good for the body.

  35. Vinaire says, “Charge itself means some sort of tension or stress due to deviation from more natural state. The more natural state seems to be a perception-point that is not fixed at all, but which is completely fluid. Any ideas that are consistent seem to contribute to the generation of self by fixing the perception-point to some degree. The accumulated result of such ideas and considerations (that are relatively fixed in space) would be self.”

    Chris responds: This post of yours is really close to what I was wanting to express and trying to write. The upshot is that when we “understand” the travail in our minds, we may not be causing any change there at all. We may simply be adjusting our perception; tuning it if you will to what is there. This is an example of the “fluidity of the perception-point” that you write. This “blowing of charge” that we are taught to say may simply be the leveling of dissonance through the alteration of the perception-point; the self. Then when I factor in the concept of discrete time, I get the sense that my personal past, as well as my personal present, is wholly an illusion which I must put there by the moment. That is how it seems to me.

    1. I keep on going back and forth between ‘consistent’ and ‘persistent’.

      The first stage of leveling out seems to be inconsistency to consistency.

      The second stage of leveling out seems to be consistency to simplification.

      I believe that it is within the process of simplification that we start losing persistence of that which is consistent.

      .

      1. Yes, agreed. I’ve experienced this sensation and one example of it since we are blogging about OT8 is the subject of Scientology.

        First I leveled the inconsistencies by coming into harmony with those experiences. Then as I felt my experiences made better sense and were more consistent then I began looking at the Standard Tech of the subject of Scientology. As these inconsistencies began sticking out, I came to understand them better and to have a more consistent understanding of the subject of Scientology. Following this, I have ceased to create an experience of the subject of Scientology and that subject as a whole has diminished — become simplified.

        It seems to me that handling mental travails might follow a progression such as this. Disharmonic mental noise can be “tuned in” until harmony ensues. To be fair to LRH, he has lectured similarly in several places. The main difference that I am seeing between many Eastern mental disciplines and Scientology is the exaltation of individuality in Scn.

        1. Eastern philosophy, at one time, did go through the phase of “exaltation of individuality with abilities.” But then it soon realized the trap this could be . It then moved beyond it.

          .

        1. SELF:

          All perception ends as knowledge. Knowledge has many layers, such as, experience, information, hypotheses, theories, principles and axioms. One may say that self is the “center of knowledge” analogous to “center of mass.”

          THIRTY-SIX: Perception starts with a desire to know. Almost immediately it becomes experience.

          THIRTY-SEVEN: Over time, experience is converted into information. Information then leads to hypothesis. Hypothesis generates theory. From theory are derived principles. Principles are consolidated into axioms. Axioms are then condensed and incorporated as self.

          THIRTY-EIGHT: Thus, the spectrum of knowledge consists of experience, information, hypotheses, theories, principles, axioms and finally self.

          THIRTY-NINE: Knowledge is incorporated as SELF. One may say that self is “center of knowledge” analogous to “center of mass.”
          FORTY: Self is capable of consideration.

          .

  36. KNOWLEDGE:

    Primary knowledge is simply ‘what-is’ without any speculation. Secondary knowledge comes from associating the elements of primary knowledge. Here we have considerations followed by judgments. Beyond this level of knowledge we have speculation.

    THIRTY-ONE: Knowledge comes from the recognition of “first cause” characteristics of manifestations.

    THIRTY-TWO: Further knowledge comes from understanding of “cause and effect” relationships among manifestations.

    THIRTY-THREE: All knowledge is relative to perception. There is no absolute knowledge in itself.

    THIRTY-FOUR: Unknown generates desire to know. Desire to know generates perception.

    THIRTY-FIVE: All knowledge is derived from perception.

    .

  37. All perception ends as knowledge. Knowledge has many layers, such as, experience, information, hypotheses, theories, principles and axioms. One may say that self is the “center of knowledge” analogous to “center of mass.”

    SELF:

    THIRTY-SIX: Perception starts with a desire to know. Almost immediately it becomes experience.

    THIRTY-SEVEN: Over time, experience is converted into information. Information then leads to hypothesis. Hypothesis generates theory. From theory are derived principles. Principles are consolidated into axioms. Axioms are then condensed and incorporated as self.

    THIRTY-EIGHT: Thus, the spectrum of knowledge consists of experience, information, hypotheses, theories, principles, axioms and finally self.

    THIRTY-NINE: Knowledge is incorporated as SELF. One may say that self is “center of knowledge” analogous to “center of mass.”
    FORTY: Self is capable of consideration.

    .

      1. Not sure what you are referring to.. Consideration is a slippery thing. Anything one considers is a consideration. But the knowledge that creates self seems to be in a different category.

        .

        1. Right….. I was refering to only considerations – assumptions… since we both know what they are, and knowledge is diffenert which is born out of cognitions.
          So… lets not beat around the bush here you old pussy cat… the dinner is AN!!! let me do a little black mail here::: if you dont by me dinner than I never speak to you again!! how is that sounds to you? 🙂

            1. Ah! This reminds of a scene from the movie MATRIX where this person is really enjoying a dinner knowing fully well that it is an illusion.

              We both can imagine we are having a lovely dinner together at the most delightful place in Vancouver. Then we dance…

              .

  38. V….””””But, then the question comes up about what is “he” and what are “others.” Where does the boundary of him ends and others begin?”””
    V… my dear.. here enters the guessing… the speculation what is… am I right on that? In my reality only our experience can give on answer to that.
    Also what LRH was thinking… believing on any matters what he was writing about what he was considering was his reality… only his reality and people who read his writing listened to those tapes well, I have no idea why but they have believed it 100% true. Now that what I call mass-agreement: total bank reaction!!!
    This includes the OT3 material… I am very familiar with BT’s and clusters… Till one experience the reality of the One-ness of the Spiritual Universe one really have no idea what they talking about… And V… the Spiritual Universe is the true Universe!
    I EXPRESS THIS STRONGLY, THAT ONE NEED THE EXPERIENCE… in order to have reality… book learning: knowledge will not give that experience, with learned words one only will know the meanings of those words.. that gives assumption…what is…

  39. Vin….We are already communicating – there are no barriers! Whatever YOU / I do, we communicate with that and learn from each experience.

  40. Oh V.. my sweet petunia.. 🙂 I am delighted that we only dance as spiritual beings because when you will step on my toes your weight wont crush my poor little toes!!! Than I dont have to puch your lights out! hehehe. that would not be a good ending of on wonderful dinner… 🙂

    1. The ending will be when one of Elizabeth’s old jealous boyfriends shows up with a Tommy gun and shoots the place to rag-dolls while you two duck under the table! (It was Vin’s wife tipped off the old boyfriend and is cackling at your dilemma while the hot lead sprays up the place!)

      1. And who the hell tipped off Vins wife? You did and I know that since I do read minds you know.. I am telepathic that is my new way of communication..hehehe.. I got your number old friend!! your problem is you cant rumba!! not even hungarian czardas.. 🙂

  41. Geir: “My main philosophical realization in life is that I am ultimately responsible for all my experiences.”

    I don’t know what the above means. I only know that, for me, the way to make spiritual progress now is to diligently work on handling inconsistencies as I spot them.

    .

    1. V.. that you have caused your inconsistencies…. admiting that you have them because you say you have them…those … hehehe…. all your my dear…those loveli inconsistencies …. that is taking responsibility..

      1. But “I’, “you” ‘he” or any self is not part of the equation I am looking it. It is any inconsistency that is right there in front of me. This can be overwhelming if I do not follow mindfulness.

        .

        1. V.. how i am going to talk to you if I dont use those word???? Dont get stuck on them… we all ready established that those are only consideration and they are used in communication in order to point out whatever. ignore ” me, I, we, us,”
          Now my dear if we step up our comunication onto a different level than we can ignor the words period and lets do the spiritual rumba :lelepathy!

        2. In that overwhelmed feeling that you write, I find myself flipping between KG’s “relative truth” and Maria’s and Elizabeth’s “ultimate truth.” Pendulum swinging and searching for an equilibrium of truth.

            1. That should do it for you… but I have not figured out what that is because “mindfulness” means nothing in my universe. That word do not compute… no meaning what so ever..

          1. This is inspired by Vin saying “too bad you are unable to communicate”.

            I asked mySelf the question: “What are we doing here on the blog?” This is what the Flow/Field informed me about: each of us is Communicating the Reality one gets from consciousness as a whole in the moment, to get a feel of the quality of consciousness, which is Affinity/Love. Our true nature. The Flow/Field is doing that with the utmost co-m-passion for us to feel that transparent intimacy of undividedness in the core of our Be-ing.
            Get the FEEL of it and enjoy the ride:

            1. That was nice. I enjoyed the music and the lyrics.

              There is knowledge beyond self and it can be communicated.

              .

            2. And another one as an example of ultimate truth getting realized in the world of “relative truth”
              (the phrase relative truth as used by Alanzo).

            3. What is it that you consider “ultimate truth”?
              Sounds interesting, would like to know that.

              Love, Per

            4. I think that is very individual too. I remember once just outside the AO in Copenhagen I was going to cross a very heavy traffic street with 2 other persons. I walked straight across stopping at points where there were a car, buss or bike and the other waited till there was no traffic at all, 3 minutes. When they finally made it across they said: “Wow! That was really OT!” I didn’t consider it OT at all. I have been crossing streets all my life, you just need to keep your eyes open and not walk out in front of the cars…

              Love, Per

            5. Chris,
              Thanks! Fascinating talk! All of it and I especially liked that part when she speaks about “….do I look like I can write down a song right now, come back in a more opportune moment when I can take care of you…”. And “every one of my books has killed the Me a little”. It’s a must to see for anyone in art…..thanks, I am going to share it with some who have already touched into this reality.

    1. Vin…..”And there is still the unknowable prodding us forward”…Yes….no way to “explain” the unknowable as it is that layer of consciousness where we are operating as a “whole” out of which the “wisdom of the whole” is born. Only right after “coming out of” that silent/still/static no-time “emptiness/void” is one informed of “this wisdom of the whole” which one then puts into words. The words appearing so are consistent with that present moment – that is the deeper intangible truth is in harmony with the physical creation (the word).

  42. One doesn’t need an e-meter to locate mental mass when one is mindful. Mental mass consists of considerations involved in some inconsistency. These considerations simply bunch up due to inconsistency like an asteroid in space.

    Disappearance of mass is the disappearance of inconsistency. The considerations are still there. But they are not bunched up any more. Disappearance of considerations come from simplification. One does not have to memorize the whole multiplication table when knows that multiplication is repeated addition and one is skillful with addition.

    .

  43. Searching for the cause for every manifestation generates inconsistencies, because there is also the property of the “first cause”. I put “first cause” in quotes because it is a misnomer.

    From the PHILOSOPHY PROJECT:

    TWENTY-ONE: We cut a tree; it falls. We strike a match; it lights up. Thus, we have a phenomenon that is a direct consequence of another phenomenon. This makes us believe that all phenomena are caused. We, thus, assume that a manifestation must be a consequence of another manifestation. This belief leads to an infinite causal series.

    TWENTY-TWO: To resolve this inconsistency, we assume a First Cause that is not itself caused. But this makes the First Cause different from the way all other causes are understood. It allows the possibility that a manifestation may simply appear.

    TWENTY-THREE: All manifestations simply appear as we perceive them. They disappear as we stop perceiving them. Thus, we may consider “First Cause” to be the property of all manifestations.

    TWENTY-FOUR: The notions of CAUSE and EFFECT seem to indicate an association between two manifestations, which otherwise simply appear and disappear as we perceive or not perceive them.

    TWENTY-FIVE: Hence, consistency with perception tells us that “First Cause” is a property that applies to all manifestations. On the other hand, “cause and effect” is a special sequence observed between two manifestations.

    .

  44. I would like to add some information still not covered on these threads.

    Richard Sutphen is a very experienced past life regression researcher: more than 30 years, thousands of people regressed.

    Here are some links about what he found (and what he theorize) about attached entities:
    http://richardsutphen.com/2012/01/if-you-could-have-all-your-questions-answered/
    http://richardsutphen.com/2012/01/whats-the-meaning-of-entity-attachments/
    http://richardsutphen.com/2012/05/going-to-the-light/

    He also found that all the data he gathered being inconsistent with the traditional concept of reincarnation.

    The following quotes are from a web page he used to have. (Now he has this info recorded: http://richardsutphen.com/products-page/74-minute-courses/parallel-lives/ )
    “The many thousands of people I’ve regressed have experienced numerous past lives within recorded history. If they are representative of the rest of humanity, which I feel they are, then numerically reincarnation doesn’t work.”
    “I have encountered over my years of conducting past-life regressions—fallacies in the basic and generally accepted ideas of reincarnation. An example is the numerical conflict I’ve already mentioned. In reality, there are only a fraction of the number of people living on earth as there appears to be. And, another explanation: Often in working with extremely good regression subjects I’ve found them living two lives within the same or overlapping historic time periods. Research sometimes verified both existences … and both lives appeared to be influencing the current lifetime.”

    How can be explained a person past lives in overlapping time periods?
    ◦ Are they past lives of body thetans attached to the person?
    ◦ Are they parallel lives of an “oversoul” as Richard Sutphen theorize?
    ◦ Are they old viewpoint, as Geir theorize, of a single thetan in more than one body simultaneously?
    ◦ Other possible explanation(s)?

    1. Typo correction to my previous comment (Ferenc Francisco 2012-12-15 at 14:45):
      ◦ Are they old viewpoints, as Geir theorize, of a single thetan in more than one body simultaneously?

    2. Re: Ferenc Francisco 2012-12-15 at 14:45

      I would like to add some more information still not covered on these threads.

      As I mentioned above, during his past lives research, Richard Sutphen have found a numerical conundrum.

      Based on his extensive research of thousands of people, he counted, on average, how many past lives a person had at different time periods of the world recorded history. It multiplied this average per the world current population, and it compared it with the former population of this planet at different time periods. The first numbers were significantly higher than the second.

      “As another example: A friend of mind who is a regressive hypnotist once decided to explore the life of Christ through the observations of those who were actually there if enough good subjects could be found. Through some large group regressions he soon discovered several people who were able to relate vivid details about Jesus. None were key figures in the Passion Play, but they lived during this period and provided numerous details and opinions about the Master. I felt that such odds were beyond probability” (Quoted from Richard Sutphen).

      How can be explained too many past lives compared to world former population?
      ◦ Are they past lives of body thetans attached to the person?
      ◦ Are they parallel lives of “oversouls” as Richard Sutphen theorize?
      ◦ Are they old viewpoints, as Geir theorize? (In this case, it looks like a single viewpoint shared by more than one thetan).
      ◦ Other possible explanation(s)?

      1. Ferenc, thanks so much for the scholarly research and post! One thing you quoted of Richard Sutphen particularly interested me:

        “Often in working with extremely good regression subjects I’ve found them living two lives within the same or overlapping historic time periods. Research sometimes verified both existences … and both lives appeared to be influencing the current lifetime.”

        Considering the above, one “other possible explanation” of entities that I thought of is that they could be valences, per this definition: “a valence is an identity complete with bank mass or mental image picture mass of somebody other than the identity selected by oneself. In other words, what we usually mean by valence is somebody else’s identity assumed by a person unknowingly”.

        With that definition in mind, the “entities” could simply be old valences, which I believe would be Geir’s viewpoint, basically (or precisely). However, unless I am missing something, with all these theories it still seems to me that in order to determine whether the body entities are actual thetans or mental creations, we would have to be able to recognize a thetan as such.

        The difference between a thetan and something created by a thetan is whether or not the “entity” (regular English meaning) in question has the ability to postulate and create. If a body entity can do so, then it’s a thetan.

        Another “possible explanation” the discrepancy in numbers those researchers are theorizing about, is LRH’s statement that thetans are able to create other thetans.

        1. The last sentence should read “Another “possible explanation” FOR the discrepancy in numbers…”

      2. Ferenc, here is a quote of the “other explanation” that LRH gives based on his research findings stated in the last sentence of this quote:

        “Now, this mustn’t be confused with another function of the thetan, another action, another ability. He can actually create another thetan, just like that, bang! He can duplicate himself. That is to say, he can give birth to or create or bring into being an entirely different life unit – an entirely new, different life unit-which in its turn can have a full personality, which can have full determinism, which can do everything and anything that he himself can do and can be as powerful as himself, or more powerful than himself, according to its endowment.
        […]
        A person is totally capable of doing this. A man can get himself thoroughly haunted by living beings -living, breathing beings – simply because he can duplicate himself. This is not machinery, and it is not part of the thetan, by definition. But it is the thetan moving outward through the second dynamic of creation into a third dynamic of becoming a group.
        […]
        “You would have, let us say, a hundred million souls on earth during one period of its ability to advance, and at another period you would have a couple of billion. Well, how could they possibly disappear? Do they ever become less? Do they just always become more and more and more and more and more? No.

        An individual could repostulate himself back into his original creative entity – you know, he could just say “I am no longer myself…” Nobody else would influence him to do this, you see. He’d say, “I am no longer this unit. I am now another unit which created me in the first place.” You see how he could do that? […]

        You recover an individual’s knowingness, one of the first things you would recover is the fact that he has occasionally multiplied himself.”

        The above is from an excerpt of LRH tape lecture 20 October 1954 “The Parts of Man, Overt Acts and Motivators” More of the excerpt can be found on David St Lawrence’s blog post, “Supplementary Information on Entities – part 1 extended” http://workabletechnology.com/?p=424

    3. Re: Ferenc Francisco 2012-12-15 at 14:45 and 21:41

      P.S.: During his research, Ken Ogger (aka The Pilot) found the theta auto-recurrent auto-splits. This is similar to what Richard Sutphen call oversouls’ parallel lives.

          1. A very good possible explanation, still not covered on these threads, made by somebody with extensive first-hand experience: “two implants were running at different locations”.

            Richard Sutphen theorize about “oversouls” with parallel lives in this planet (not in parallel universes). He is trying to explain the data conundrum he got from his extensive research: multiple past lives within the same or overlapping historic time periods for the same person, and too many past lives compared to world former population.

            In my comment I did not refer to parallel universes. However, the Farsight Institute researching future remote viewing using scientific protocols, has something interesting to say about it: “only one experimental design using remote viewing has ever worked consistently to correctly predict the future”… “The reason may have to do with the existence of multiple universes, and we now have a way to test for this directly.”
            http://www.farsight.org/demo/Multiple_Universes/Multiple_Universes_Experiment.html

            1. Implants come under the category of PROGRAMMING OF MIND. Programming has to do with fixation of considerations. Let’s take away the elements of mystery and drama, and look at this problem scientifically.

              (1) How do considerations come about?

              (2) How do considerations gets fixed.

              Please note that “I” is simply the “center of considerations” analogous to the “center of mass”. It is just an apparency that “I” generates considerations. “I” is actually a particular view of considerations.

              .

            2. Vin: “It is just an apparency that “I” generates considerations. “I” is actually a particular view of considerations.”

              In the thetan-mind-body model, theta would be the generator of the consideration and the mind-body composite would view it.

              I do believe that pictures (or environmental occurrences) can go back through the mind mechanism and impinge on the thetan, as well, but a thetan in good shape can “out-consider” the mest universe (“Considerations take precedence over the mechanics of matter, energy, space and time”, “the highest capability of life, taking rank over the mechanics of space, energy and time.(COHA Gloss))

            3. I find the concept of THETAN in Scientology to be inconsistent looking from my PHILOSOPHY PROJECT. It is as if Hubbard looked at individuality and stopped there. He didn’t think all the way through as Buddha did.

              .

            4. What makes you think those two factors are not arbitrary? Here is my critique of Factor #1:

              The very first Factor of Scientology states:

              FACTOR # 1: BEFORE THE BEGINNING WAS A CAUSE AND THE ENTIRE PURPOSE OF THE CAUSE WAS THE CREATION OF EFFECT.

              .

              Let’s examine this Factor.

              1. “Beginning” implies the beginning of any manifestation. This includes the universe as an overall manifestation.

              2. If Cause is postulated to be there before the beginning then the question arises, “Can Cause be there all by itself before its effect manifests itself?” An overall effect would be the creation of the universe.

              3. If the answer is “yes” then Cause will be a manifestation on its own right, and the question then becomes, “What is the cause of the Cause?” This logic inevitably leads to an endless chain of causes, and the beginning keeps getting pushed back earlier and earlier.

              4. If the answer is “no” then the Cause must occur simultaneously with effect. “Cause-effect” would then be part of the same manifestation at the beginning. One may say that God and Universe must have appeared simultaneously as a pair.

              5. One tries to fix the dilemma in (3) by postulating “Uncaused cause.” But this postulate appears to be self-contradictory and simply a device of convenience.

              6. Thus, CAUSE seems to be part of the created considerations. This seems to be consistent with the idea that TIME itself would start at the beginning.

              7. Thus, there would be no such thing as “before the beginning.”

              8. Thus, CAUSE is part of a system of interdependent considerations. It is part of the creation like anything else. There is no linear chain of considerations as implied by the factor above.

              9. The idea “before the beginning” would then be a projection that is created after the fact of beginning. Thus, the idea of God as the Creator would appear after the fact of Creation.

              10. The assumption that CAUSE, a consideration in itself, can be separated from, and can be extended beyond, the system of considerations it generates, seems to be the basic inconsistency.

              .

              Thus, it appears that beginning is simply there. We do not know how the beginning of creation comes to be. We may try to explain or justify it with arbitrary postulation, but the fact remains that we do not really know the answer.

              This conclusion is uncomfortable to face. That is why we get postulates like “Uncaused cause,” “God as the Creator,” and Scientology Factor #1.

              .

            5. You are right, Vin. It is uncomfortable to face; to allow one’s anchors loose and drift where the current of thought can take us. I posted this comment on your blog, but am putting it here if anyone cares to look.

              I also find it helpful to meditate on something as well as nothing. For instance, with reference to fractal and of things appearing and disappearing, please check out this link. This is a motion picture of “revolving” 2 dimensional pattern which turns toward you from the right side as you look at it and recede away from you toward the left-side; but that is an
              oversimplification. Please just look at it for a few minutes and notice things about it.

              If my link does not work, then just use this address: http://i.imgur.com/dh44z.gif

            6. V.. “”1: BEFORE THE BEGINNING WAS A CAUSE AND THE ENTIRE PURPOSE OF THE CAUSE WAS THE CREATION OF EFFECT.””
              I would call that one hogwash….hehehe…. my reality….

            7. Vin… at 2012-12-19 at 01:36
              If you clear, add up the etym. roots of Cause, Purpose, Create, Effect (Factor 1) well, you will get an interesting result….I did so. Do that if you like. Like in Matrix, see it for yourself. Quite different from what’s being in argument.
              Wisdom.

            8. Re: Geir’s blog post Discussions on the Net
              https://isene.me/2012/09/24/discussions-on-the-net/

              I outlined in my comment when it’s a waste of time to keep commenting, which is aligned with Geir’s blog post.
              https://isene.me/2012/09/24/discussions-on-the-net/#comment-23342 (Ferenc Francisco 2012-10-01 at 14:22)

              According to that blog post: It’s a waste of time to keep commenting on this blog page, because somebody is making Red Herring, specifically Appeal To Pity and Appeal To Ridicule (as defined in Wikipedia).

            9. To Vin:
              Because it is “deeper” than argument. If you like, simply find the etym. root of these concepts, put them side by side (as in the sentence in Factor 1), “look” at them and see for yourself what you “get”. I would like to see what you get…if you like.

            10. Marianne, how do you know I have not done that? Isn’t that very presumptuous of you?

              Why don’t you just say what you want to say? Obviously you are seeing some inconsistency.

              It is not “deeper” than argument. It is just a cop out.

              .

              .

            11. Vin,
              What I got was a forever completeness. I didn’t “think” anything.

            12. Marianne, the inconsistency seems to be that you are not contributing to the subject of discussion by your looking at this subject. You need to bring something to the table that is relevant.

            13. To Vin….
              …to bring something to the table which is relevant…..
              Ok, just one…..what is the root of effect?

            14. I don’t think I am very fond of the Socratic method. I would rather have you present your viewpoint for examination.

              .

    4. Here are my conjecture about SOULS, BETWEEN-LIVES, DARK ENERGY & MATTER

      (1) Soul is a set of mental energies and forces released after the physical death of a body. This is discussed further in The Self and the Soul.

      (2) The body is made up of macromolecules that have a physical structure, as well as programming capabilities in the configuration of that structure.

      (3) The various programming patterns allows the macromolecules to function as molecular computers and regulate the physical and mental functions of the body.

      (4) The physical structure may represent “physical energies and forces,” whereas, this programming may represent the “mental energies and forces,” that make up the “I.” This is discussed further in THE STRUCTURE OF “I”.

      (5) The soul of a person comprises of these mental energies and forces (programming patterns), which when functioning in a live body, may be considered to be alive.

      (6) After death the physical body is reduced a number of physical organs that gradually disintegrate into physical elements. A single physical entity is no longer there.

      (7) Similarly, after death, the soul of a person is reduced to a number of programming patterns that remain. A single spiritual entity is no longer there.

      (8) The soul to be alive, needs to be manifesting itself through a live body. After death, neither the soul nor the body are alive.

      (9) Any identity that existed as “I” is extinguished at death.

      (10) After death, the soul seems to get “stored” in space as numerous individual programming patterns .

      (11) These programming patterns are “retrieved” back from space just before birth. They are retrieved in a combination that is compatible with the physical structure of the new body.

      (12) A new identity comes into being only after the physical and mental aspects have recombined in a new body.

      (13) Past life memories and child prodigies may be explained in terms of the mental patterns obtained from previous souls. The new “soul” may be looked upon as a recombination of previous souls.

      (14) Apparently, there is no “life” in the “between-lives” area. There are only numerous programming patterns stored in space.

      (15) How these programming patterns come to be stored in space requires another wild conjecture. Space is not nothing. Space is something.

      (16) The ripples in the “fabric of space” are the electromagnetic waves that contribute to the formation of matter, while the fabric itself seem to contributes to the characteristics that regulate the behavior of matter.

      (17) The stored patterns in the fabric of space influence not only humans but also the plant, animal and marine life.

      (18) Certain aspect of these patterns may even be responsible for the Periodic Table of elements.

      (19) These patterns probably are the blueprint of the universe, which exists as space.

      (20) The postulated dark energy and matter could very well be the programming patterns
      from dead souls stored in space.

      .

      1. V…. In my reality some of the points are 100% right and the rest just dont ring the bell.
        Because you deducted some of those statements–consideration by reading about them and not from having expereiences in this life time.. assumptions are just that…

      2. Vin
        5………..” when functioning in a live body, may be considered to be alive.”
        You introduce the word “live” body….what makes up this “live”?

  45. I am looking at THE REPUBLIC where Plato is discussing “justice.”

    Plato: “Is might right, and justice the interest of the stronger?

    Justice is the product of considerations. All such considerations are produced after the formulation of SELF. The “knowledge” produced by considerations is different from the knowledge obtained directly from perception.

    There is mental perception of considerations too, but that is another layer of the “onion of knowledge.”

    Considerations seem to bring in the factor of “preservation,” whether it is the preservation of self, or the preservation of property. Justice seems to be concerned with such preservation.

    I wonder how an OT 8 looks at justice. I hope he doesn’t glibly repeats what Hubbard wrote on this subject. I hope he states his opinion.

    .

  46. Per: Yea right Chris, It does take some observation of self and then some criticalness too.. But mainly, still, it was ment as a joke which apparently some missed, even though I found it pretty obvious. Probably a matter of tone level.

    Vinaire: I think it is unjust evaluation to say “probably a matter of tone level.” I question this theory of tone level.

    Really Vinaire… I suggest you try to crack the same joke at someone who is in grief and someone who is angry and someone who is happy and then see for yourself who will take it serious and who will take it as a joke.. Have fun.. Love, Per

    NB: I am not trying to make just evaluations. Correct evaluations only use data, not opinions.

    Vinaire: It is this kind of evaluation that makes Scientologists detestable. Such evaluations do not help anybody.

    +++++

    The above is an interesting exchange. It is like using that hypothesis for hypothesis sake. It then comes across as a valueless, purposeless evaluation.

    LRH came up with this hypothesis simply to evaluate pc’s so they could be helped in a session. Its value lies only within a session and not outside a session.

    .

  47. Here is another exchange with Per: https://isene.me/2012/12/10/ot-8/#comment-25242

    Vinaire: … The whole focus of Scientology is on individuality, and that is its fixation. It appeals to those who are fixated on sorting out themselves.

    In other words, Scientology has a very narrow focus. It cannot get away from that focus. And that is the unintended trap due to the very nature of Scientology.

    It does not mean that Scientology is bad. Scientology is good at lower levels in unfixing the attention on self. But then it doesn’t let go of its attention on self when it should.

    Use of thetan as a reference point is a fixation on self.

    Per: What is your point of ref. Vinaire??

    Vinaire: It is flexible. It is whatever is appropriate for what is perceived.

    Per: Good, what is appropriate for your perception of this list, this discussion, just ONE specific.

    Vinaire: The inconsistency that presents itself..

    There is nothing fixed. An inconsistency presents itself. It is the components of that inconsistency that pose the inconsistency relative to each other.. There is no absolute fixed point.

    Per: It’s still from a viewpoint isn’t it? And therefore very individual as I see it

    ++++++++++++++++++

    Just because there is a perception-point it does not make an individual or individuality. The ideas of individual and individuality come from some sort of fixation, such as self, which then persists. The idea of viewpoint is connected with a self and that seems to be part of Scientology. The idea of perception-point is not so connected with a self. A self is generated when a certain package of knowledge gets clumped together around a perception point and fixes it at a location relative to other locations.

    Yes this is a hypothesis that is derived from observation as documented in the PHILOSOPHY PROJECT.

    .

  48. Hi, everybody. I came across the excerpt below that may relate to the threads here about “Oneness”. I think it also sheds some light on the first part of The Factors.
    .

    “Here we have what we call main body of theta. We find breaking off from this main body of theta – which, by the way, has no space or time – and entering upon (to some slight degree) the track of time, a small bit of the whole universe. In other words, more or less the same thing but on a smaller edition. It’s very hard to use words like “smaller” and “bigger” because something that has neither space nor time is neither small nor big. It doesn’t either have portions as we know them in the MEST universe, but this does not mean that in its own universe it does not have portions.

    “So, we take this little bit here and all of a sudden it stands out there – it breaks away. It inherently knows it is cause, it is a high state of beingness, it is a pure theta entity.

    “Many of them break off. There are lots of them. Lots of them break off. And each one at that moment of breakaway is in the first state of its individuation. It has entered upon the track of time and at that moment it becomes an individual to that extent that it is separate from other individuals. It possesses the potentiality and capability of animating and motivating matter, energy in space and time. And so it breaks off and enters upon this time track here and it becomes a little bit of MEST to the degree that it is entered upon MEST.

    “But it never ceases to be anything but what it is. That it enters upon MEST merely means that it’s being recorded on by MEST, not that MEST becomes part of it. But the more recordings it gets from MEST, the greater the effort it makes to align and straighten out the chaos which is the material universe, the more turbulent those recordings look, until it itself no longer completely knows. It knows less and less and less and less, the more and more and more it experiences. […]

    (From Scientology: Milestone One lecture of 10 March 1952, “Theta Lines”)

    I found it particularly interesting where LRH said, “But it never ceases to be anything but what it is.

    1. Marildi My posting is not to make yours wrong… not for a moment… each individual understand on their reality level… My posting expresess my reality… yours is yours… and I will not say My reality is the only one and it is carved in stone… Heavens no… if that would be so that would be the joke on me…

      1. How about Hubbard’s reality and the reality of those who fashion their reality after Hubbard’s? Are they cast in stone?

        .

        1. V… that is my reality we understand and we AGREE on what we know on what we believe in. Just look around you and take a close look who fallows what beliefs… a guy becomes a soldier and why? Somebody becomes a clothing designer and why? A police man, or teacher nurse… name it any occupation… is fallowed studied because that person has reality on that topic and agrees to it…

            1. I look at whatever is at the “top of the stack” in my mind, per mindfulness. I do whatever is practical at any moment. I do not take things for granted.

              .

              .

      2. Thanks but I didn’t take it as making mine wrong. You were just expressing your views on the subject too.

  49. Marildi….
    Too complicated for my understanding: the above what that means, in my reality toooo many addition was added in order to make it solid.
    The facts, the basics are very simple.. that simplicity indicates it is the basic…. complication are the additions.
    There is no complication about what is one-ness… its- existence .. since one-ness itself is ONLY A CONSIDERATION a concept… an idea …a belief
    You see Marildi… it is like this…. I consider that bowl is full….. Therefore that bowl is full, I consider that bowl is empty therefore it is.
    That is the same way about the one-ness….. It is only there if one considers it is there.

  50. (1) It seems that there is a world beyond self, of which self itself is a part of.

    (2) I have no idea what RWOT is, but it seems to be referring to “knowledge” beyond the “considerations” of self.

    (3) I would say that there is “fundamental knowledge”, which is beyond the considerations subscribed to by self.

    (4) Then there is “human knowledge” made up of considerations subscribed to by self.

    The above is what seems to follow from the PHILOSOPHY PROJECT.

    .

  51. 2ndxmr asks the question: “If you are the one creating it all, why do you need agreement from all associated life forms?”

    (1) Self is an apparent “center of consideration” similar to “center of mass” being an apparent mathematical concept.

    (2) Thus, self is not generating those considerations. Self is formed out those considerations. One may call this identification.

    (3) Life seems to be the ripple that flows through the fabric of considerations.

    (4) Considerations seem to be new associations among the elements of some “fundamental knowledge.”

    (5) I have no idea how these considerations are generated. My conjecture is that they are generated by the ripple mentioned in (3).

    (6) This points to a fractal of inconsistencies generating more inconsistencies.

    .

  52. What is this +1, +8, +10 business? Is it just saying, “I am in so much agreement with you”?

    What is the purpose of that. I believe that defending or promoting a viewpoint has nothing to do with LOOKING.

    .

    1. +1 (oops!) Yes, you are right Vinnie, but you can’t expect people not to interject their enthusiasm when they read something consistent with what they think. Then we can look for the inconsistencies in the +1’s, etc.,. hahaha

    2. Remember Vinnie that your favorite author (LRH – haha) was one of those who turned looking into a “deadly serious activity.” But when I write that, consider the source for after all I am just a namby-pamby, pantywaist, dilettant, without any dedicated glare in my eyes!!! (Alanzo would normally have written that, but since he’s being quiet, I wrote it!)

      1. Hubbard and his enthusiasts seems to make a contest out of everything. One viewpoint as opposed to another viewpoint. All these people need a bigger game.

        Why not we pit knowledge against ignorance, and we all look together!

        Putting each other down for “look how ignorant you are” and taking sides using these pluses and minuses is such a misuse of mathematics..

        .

        1. I really agree with you here, Vin. .)
          Ron H and a lot with him need greater games.
          Didn’t I say bigger? Hm.
          Why didn’t I? To let you and others ponder a little more, maybe? Or did I have other motives?
          Hey, I got my first follower at wordpress today! 🙂
          I also made a breakthrough in regards to my abilities as a songwriter today! Sweet.
          I feel like saying thank you Geir, but I don’t – do you know why?
          These times are more exciting than ever before. Dot.
          Let’s have a whole lot of fun. 🙂
          Call me crazy if you like. I’m having real life fun though. Someone said to me the other day that “It’s the crazy ones who lead the world forward”.
          That’s quite true in these times.
          I
          I
          i
          – –
          Slack
          RockmyStar
          in the studio of “Dreams come true”:http://www.nrk.no/urort/Laater/RockmyStar/default.aspx

  53. 2x asks: “If LRH saw the god mechanism when he wrote the Factors, Q’s and axioms, was he reluctant to be explicit about “it”, instead couching “it” in the form of the Factors, Q’s and axioms?”

    To me it very obvious that Scientology is an extension of the Simitic God philosophy as expressed through Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Scientology is diametrically opposite to the Brahma/Nirvana philosophy expressed through Veda, Hinduism and Buddhism.

    .

    1. Vin,
      It’s not the way you describe if you mean Scientology was not the first originated.
      – –
      Hubbard really went bananas from OT III on up. Too much focus on self etc.
      – –
      It’s still possible to “save” the Church of Scientology, but not without the leader being humble, defined here: .http://wp.me/p2VI6K-5r
      – –
      A lot needs to be done in order for that to happen, of course: http://wp.me/p2VI6K-3J
      In that case, the future looks brighter.
      – –
      Scn can for sure be seen as originated before all of them, which you can read about here: http://wp.me/p2VI6K-c
      – –
      By the way, the term “The Bridge to Total Freedom” is an entheta fuck up term from Hubbard, again. Totally free? Forget it. No life unit can be totally free, not even me.
      – –
      Slack

      1. Buddhism is not really a religion. It is Eastern Psychology. Hinduism and Vedanta do not put “name and form” to God the way Semitic religions do. So, they are not monotheistic in the same sense as Judaism, Christianity or Islam.

        .

        1. Vinay, it depends on your personal definition of religion. I see an atheistic religion in buddhism and because of that, it is incomplete. Of course, any religion touches psichology in a personal way, monotheistic or not. About Hinduism and Vedanta, I see there the same creationist focus found in the simitic ” western ” religions.

  54. The Factor #1 is flawed and so is Scientology Axiom #1. There are deeper fundamentals at work. That is what the PHILOSOPHY PROJECT is all about.

    .

  55. All right. Thanks for not ignoring me “totally” like a lot seems to do at the moment. Not strange, though. It’s good you’re not neither afraid nor stupid, Vinaire. 🙂
    I do not have axiom 1 as I have thrown away all my scientology a couple of years ago. Makes you feel good. I promise! .)
    Philosophy project is the outlines you showed me some days ago?
    – –
    Slack

    1. Hi Slack…. when one post here one has to get used to be ignored… even whe you address people by name they will ignore that 97% times. Bullbating , if you have liked enjoyed that part of the communication course that you will be OK here.
      Happy Holidays! Elizabeth

  56. I use the Socratic method for freely inquiring “my own self”. When it comes to others, I would rather present my best viewpoint and invite feedback.

    .

  57. Beautifully articulated Geir. I completely agree with your assessment of the OT levels and why/how they work. I have had this philosophy myself and appreciate the fact that you put it here to share with us.

  58. Maria says: I find the whole idea of a RWOT fascinating particularly when one considers the basic theories of quantum physics, R – real and W – world operate with little semblance to “common” perception perspectives, and O – out, T – there lose much or most of conventional meaning with the introduction of point particles. I have to wonder where is THERE when its pinned to point particles with no mass, no dimension, no space, which is essentially no existence, appearing out of nowhere or out of the ruminations of a vast dark female aspect of Shiva who laughingly pulls the plug on all of it as she throws her wine glass into the cosmic fire. And if it is all holographic as posited in some theoretical circles, then it seems that it wouldn`t be out there at all — rather its in there and out there in every thing. And I wonder how can there be an out there without an in there? And how can there be a there to be in or out of at all in world dependent on point particles that are not even there i.e. zero traveling in wave packets of possibility that came into existence with a bang at the behest of what exactly? And did that God, theta, zero point cease to exist (oh wait a minute, it never really existed!) with no further ability to make more big bangs?

    Chris: Beautiful! I get it and I concur. These little paradoxes intrigue me! I only wish we were next door neighbors so we could eat snacks and visit in the kitchen! My Shelley is the greatest hostess ever with such god-given hospitality that you would swear she is a Muslim! haha She is also smart like you and when I come bounding out of my cave with “brand-new 4-star” cognitions to interrupt her coaching music lessons or homework with the kids or getting supper on or put away, without batting an eye or changing rhythm, she says stuff like, “Oh yeah, that’s kind of what I thought all along…” hahaha Happy New Year Maria! You have to tell us when you ever come to Phoenix so we can kidnap you for an evening!

    1. Why thank you Chris! I will definitely tell you if I ever come to Phoenix – your kitchen sounds wonderful and it sounds like I would love your wife too! Happy New Chris! Here’s to 4-star cognitions and the warmth of sharing! I raise my toast!

      1. I’m always up for a toast!

        Here’s to the bright New Year
        and a fond farewell to the old!
        Here’s to the things that are yet to come,
        and to the memories that we hold!

        Happy New Year Maria & Everyone!

    2. I have been having fun with words again Chris, this time with the word “disappointment” since there have been reports of disappointment by some from their interaction with Scientology. Disappointment is hardly a new phenomena, and just for fun I tracked down the etymology on it.

      disappoint (v.)
      early 15c., “dispossess of appointed office,” from M.Fr. desappointer (14c.) “undo the appointment, remove from office,” from des- (see dis-) + appointer “appoint” (see appoint). Modern sense of “to frustrate expectations” (late 15c.) is from secondary meaning of “fail to keep an appointment.”

      appoint (v.)
      late 14c., “to decide, resolve; to arrange the time of (a meeting, etc.),” from Anglo-French appointer, Old French apointier “make ready, arrange, settle, place” (12c.), from apointer “duly, fitly,” from phrase à point “to the point,” from a- “to” (see ad-) + point “point,” from Latin punctum (see point (n.)). The ground sense is “to come to a point (about some matter),” therefore “agree, settle.” Meaning “put (someone) in charge” is early 15c.

      Well, I’ll be damned! There’s that pesky point again!

  59. Chris ! You are killing me ! And the last time you will go up to her there will be just an echoing ” I am what you are” and then it just disappears or, you find yourself on the plane as in Inception…

  60. ‘My main philosophical realization in life is that I am ultimately responsible for all my experiences’ looks to be a great truth, Geir. Can you put here one or two examples? Based on ‘it’s one thing to realize this and another to live it.’

  61. I know….way late on the chain. Oh well. That’s what’s so wonderful about the net…longevity of ideas in cyberspace.

    “I do not believe the OT 3 theory to be correct, or that one is in fact running out separate beings (body thetans) on OT 3-7. I believe what you run out is your own past viewpoints that you no longer take responsibility for. I believe that everyone have old viewpoints or roles that one is in present time distancing oneself from. By continually creating those viewpoints and separating them from oneself, one becomes less whole as a being. The solution is to take full responsibility for all one’s viewpoints and roles and retain those which serves one well in present time. When one asks the question “Who are you?” to such a viewpoint on OT 5-7, one is seeking to realize that the viewpoint is in fact oneself – hence one answers “me” to the question. It is not a “me” from another person that answers the question, it is one’s own realization that the viewpoint is “me”. One’s old viewpoints comes under one’s own control and responsibility.”

    BINGO! That is EXACTLY how I feel. You put it into words so well. Thank you!

    1. ‘ retain those which serve one well in present time’

      serve ‘one’ well. how does one ‘know’ which one serves ‘well’?

      is it not based on ‘value’ which to me is ‘validating’ this or that

      which pairs with ‘invalidating’ this or that ‘other viewPOINTS’.

      can this ‘judging’ arise fully from ‘present time’ or it is related

      to the ‘past’ however slightly?…or to the concept of ‘point’?

      Is it possible that there is just VIEWING? with no ‘point’ in it thus

      making it possible for each ‘point’ to change continuously?

      Is it possible that adding up each ‘me’ we get ‘ME’, life-wholeness?

      Is it possible to ask the question in ‘present time’ : Who are ‘you’?

      ..and the answer is : ME …not separate… another ‘me’ embodying

      the ME ?

  62. Geir

    i have two questions which you can help me out with by giving me
    the answers.

    Your statement under one of your artwork:

    ‘To be or not to be is not really a relevant question’.

    1: Is it true in your present view?

    The other question is related to your article on Free Will.

    2. Does one have the ‘choice’ to DECIDE to be or not to be?

  63. Geir

    Sorry, i have another question. You write in one of your poems
    ‘…to find all the answers i seek’. You have shared with us a lot
    of your views which have helped me to look into directions i may
    not have done without you generously sharing yourself
    here.You have probably got more answers and views than you put here in words. So my question (and also a wish) is:

    Can you please write here some of the answers you have found
    and have not yet written about?

      1. I see. I have been quite satisfied with the pc you have been using,

        why is this unsatisfactoryness on your side with it? Knowing that

        you like technical innovations, also that you yourself has made

        some, i wish to put your attention to another aspect, the ‘spiritual’

        as well. Here is a vid as one example.

  64. Possibly the mental compaction which stores the bt phenom follows mathematical rules such as those fractal compaction rules that we use to store information on hard drives?

  65. Possibly this compaction iteration is what we finally notice and call “creating the bt’s?” For this reason, it is possible to have a never ending supply?

  66. Geir: “My main philosophical realization in life is that I am ultimately responsible for all my experiences.”

    I now see “I” as a placeholder for the laws of life that are still not fully known. Making “I” responsible is like saying that there are laws according to which various phenomena interact to produce othere phenomena, and the nexus of all such experiences may be called “I”.
    .

  67. have you seen or processed the OT8 as given in tech volumen XV–and if so– your thoughts please

      1. thanks for your prompt reply—when doing the OT8 from volumen XV i had gained a greater knowingness on the quantum theory , multiunverses, and much more. coupling this with the Super Power processes was phenominal.

        1. Hi ed. Your comment interests me – please elaborate on as much as you can, if you don’t mind.

          1. an example is 1 process that obliterates the barriers of “present time”–as far as my case, i have a complete certainty i have an infinite amount of viewpoints in an infinite amount of “present times”. in an infinite amount universes. after that particular process i had the realization that when i “dream” i am in reality in some of those PT’s and universes creating or uncreating situations——-i apologize if this doesn’t make sense–when i start communicating of such things i (for lack of better terms) i key-out.

            there also is 1 that turned my concept of truth 180 degrees

            i hope this partially gave u incite into what i’ve experienced—if u would care for me to elaborate more, i would be happy to do so—– take care marilda

            1. Awesome, ed. Thanks very much. What you wrote is clear.

              Yes, I would like to hear more – about the concept of truth that was turned around 180 degrees. And anything else you would care to say. (Sorry if it keys you out. 😉 )

            2. Well..um…you did say you would be happy to elaborate more. 🙂

              But that’s okay – I understand your viewpoint. Thanks again for what you shared. And take care.

            3. my intention wasn’t to “brush u off”. i just didn’t want to step on any cognitions u may have if u process the ot8 material—–

            4. No problem – I got your kind intention. I don’t see it the same way you do, because I’ve already read the materials and the EPs. But I respect your viewpoint.

              One other question I thought of that you might be okay about answering is this: Do you now feel that we are all One? In other words, just one consciousness – a spiritual unity?

            5. hi Marilda–i hope u were able to download ot8—if so–when u had asked me about the 180 degrees on reality—that happened on the process “spot a reality i substituted for a truth…….etc.” and with what u and Tara were communicating–about leaving Scn behind –i believe it is applicaable there ,also

            6. Hi Ed. Thanks for that. It’s interesting what you say about “leaving Scn behind.” I know someone who did OT VIII when it was first released (in 1989, I believe) and he had a similar experience to yours – even though that first version of OT VIII was apparently rather different from later versions. (It was the one with the controversial “Student Review” bulletin in it.)

              He said that the EP for him was to recognize that Hubbard’s most basic fundamental – regarding there being an immortal thetan – was false. This person had been a Buddhist before Scientology, and after OT VIII he left Scientology and later went back to Buddhism, which he still practices and apparently experiences “bliss” in his meditation. Other people who’ve expressed that kind of experience (including some modern teachers) describe it as a direct knowledge of the Oneness of all so-called individuals.

              My own view on this subject (for now, at least) is that there is probably just one “consciousness” (theta), which manifests at many “levels.” In that respect, thetans do exist, as well as possibly other spiritual entities that are different from thetans.

              In the book CoHA, LRH talked about his research into this question of whether or not we are “all one.” He found that when pcs were processed in that direction, they deteriorated; whereas, when processed in the direction of individuality they improved. So he concluded that “Oneness” was false. Personally, I think his reasoning should have been more along the lines that “Oneness” is false ON the level thetans operate on.
              .

              As regards the link you posted for Vol XV, I don’t think it includes any OT VIII materials, and I believe that was what Tara discovered too. However, Volume XIV does include materials on both “Old OT VIII” and “New OT VIII,” and the link I posted was for that volume.

            7. i apologize–i sent u the wrong link. what i find interesting concerning the oneness; before the beginning was a cause(and what was before before the beginning) and the entire purpose of the cause was the creation of effect. and then came the beingness’ and the viewpoints, etc. I had experienced a oneness when i did superpower, then went back to ot8 again and the oneness became more of a reality.concering your comment on theta– an interesting process on ot8 is at the end “create some theta—now uncreate it”.

            8. Yes, Ed – the idea of “BEFORE ‘before the beginning’ ” relates to what I was trying to say too. It’s useful to know what processes/rundowns you experienced Oneness on. Thanks for sharing that.

              You also wrote: “an interesting process on ot8 is at the end ‘create some theta—now uncreate it.’”

              I thought so too! I had to think about it for a while. It basically says that theta is “self-replicating” and that theta/thetans were created in the image of…theta. 🙂

            9. orrrrrrrr—the “big one” (what/whoever that is which is probably me) before the beginning threw us in here as effect (this is difficult for me to explain because it can’t be explained in mest terms). then came the yiewpoint stuff

              Something i took a look at was what happened before before the beginning—kind of made me zone out

            10. “Something i took a look at was what happened before before the beginning—kind of made me zone out”

              If by “zone out” you mean unconscious, it sounds like possibly an implant – are you sure you were looking at “before the beginning”? LRH also talked about “before MEST,” implying (I think) that thetans were around before the MEST universe was created. Here’s a quote from *History of Man*:

              “There is a BEFORE EARTH and a BEFORE MEST UNIVERSE in all banks. The incidents are not dissimilar. They consist of the preclear being summoned before a council, being frowned down, being sent elsewhere than where he was. The odd part of these incidents, to the preclear. is that he is not usually guilty of anything, not aware of having offended. He is simply recruited, is brought in, is sentenced to be transported and goes to a new area. The only thing remarkable about these BEFORE incidents is that they are a very definite degradation and condemnation of the preclear.”

            11. hi Mirildi–nope i wasn’t unconscious–i have total certainty i was or am viewing before the beginning–i also have certainty that in the beginning WAS or is an implant–but 1 that i take responsibilty for—looking at the 4 flows it all comes down to me—in HOM LRH spoke of an implant where the pc left to his own devices was implanting others and then either by accident or intentionally zapped himself.i believe implants are self inflicted in the long run. by zoning out i mean kindof no attention on the the mest universe viewing what is happening–no words can describe.when I run that squirrel process i get flashes of before, before..i read somewhere (oh oh –verbal tech again) that the body sees what the thetan sees.

              i appreciate your input–i really do—it’s a pleasure communicating my experiences with u and hearing ur’s also

            12. “nope i wasn’t unconscious–i have total certainty i was or am viewing before the beginning…”

              I believe you, Ed. That’s amazing.

              “i also have certainty that in the beginning WAS or is an implant–-but that i take responsibilty for—looking at the 4 flows it all comes down to me…i believe implants are self inflicted in the long run.”

              I’d say that is a high level of knowingness and responsibility. You are a good “product” of OT VIII and of Scientology in general (which is good to see) – orrrr, we might say you’re a good product of yourself. 😉

              “by zoning out i mean kind of no attention on the the mest universe viewing what is happening–no words can describe. when I run that squirrel process i get flashes of before, before…”

              I’ve seen blog comments of a couple of people who say something similar – that they “see” something but that there are no words to describe it – and thus it’s difficult to run or process. One said that at that very early time in the history of the universe there was no such thing as words or even concepts yet.

              “i read somewhere (oh oh –verbal tech again) that the body sees what the thetan sees.”

              I’m not sure what that means exactly – say more if you want to get into it. But I wouldn’t worry about verbal tech. LRH came up with that after he had already become too serious about Scientology, violating his own principles regarding the perils of being serious. Basically, his TRs went out. 😉

              “i appreciate your input–i really do—it’s a pleasure communicating my experiences with u and hearing ur’s also.”

              I feel the very same way. It’s nice of Geir to run this little “internet cafe” where all us former Scientologists can get together and talk about old times – and new thoughts. It sometimes makes me think of an old song: “Those were the Days.” Here you go:

            13. Hi Ed. I’m not seeing OT8 specifically in the volume you linked to. Is there another name for it in the volume? Thanks.

  68. Hi Tara. Here’s the link to the volume I found a while back that has “New OT VIII” in it. It’s Volume XIV, which is probably the one Ed meant, because you are right that Volume XV doesn’t have OT VIII in it.

    You’ll see “New OT VIII” in the Table of Contents and find the write-up itself at about 7/8 of the way down the page. The write-up was written by a person who did a version of OT VIII in 1991, and feels confident of her almost perfect recall.

    http://mirror.die.net/banned/scientology-ot-levels.pdf

  69. “I suddenly realized what happened on OT 8; I was detaching myself from my past. I was no longer creating my past in present time. It wasn’t that most of my past was someone else’s – it was that none of my past memories are me here and now. I am no longer defined by my past. I am me and only me, taking full responsibility for my creations and my experiences. No blame, shame or regret.”
    This is something I’ve closely observed in one of my daughters, who I wholly believe, for many reasons, was OT8 in her last lifetime. This is how she operates. Her past means absolutely nothing in present time. It’s pretty cool to observe and quite a blessing to be her mother…

    1. I loved that part too, Tara. It’s very “simple” – and I think LRH was right that all great truths are simple.

      Awesome about your daughter. 🙂

      1. This is my evaluation of her, not hers. None of this (Scn) means anything to her. It’s been very interesting to observe how she operates, especially as a past-lifer myself, always curious as to what life might be like in my next lifetime.

        1. It sounds like your daughter may have done what LRH said should happen, which was that we would eventually have to “run out” Scientology itself – in essence, leave it behind.

          Btw, contrary to the idea that “You can’t take it with you,” I personally believe we CAN. 🙂

          1. I don’t know, Marildi. She just is who she is. I know who she used to be and I know who she is now and she has no interest in the subject, particularly and that’s perfectly okay with me.
            I’m not sure what you’re referring to in taking “it” with you.
            I took something with me from last lifetime, mostly in the form of NOT having the normal issues that most people do with a reactive mind. So I guess you could say, I left something behind that most people take with them. LOL

            1. “I took something with me from last lifetime, mostly in the form of NOT having the normal issues that most people do with a reactive mind.”

              That’s what I meant – you took your gains with you. And maybe your daughter did too.

              The saying “You can’t take it with you” usually means that you can’t take your worldly wealth with you when you die. I was doing a play on that when I said you CAN.

              I know a couple other last-lifers, and they are quite able people. One is interested in completing the spiritual cycle started with Scientology (but not necessarily using only Scientology). The other isn’t interested in anything but living his life. The saying that now comes to mind is “Water seeks its own level.” We are individuals, after all.

              Cheers!

            2. I meant “I was doing a play on that (saying) when I said you CAN – take it with you, that is.”

            3. I mean, take the spiritual gains with you. (Sheesh – third time’s the charm? 🙂 )

  70. LOL – I get it. I kind of figured that’s what you meant, but didn’t want to assume anything.

    1. So in losing something in making gains, you leave it behind, but are taking it with you. 😉

        1. Hi M, AND Tara too!! It’s been a while. 🙂 🙂

          Nice to see these views, together with the “resurrection” of OT8. There’s only one addition I feel deserves inclusion here. Tends to create (or un-create) our perceptions of realty, at will

          The effect/s of “postulates”. …Just a reminder, hey? 🙂

          1. “…AND Tara too!!”

            Is that a play on “Winnie the Pooh – and Tigger too”?

            Whole lotta playin’ goin’ on. 🙂

            That’s a play on “Whole lotta shakin’ goin’ on!”

  71. ***So if I summarize your article, are you suggesting to run the following process?

    * Spot something you are creating right now.
    * Take the full responsibility for this creation right now.

    -run this alternately until the VGI/EP
    -run this process on regular basis

      1. *I would firstly thank you Geir for nudging me into running that process. I have ran that process and after a few of cycles, I have improved even it. Althought I think that there is always a room for improvement, I have constructed the following process and I have ran a little bit:

        *I have named it the RESPONSIBILITY REHABILITATION PROCESS:

        Steps to take:
        0.Althought it is possible to do solo, I think that it is easier to do in a pair
        1.Firstly define what is the responsibility>for the purposes of this process, let’s define it as an act of recognizing that a person is a cause of some specific effect
        2.Then ask>For what your specific important creation to that you are the cause or the effect of could you personally take the full responsibility now?…and get answer
        3.Then confirm an answer and ask>Why would you take the full responsibility for it now?-to find out the reason of willingness to take the full responsibility for it
        4.Then confirm any answer you get and ask>How specifically are you taking the full responsibility for it now?-to find out by how strategy is responsibility specificaly taken, what specifical steps are taken
        5.Then again confirm the answer and ask>Are you taking the full responsibility for it just now?-to determine if the full responsibility for that creation was taken
        6.If the answer to step No.5 is yes, then continue in cycle and ask>For what else your specific important creation to that you are the cause or the effect of could you take the full responsibility now?
        7.Then continue in steps 3.-6.
        8.If the answer to step No.5 is no, then confirm the answer and ask>Why are you not taking the full responsibility for it now?-to find out the reason of not taking responsibility
        9.Confirm the answer and ask the modified version of question in the step No.4>How specifically could you take the full responsibility for it just right now?-to find out the strategy how to find out the way of taking responsibility
        10.Confirm the answer and ask the question in the step No.5
        11.Confirm the answer and continue according to answer>if the answer is yes>continue by step No.6, if the answer is no>continue by step No.8
        12.Continue in this process until there is the interest in continuing and enjoy the ,,wins”

        *Personal experience of running this process>I have ran this process on myself and after some time I felt that some amount of my fixed attention was just released. I cleared out some of my unfinished stuff (cycles), I reconsidered some things a little bit and I recognized myself as a better creator of my life circumstances. I also feel more relaxed and uptoned (I have better emotion ) after practising this process. I feel myself also in higher level of responsibility and control over my life now. It was a very interesting journey into my own mind.

        *Note>I am open to creative, realistic, critical or other type of viewpoint to this my post

  72. Hi Geir,
    I had just similar cognition than you. I have realized that I am an ultimate cause, unlimited potential and anything is therefore possible. It is also possible for me to cause something impossible, but it is only consideration and therefore it is possible for me to admit that I am cause of it (take responsibility for it). I can then show thart anything is possible. I realized it after asking myself : What is possible? many times…

  73. OT 2 resolves a person’s hang-ups on dichotomies in life. – could you please inspire me what kind of questions or commands were there?

    Do you thing that following will work as well as it worked on you?:

    A.Perceive the…..(one side of dichotomy)
    B.Perceive the…..(other side of dichotomy)
    Till cog/vgi

    A.What example of the…..(one side of dichotomy) could you figure out?
    B.What example of the…..(other side if the dichotomy) could you figure out?

    1. I would also ask you please what was the end phenomena till which you have ran each dichotomy pair…Thank you very much for answers…

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