The craziest year in my life is nearing the end.
Never been this happy 🙂
Thank you all for inspiring me and letting me inspire you.
We just turned 25000 comments on this blog since its inception 2,5 years ago. But the quality of your comments easily outshines the quantity.
Love you guys & gals.
Have a crazy-good 2013!
Geir Isene - uncut 
Vunderbar, Wonderful, Happy New Year to you all!
To Each of You, my Friends,
I have just realized why I love being with You here! You know I keep using the word “Flow”.
Living the life of the Flow means continuous inspiration to people. Life is thus great as what you give you get back. Still, it is not always easy to make people see the walls they are hiding behind. I guess you have the same experience. In this space here I get a truely live inspiration whenever You write something. Unique “sparkles” like those of the fireworks. There is the felt sense of the “field / potential ” out of which your comments arise “ALIVE “. LIFE ! I am enjoying each and every part of what we are creating here! Thanks to each of You! Thank you Geir for your inspirational posts and comments and for this space that we can share! LOVE to YOU ALL ! It’s a MAGIC to be with YOU!
HAPPY NEW YEAR !
Happy New Year Marianne!
Some 46 hours left here. And then let’s create new dreams and may they all come true!
Hi Profant,
Why wait until “then” ? Create NOW !!! Love your comments!
Happy New Year to YOU!
Yup! I’m with you profant!
Happy New Year!
🙂
Here’s Happy New Year from me and to you from Australia. A great year coming……..
It’s an honor to write and to be written upon on the best blog and by the smartest people in my universe. Happy New Year!
I’d like to thank Geir and all the commenters who have helped me this year on this blog. This was a year of coming out and being honest, finding truth about scientology and how I fit into the universe. I found new friends and enlightened souls and I am blessed. I thank each of you for being here and helping me with my path. 2013 should be very special and a rewarding year and I look forward to it, also to continue participating here even if I say little. I know that you understand and that is Nice! 🙂
You were a welcome addition… more to come.
My postulate is that this year, 2013, will be Scientology’s best year yet!
It is the year that Scientologists will finally apply the Code of a Scientologist and take full responsibility for Scientology’s impact upon the world.
I’ve written up my OW’s, found my position on the tone scale, and re-studied my Hubbard Chart of Attitudes. I’ve completed repair of Past Ethics Conditions, worked myself up through Danger on the 1st 3 dynamics, got a brand new answering machine for my telephone, and opened up a whole new credit card account!
I am so ethical and in-valence as a Scientologist right now that I could just shit!
This is gonna be a GREAT YEAR!!
Alanzo 2.0
Geir, thank you for the granting of beingness that you do. Love you for loving all of us. 🙂
Happy New Year and my love to everyone who reads and posts here!
Thank you, Geir.
Is this, in present time, more like a theta site or is it just another entheta site, basically? .)
Do you, Geir, have the correct ratio between the two, I mean since you have the stats on your site, so far? 🙂 Haha
By the way – Have a magic and constrtuctive new year everyone!
– –
Slack, having a lot of fun in these times
Slack,
Basically…..it’s your sense of it. Wanna try? Read on…..
Stop……..just stop……..there is a felt sense of silence……motionless……..potential…….feel it?
and now a tiny little movement arises…….get the sense of it……..just the sense……….get it?
now name it……..put it into a word…………what’s that word?
It is a theta site. Theta=spirit. When the “sparkles” appear in forms of words, we feel the potential, the movement, the flow – so far it’s called the HEART. The movement forms itself into a word. We read it – that’s where the mind enters. It is also theta. When we understand a word
completely, it’s the same substance – the YOU/ME. What’s your sense of this YOU?
Slack…..it’s all theta, potential is theta, theta is potential…….entheta is basically confused theta like a twister………same substance………YOU ! Get the feel of it?
Happy New Year!!!
Interesting point Slack. Personally I see more theta than not. The fun part is skipping over the not so fun part (rather boring) where the real live theta discussion takes place. Magic New year to you too.
Wonder if space of a comment on a page counts in the stats?
Lol – That’s a goody good one! 🙂
We can start using 2 or even 3 spaces between words if we get to know the ultimate truth about this, maybe. I am really not sure here.
– –
Slack
Slack,
Glad you enjoyed it! Right you are in “start using 2 or even 3 spaces between words..” SO !
you “GET A TASTE OF ” …….”ULTIMATE TRUTH ” ……which is YOU…….. and this Truth/Infinity is creating……in this case a word………..simple……..it can be as simple as that.
The more “taste” you have of that truth/infinity (YOU) in between any creations…..and the more you ALLOW the Truth/Infinity (YOU) to create, the more ALIVE you are……LIFE !
To “know” the ultimate truth with the “mind” is impossible because the mind is the “product” of ultimate truth……..FROM the “space” of truth one can, observe the product (word, emotion etc.) and when it is truely observed. one lands in Truth/Infinity again…..you know this as an ARTIST……I know that you know it……
Geir,
My hat is off to you for creating such an interesting blog – it has been quite a ride so far.
And to All – my warmest wishes for 2013 – may you all have your dreams come true.
Dennis
Thanks Dennis!
We have to thank you, Geir. Without you, there was no blog. Simple as that…
Happy New Year! everybody, see you in 2013!!! All the best for you and your beloved ones!
Cheers!
Here are the lyrics:
Happy, happy new year
Another reason to rejoice is here
52 weeks to make your heart sing
And see what four new seasons will bring
Happy, happy new year
Toss out bad memories by their ear
Gather up new ones in a bouquet
Ring out the old, ring in a new day
Happy, happy new year
Our resolutions now we will hear
If we could all run towards the light
So many wrongs could be put right
Happy, happy new year
Lets not forget about the things that we’re
lucky to have in our lives
Ours sons and daughters, husbands and wives
Happy happy new year
Let there be summer, let there not be fear
The clouds will pass over our heads
And let the sun shine on us instead.
Happy happy new year
Another opportunity is here
To just believe in what we can be
And see our dreams become reality
Happy New Year Maria!
Wow – joyous! Thanks, Maria!
Thank you Maria! HAPPY NEW YEAR !
Happy New Year to you Geir. It’s wonderful to hear what a good 2012 you had. I look forward to 2013 and adding you blog to my reading this year. Gayle
Wild and crazy…and lots of love. A new life and a new beginning. Can’t ask for more. ❤
Obviously, Geir wants to create a mystery about June 23 2014. 🙂
(isene 2012-12-27 at 02:58 https://isene.me/2012/12/27/why-is-it-important-to-some-that-scientology-doesnt-work/#comment-25975)
In this thread, everybody is invited to guess about what will happen. All guesses (both logical and wild) are welcome here.
I start with these guesses:
¤ Geir and Anette will marry.
¤ Druids’ Summer Solstice Ceremony.
¤ This blog will have about 40000 comments plus about 1850 spam and deleted comments.
¤ Geir is going to give a prize to everybody who guessed what will happen.
¤ Nothing special will happen, but Geir is having fun with people trying to figure it out.
Ferenc, what a fun post!
My guess is that Geir is going to publish a book! A book on his philosophy, including how it relates to Scientology but not only that.
Or maybe it will be his autobiography.
Poor Geir…let him alone, don’t suffocate him with predictions 🙂
Hi Dragos. Happy New Year! 🙂
What makes you think predictions will suffocate him?
Here’s a different viewpoint: “The highest purpose in the universe is the creation of an effect” (that’s Scientology Axiom 10). By telling us to mark this date, Geir created an effect!
Also – Geir loves games and this is a game. Right?
The highest purpose is what a person thinks it is. The “creation of an effect” may be the highest purpose in the universe of the late L. Ron Hubbard, but not in my universe.
I don’t know why but that response strikes a pleasant chord within me.
.
Chris and Vinaire, what’s your highest purpose?
Marildi, it’s just my opinion. That it has relevance to me, doesn’t mean anything derogatory to your opinion.
You lost me, Chris. I asked the question because you said “creation of an effect” wasn’t your highest purpose, which plainly infers something else is. I’m just curious what it is.
Chris, I am with you in it! And with you too Vin – you say you don’t know why – you see Chris, you “had an effect” on Vin without any purpose at all! You just created something with a warm,
loving flow – perhaps you have created from outside this universe?
I think that ‘purpose’ is the resultant vector of the considerations that “I” is the center of. The purpose is fixed to the degree those considerations are fixed. So. Hubbard had his purpose and he wrote them down as part of Scientology axioms.
As these considerations as-is, so does the “I” as-is, and with that the purpose as-is. But as long as there are considerations which present the “I”, like the constellation of stars in the sky presents itself as an entity, we have purpose. That purpose plays a part in aligning the consideration with which “I” interacts.
I have come to see the interactions among considerations as the interactions among chemicals. Each consideration seems to have its own property like a chemical does, or for that matter, an element on the periodic chart does. Now this line of thinking is very exciting for me to pursue.
.
Vinaire, you haven’t answered the question either. Or do you mean to say that you have no purposes and thus no “highest purpose”?
Please, no accusations… OK. We can all discuss together without resorting to accusations.
I think that purpose at any moment is clear from one’s behavior. If I look at what is consistent in my behavior it is “looking and simplifying knowledge” and recording it under the label of KHTK.
So, you may say that my ongoing purpose is looking and simplifying knowledge.
.
Vin, it’s not an accusation to say that someone has not answered the question. It’s a statement of fact when that is the case – and it was. But now that you have answered, thank you!
Your purpose of “looking and simplifying knowledge” seems to ultimately come down to a desire for “fundamental knowledge”, which could be expressed as a high-level understanding. Understanding is the result of ARC (=U), and ARC occurs by applying the comm formula of cause-distance-EFFECT. So perhaps your highest purpose actually IS the creation of an effect.
That would be an application of the broad concept of Axiom 10, I do believe
If it makes you happy to interpret that way, that’s fine with me!
I would keep it simple the way I said it. 🙂
.
An axiom is a statement of a fundamental from which further axioms and processes are derived. It may or may not be the highest purpose of all purposes in all universes everywhere but it is assumed to be by LRH for the purpose of developing the subject of Scientology. It does not follow that there is some kind of requirement that an individual has to frame their life in terms of highest or lowest purposes or for that matter any purpose at all outside of that framework.
From my point of view, if you are going to say that the highest purpose is an effect, then the highest purpose must also be a cause because there is no such thing as a cause without an effect and an effect without a cause. Highest, lowest, best, worst, first, last, and so on, these are all concepts that live within contexts. In my perspective, a purpose can only be evaluated in terms of context.
Maria, I agree with you about context (Chris has even dubbed me “flogger of frames of reference” LOL). And I believe the Axioms do give the context.
In Axiom 10, the context is in the word “highest” and the correct definition of the basic word, “high”. Obviously, there are many contexts within that highest one.
As for cause, the context for highest Cause I think was given in the Factors.
In a universe of tautologies this particular “axiom” becomes ridiculously tautological. Rather than the “highest” purpose, we can be just as right to say that the only purpose in the universe is to cause an effect. It does not lead anywhere except to reinforce the delusion that Scientology is universal beyond the metes and bounds of its own little universe.
“Argument by Gibberish [also called Argument by Bafflement] – agglomerating several different superficial aspects of a subject, in hopes that the resulting verbal structure will be comprehensible:
“Each autonomous individual emerges holographical within egoless ontological consciousness as a non-dimensional geometrical point (Shingle Speech)”
http://e-ducation.net/fallaciousarguments.htm#gibberish
” Argument by Gibberish [also called Argument by Bafflement)”
LOL! That site is really interesting, thanks
oops. I didn’t mean to embolden all those words.
Isn’t “the creation of an effect” the common denominator of any and all “purposes”?
Is it? Who or what is the cause? “I” is the biggest misunderstood, in my opinion.
.
It doesn’t say “the highest purpose is an effect”. It says “the highest purpose is the CREATION of an effect.” This to me, implies that the highest purpose must involve the ability to be both cause and effect.
One might say that Purpose is senior to Cause and then Effect. There is probably an Admin scale or sequence of some kind that expresses this. I seem to recall something about Goals – Purposes – Plans etc.
“Considerations(postulates) are senior to mechanics.”
“First came the wings, and then the angel.”
… But before all that came CONSIDERATIONS! 🙂
Who or what considers?
Who or what itself is a consideration. Who is what considers that?
You have an inconsistency here.
.
Vin, the inconsistency seems to be yours. You are the one using the word “consider” and the meaning of that word includes the idea that someone or something does it. And if that itself is a consideration, the question is the same – who or what is coming up with that particular consideration?
Marildi, why do you always start out with an accusation? Can’t we work together looking at this problem?
When a person starts interpreting personally anything that is said, it becomes a fixed attention on “I”, “you”, “he”, “she”, “it”, “who”, “what”, etc. This is a category that spells out as “self”.
Thus, there is this idea that there must be someone or something that considers. Is that true?
Can’t a consideration manifest by itself?
.
Vin, you wrote this to Geir: “You have an inconsistency here”. And I wrote to you that “the inconsistency seems to be yours”. I don’t see any “accusation” in either, but I do see an inconsistency. 😉
Okay, let’s work this out together. Assuming that considerations simply manifest themselves, the question remains: Who or what has/holds those considerations? Again, this is simply looking at the meaning of the word “consideration”.
I have to get more precise with my English. My use of “You” in the sentence that you quoted was more a general usage of “you” than a directed usage. Anyway, the point is that a discussion would go better to the degree it is not accusative, and we act in the spirit of teaming together against “ignorance.” I am working on doing better at this.
There are no absolute answers, so we will be simply inching forwad exploring the known. The idea of “LRH knew absolute answers” needs to be discarded. When there is an inconsistency, everything around that inconsistency must be questioned and looked at more closely, whether it came from LRH or from somewhere else.
The inconsistency here is that “who” or “what” are part of considerations. So, when you say, “Who or what has/holds those considerations?” it is like assuming that considerations have considerations, or considerations hold considerations. A better model would be to look at considerations interacting among themselves.
.
Vin, you still haven’t addressed the point that if a consideration exists, implicit in the meaning of the word is the idea that someone or something has or holds the consideration. If you disagree, please tell me the definition of “consideration” as you are using it.
A consideration is a manifestation with certain properties, where these properties are considerations in their own turn.
.
So a consideration is a manifestation with “certain properties” which are themselves considerations. So does that mean that a consideration is a manifestation of considerations?
It is a fractal.
.
Got it. There exist many fractal sequences besides this one, so just telling me that much still doesn’t define it. What exactly is the specific fractal form here?
It is a fractal of alter-is-ness, as I see. when it grows. And it is fractal of as-is-ness when it lessens. It is the latter that I prefer under the current state of affairs.
So following up inconsistencies and dissolving them, or confronting complexities and turning them into simplicity are other ways of describing this latter aspect of the fractal.
.
Vin, alter-isness is defined as “the consideration that introduces change…” So your definition is circular. I got what you said but you still haven’t defined “consideration”.
The definition is circular. It is whatever is considered by considerations.
Sent from my iPhone
Wow, That doesn’t sound like the intellectual integrity I thought you had.
@ Vin and Marildi: Yes! The Tautological Universe will not succumb to empiricism! . . . or will it?
Or perhaps the tautological Vinaire will refuse to succumb to the empirical marildi. 🙂
LOL! Well, we love our religion of science and it is more workable and it has moved the civilization along better than any other religion that I know of!
Except you know what. 😀
hahaha, now that will be a reach! Do you mean the formula which describes it? Or something else?
I want Vinaire to say more than “it’s a fractal” as that doesn’t differentiate it in any way from other fractals.
Yes! Just what Marildi said!
Marildi. Yes, good. I can work with that.
Considerations are senior to the thetan too, because thetan, itself is the effect of the interaction among considerations.
.
Vin,
” I ” is the biggest misunderstood “. Yes, because …….
Do this…….look inside…..ask the question ” Who am I ? “……what do you get?
There is no answer in the mind. As there is no ” I “. What you find is a “sense” of infinite consciousness….no “boundaries”, just infinite….out of which different manifestations appear at the “level” of perception….
consideration : indo-European root meaning : sharing division. Interesting ……the infinite “uses” considerations, words etc. as “divided entities” to “share” what is perceived in them….can you “look” “sense” along this line?
Please work this out with Valkov.
.
Vin,
The point is there! As you already know / sense it! Please find my last two comments at the end of this thread. Waiting for your answer…..
Marianne, I thought you were simply giving me instructions.
What would you like to discuss?
.
Vin,
Answer Geir’s question. And then please read my last two comments and let’s discuss them.
All questions have been answered to the best of my capability.
Now you need to look at what is there.
.
Exactly Vin ! There’s ! the inconsistency, in the WHO / WHAT. Don’t try to figure it out on the level of mind! The inconsistency will disappear if you LOOK INSIDE ! LOOK ! SENSE !
Are you just being an echo?
.
Vin !!!!!
What ‘ I ‘ get ? ” Echo ” ?
Geir’s laser precise question CUT THROUGH ! Congratulations to you guys!!!!!!
You know Vin….when Geir asked the question of Who/What, I saw infinity and the whole world in the same instant!
When I read your answer that the Who/What is a consideration, I got a Flow of confusion underneath your answer. This confusion is TOTALLY GONE in your last two answers !!!!
You have made it VIN ! Has come through!!!
And now, LOOK and SENSE what I wrote in my last two comments on the thread.
Congratulations for playing with your own considerations.
I hope they are real to Geir.
.
Vin,
Answer Geir’ s question again!
(have to go now, talk to you later)
In case you haven’t realized, the question has been answered.
Now you have to do your homework and look at it.
.
Vin,
Yes, you have answered Geir’s question. Thanks for answering the question. You write
that considerations are senior to the thetan…..let’s have a discussion. The thetan is a concept used in scio. Can you tell me the number(s) of the axiom(s) it appears?
The word “thetan” appears in Scientology Axiom 55: “The cycle of action is a consideration. Create, survive, destroy, the cycle of action accepted by the genetic entity, is only a consideration which can be changed by the thetan making a new consideration or different action cycles.”
.
What Hubbard doesn’t realize is that thetan is also his consideration that comes out of his flawed THETA-MEST Theory.
.
Vin,
“flawed” is a a kind of evaluative concept. You are looking for inconsistency. If the word thetan appears only in axiom 55 undefined, is it an inconsistency?
The inconsistency is in Scientology Axiom #1, where STATIC is tied to individuality. I have explained this elsewhere on this blog and also on my blog.
.
I’m just joking, Marildi 🙂 You know that I never interphere in things I don’t manage very well. The same to you, Happy New Year! and all the best for 2013!
Okay, Dragos. But I hope in this New Year you will get brave, like the rest of us fools, and “interfere” once in a while. 😉
All the best in 2013 to you too!
One more ticket is sold. Geir, register me. Contact me in case there is a time change.
Geir will be the first Norwegian to do the Funky Chicken!
Funky chicken was fun! 🙂
.
Happy New Year!
Happy New Year to you Bro! and to all my friends here. 🙂
.
LOL !
Everyone start the new year by watching 45 seconds of the movie “Contact.” Click here and then go to 1:59:40 and watch at least to 2:00:25!
Happy New Year! Guys and gals. I start watching this movie CONTACT. It is simply riveting. I can’t imagine what the ending is going to be.
.
Beautiful!
I just finished watching this whole movie. I now remember the portion that you highlighted. Yes, it is one small move at a time. There is a lot more to go than what Hubbard envisioned.
I am an eternal skeptic. I will question everything.
.
By the way, Jodie Foster is brilliant, and so is Carl Sagan, and the script writer and the director of this movie. I love these guys.
.
A lot there to love. They are beautiful like the celestial event that Dr. Ellie was watching: “No words . . .”
“No words . . . they should have sent a poet.” — Dr. Elleanor Anne Arroway
(There’s no emoticon for this.)
Chris…….thank you! One feel to add. When Allie asks Dad what’s next, Dad answers that it’s the first step…..small moves. Yes….and also that these moves BE continuous and fast…..the change we are experiencing looks to be an evolutionary change…I can associate with how Allie
feels. It’s one of my favourite enlightening movies, great to start the “New Year” with. Thank you Chris!
Yes, the moves are small, no matter how much we want to take giant leaps. Possibly, one day we can speed up our rate of iteration or possibly understand entanglement. That ray of hope promises a bright future, if mankind doesn’t destroy itself outright first.
“You treat the earth as you treat each other.” — Klaatu, from The Day the Earth Stood Still
Vinaire: “I have come to see the interactions among considerations as the interactions among chemicals. Each consideration seems to have its own property like a chemical does, or for that matter, an element on the periodic chart does.”
Here is part of an article written by the neurosurgeon author of the best seller THE SCIENCE OF HEAVEN:
.
“…As a scientist, I know that the consensus of my tribe is that the self is created through the electrochemical activity of the brain. For most neurosurgeons, and most doctors generally, the body produces the mind, and when the body stops functioning, the mind stops, just like a picture projected on a screen does if the projector is unplugged.
“So when I announced to the world that during my seven days of coma I not only remained fully conscious but journeyed to a stunning world of beauty and peace and unconditional love, I knew I was stirring up a very volatile pot. Critics have maintained that my near-death experience, like similar experiences others before me have claimed, was a brain-based delusion cobbled together by my synapses only after they had somehow recovered from the blistering weeklong attack.
“This is certainly the assessment I would have made myself—before my experience…
[…]
“…My doctors have told me that according to all the brain tests they were doing, there was no way that any of the functions including vision, hearing, emotion, memory, language, or logic could possibly have been intact. That’s why, just as I now no longer doubt the existence of the world of expanded consciousness that NDE subjects, mystics, meditators, and countless other people have described for centuries, I also feel that my experience adds something new to those stories. It supplies a definitive new form of evidence that consciousness can exist beyond the body.
[…]
“…for a long time now many scientists have been telling the public a story that is not quite true.
“This not-quite-true story is that the brain produces consciousness. Most scientists accept this as dogma. I certainly did, and it’s why so many scientists still refuse to even consider that I really and truly experienced what I say I did. But we in fact have no real proof of this at all, other than our general distrust of anything we can’t put our hands on. But there are many established scientific facts that we haven’t placed our hands on either. No one has ever seen an electron, or touched the force of gravity. The fact is, most doctors, and most scientists today, are confusing the fact that consciousness and brain activity are related (which they certainly are) with the opinion that the brain actually produces that consciousness.
“…Brain activity and consciousness are indeed profoundly tied up with one another. But that does not mean that those bonds can’t be loosened, or even cut completely. The question of questions is whether the deep parallelism between brain function and human consciousness means that the brain actually produces consciousness. In the wake of my experiences during my week in a coma, my answer is a very confident “No.”
“…modern physics is pushing us in precisely the opposite direction, suggesting that it is consciousness that is primary and matter secondary.
“This may sound absurd to some, but it is really no less absurd than the facts—now solidly established by quantum mechanics—of how we see the world around us right now. Every moment of every day, we completely personalize the data coming in at us from the physical world, but we do it far too quickly and automatically to be aware that we are doing so. Physicists discovered just how completely consciousness is wedded to the physical environment at the beginning of the 20th century, when the fathers of quantum mechanics (physicists such as Erwin Schrödinger, Werner Heisenberg, Max Planck, and Albert Einstein) established that units of light, called photons, can appear either as waves or as particles, depending on how we choose to measure them. The implications of this seemingly minor curiosity are in fact enormous, for they demonstrate that at a subatomic level, perception itself (our inner consciousness) is so wedded to the world that our consciousness of a physical event—say, a moving photon—actually affects that event. The very nonlocal features of consciousness, so well supported in Irreducible Mind and in Pim van Lommel’s wonderful book Consciousness Beyond Life, are the resounding evidence that consciousness itself is a quantum phenomenon. Refinement in our understanding of this mystery proceeds even today, as the 2012 Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to Serge Haroche and David J. Wineland for their innovative work in isolating the “collapse of the wave function,” or the exact process by which the conscious mind of the observer paints subatomic reality (hint: Einstein would still be frustrated!).
”Totally objective observation remains a simple impossibility. And while in our ordinary earthly life we miss this fact completely, it becomes much more apparent in near-death experiences, when the body and brain cease to mediate our encounter with the larger reality and we encounter it directly.
“Make no mistake: consciousness is a total mystery. As total a mystery now as it was 10, or 100, or 1,000 years ago. We simply do not know what it is. But consciousness is so familiar to all of us, so central to our identities, that we have learned to overlook this most obvious of facts.
“It is a deep mistake to do so. Far from being a shadowy epiphenomenon or “ghost in the machine,” as the philosopher Gilbert Ryle famously called it, consciousness is and always has been our primary link to the larger universe. My seven-day odyssey beyond my physical body and brain convinced me that when the filter of the brain is removed, we see the universe clearly for the first time. And the multidimensional universe revealed by this trans-physical vision is not a cold, dead one, but alive with the force that, as the poet Dante wrote some 600 years ago, “moves the sun and other stars.”
“I am as deep a believer in science, and the truth-respecting values that created it, as I ever was. As such, I want to affirm again—not just to my fellow scientists but to everyone—that there is a larger, more real world out there. Those who have experienced it are neither deluded nor dishonest, but they are hampered by the limits of language to convey the sheer exponential vastness of what they encountered. This world of consciousness beyond the body is the true new frontier, not just of science but of humankind itself, and it is my profound hope that what happened to me will bring the world one step closer to accepting it”.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/11/18/the-science-of-heaven.html
That`s a great article! Thank you Marildi!
So glad you liked it. When I read it I thought back to a post you wrote on the “If you travel at the speed of light” thread. Here’s what you wrote:
“I have experienced the images seen in the relativity video – it was VERY confusing but I concluded that I might actually be seeing things that were real – its nice to see a video that shows such similar images – its nice to have a bit of feedback! I recall that LRH discussed at one point that trying to get an individual to see everything as is in body is a very poor idea because everything is not as is in body – depending on the individual. That’s been my experience. Things do not look the same to me, and yet its hard for me to deny the reality of the experience I have. No real way to show it to anyone else either, perhaps other than telepathy. The images show up in my artwork frequently though!”
Wow, I completely forgot that I wrote that! One thing that really resonated with me on this article was that when he started to reconnect and regain normal brain function he had bizarre dreams. I`ve had that happen too, coming up or out of a rich, VERY real set of experiences that were so vivid and so rich that this world I awake to seems thin and dim. Maybe the deepest levels of sleep are a nearly complete disconnection state from the whole body and brain system, and more real than this waking world of mind-body.
Well, there you go. A person never knows how much their words can impinge and become part of someone’s “data base”. That post of yours expanded my viewpoint about perception. And after that, our physicist-philosopher Tom Campbell reinforced it with his research. He describes the brain as completely defining our perception – the ultimate filter! And he says the physical universe as perceived via the brain is just one “reality stream” (I think that was the term). Dreams are another reality stream – another reality to contact. And there are others – like contact with the “non-physical reality” of beings without bodies and who are not in any physical universe. And, for that matter, there apparently are other physical universe realities, similar to but not exactly the same as ours as to their laws of physics .
Actually, I think this is a more accurate description of some of his discoveries: The brain is a via (using my own word) for contact with this physical universe reality. Dreams and out-of body experiences are ways to contact other physical universe realities as well as non-physical realities. He even says that the “data streams” of past history can be contacted, and even the future (which is based on probabilities, btw). That’s my recall. But as you know, he has scores of lecture videos on the internet, for anybody interested.
Yes, a great find. While I disagree that consciousness is a quantum event (because it is infinite valued, not discrete valued as are the quanta which make up the matter of the universe), it is nice to see an argument for consciousness based on first hand experience being pushed by a scientist
To me self is “center of consideration.” It is only as real as the concept of “center of mass.” One may say that CONSIDERATIONS are created through the electrochemical activity of the brain.
The experience described here does not prove that consciousness can exist beyond the body as claimed by the author, because the body was alive during the coma, and electrochemical activity was also taking place. It may only bring into question the current theories about how visualization takes place in the mind.
Consciousness, in my opinion, is due to the interaction of considerations with each other. Such activity among considerations cannot exist independent of electrochemical functions of the body. However, considerations may exist as frozen patterns in space after the cessation of the electrochemical function of the body. Such considerations become active again only after their association with the electrochemical activity of a new born body.
Consciousness and electrochemical activity seem to go hand in hand.
Please see SOULS, BETWEEN-LIVES, DARK ENERGY & MATTER
[More later…]
Space seems to be the ultimate storage media for software.
.
Vin,
“considerations may exist as frozen patterns in space” – looks true.
“space seems to be the ultimate storage media for software” – looks true,
Both my answers are based on “observation by the flow (fluid no-viewpoint) – present reality.
The flow is not part of THE MIND. “Independent” of considerations.
Well Marianne, I am happy to know that your frame of reference is helping you come up with the same conclusions as mine.
.
Further comments on THE SCIENCE OF HEAVEN:
Brain activity and consciousness go hand-in-hand. Neither can exist without the other. Brain activity and consciousness both are the product of some more basic system.
Consciousness can be quantum phenomenon only when a consideration is conscious in itself. This could be possible.
In my opinion, Near Death Experiences cannot be perceived without the body and brain still engaged. Consciousness is not a mystery. It is basically the activity of considerations interacting among themselves.
“I” exists because it is the attachment to certain considerations. These considerations define the “I”. They also act as a filter through which perception reaches “I”. When this filter is removed then the sense of “I” is removed also. And all that remains of “I” is a perception-point that is completely fluid. What is then perceived is a fundamental layer of knowledge that was generated when the perception-point was separated from the original manifestation.
What the author is assuming here is that there was no brain activity during coma. This has not been confirmed.
.
Vin,
Interesting what you write! What do you think about beginning the last paragraph like this:
The sense of I exists because there is an attachment to certain considerations….
attachment def. 2: affection or regard for, devotion to. Affection is affinity flow…..the being and
the body there, there is perception, affinity……..can you think along this line? Because in my reality, as I wrote, the ” I ” is just a “sense”, it has no existence.
And yes, when the filter is removed, the sense of I is removed too….the next sentence looks true too.
Vin,
Or : ” I ” seems to have an existence because of an affectionate interplay of certain considerations……….(what do you say to this modification ? ). Also look at what I wrote above.
In my opinion, “I” is the result of picking up an identity during a confusion as I have recorded in my comment below.
https://isene.me/2012/12/30/happy-new-year/#comment-26509
.
“Data streams of past history can be contacted”….right. And some realities can be beautiful. When the flow/consciousness starts to “operate” in the NOW, or rather WITH NO TIME in it, it can “contact” any info, if “interested”. In my reality, endless “search” in the past is useless….one’s real “no-identity”, awareness is time-less and can create “fresh-alive” “new reality”. This could be the change we are experiencing now…..consciousness is “shifting back” to its source.
Vin,
I appreciate what you do…your works, I have been following them for about half a year back.
One can be pretty well (no I, no filter) and still there is THE MIND (fractal, or frozen patterns). Discussion helps! Precise, laser cut questions also.
Thank you, Marianne, for your interest in what i write.
.
Marianne: “This could be the change we are experiencing now…..consciousness is “shifting back” to its source.”
Amongst your many interesting observations that observation is, to me, a very interesting observation as it parallels both my own personal development and the context of the “age” we are living in, that being the age of Aquarius.
Whether or not the zodiac has an actual influence in the direction of things, mankind has been offered a concept to shake and shape thinking – that concept being the confirmation of the theory of Peter Higgs. The Higgs boson has been called the god particle because it is the source of all other particles: it is like an apartment building that breaks apart in a uniform way to make the various houses of a city, or like a set of Lego that comes as a stack but can break down and recombine to form other shapes.
The Higgs boson, itself, is a point condensation of the Higgs field – a yet unmeasured field which fully surrounds us as water surrounds a fish. Does a fish know it is in water? A fish that breaches a surface and finds itself in the relative vacuum (that we know as air) gets an inkling that there is another reality.
We are getting close to breaching our own breathing medium. Some “fish” already do it on occassion. Right now it seems to me that the Higgs field is the next level from “source” and that it may be an ability to breach into that field that opens up the door to the source mind, the universal mind, the part that is actually common to each of us, universal consciousness, oneness with the universe and however else we wish to name or define it.
We do live in an interesting time. Here’s a late toast to the New year and perhaps a new age. Cheers!
2ndxmr
Cheers! Thanks….I am…..yes! Higgs, boson, yes ! The last paragraph is my experience too….thanks for writing about it….one can experience, know and SPEAK, WRITE about it as you do! Experience is before ! speaking, and it’s true that experience cannot be put into words
and it’s also true that words/concepts are grasped by the mind and it can slow down experiencing BUT to keep back information is also not right. Equally, if the flow of consciousness/love/pure energy is FREE, info lands in a proper way. This is what I feel in your
answer! Thanks again! New age, definitely! More to come…..hope from you too!
Marianne,
Your approach of stopping……. is interesting. I can liken it to TR0 where that is the basic approach to the drill, to just BE there. Amazing things happen doing that drill and it has amazing applicability to handling the physical universe, beginning with things happening in the vicinity of self.
2ndxmr
Thanks….yes, stopping. TR0, OTTR0, getting off it, stopping to create it, BE……the truth of
life is truth, no matter how we name it. Do you do any “technique” “no technique” – if I can ask? And what’s your “drive” of seeking?
I have a number of techniques that came as a result of auditor training and delivery. Primary among these are spotting spots in space and TR8 which trains one how to put a thought at a spot in space.
2X: “. . . and TR8 which trains one how to put a thought at a spot in space.”
Chris: Interested. Tell me more about the sensation and benefit you feel that gives.
2ndxmr
Why do you “put a thought at a spot in space” ?
2ndxmr
Why do you “put a thought at a spot in space?”
And also Chris asked you, if you scroll down a little, ” about the sensation and the benefit” of
putting a thought at a spot in space.
A being is a thought at a spot in space.
.
A being can be at a spot in space but can put a thought there instead. This is the product of TR8, to get the realization that while you can occupy any space (like an ashtray) you can put a thought there instead. A thought is very close to the quality of a being but is not a being until it is endowed with the ability to make its own thoughts thereafter. That would be the being making another being. But the being can just put out a thought without creating another being.
How is a thought created? What is the process?
Sent from my iPhone
2ndxmr:“A thought is very close to the quality of a being but is not a being until it is endowed with the ability to make its own thoughts thereafter.”
(1) Is thought a dead being?
(2) Since thought and being are qualities, they both are manifestations.
(3) The first manifestation (being) can produce the second manifestation (thought), but the second manifestation cannot produce any further manifestations.
(3) What makes the first manifestation a unique manifestation? How is the first manifestation created.
(4) This this the same scenario that I have asked Marildi to explain. Being is like the “Uncaused cause” and thought is like the effect.
(5) Can the thought interact with other thoughts by itself, or is that must occur via the being?
.
2ndxmr: “That would be the being making another being. But the being can just put out a thought without creating another being”
If a being is created by another being, how is the very first being ctrated?
.
Marianne: “Why do you “put a thought at a spot in space?”
And also Chris asked you, if you scroll down a little, ” about the sensation and the benefit” of
putting a thought at a spot in space”
This is an ability drilled into auditors so that they can deliver a command to the PC on a bypass of certain PC circuits that would otherwise block the execution of the command. That is its purpose and it carries no sensation or personal benefit in the context of a session. It is strictly to get the PC to get the auditing command and get it executed. When the PC begins to see that an auditing command can get executed despite the rebellion from his bank he learns he can be at a cause point over the bank. At that point control turns from the auditor to the PC.
There’s really no major difference between that kind of control transfer than any training a person receives before operating a complex machine: there’s an introduction to the machine followed by some training and then hands-on experience guided or overseen by a competent person. The only difference is that the machine is the person’s own mind and the competent trainer is the auditor.
Vin: ” A being is a thought at a spot in space”.
When the creation of space ceases, there is no spot either. What is left then?
How does the creation of space cease?
Sent from my iPhone
Vin: “How does the creation of space cease?”
A thought is dimensionless so it neither creates nor ceases the creation of space. It is located by the intention and ability of the thetan placing it. It is a zeo point associated with a 3-space point.
Vin, a spot has no dimension but still can be located compared to the dimensions of 3-space.
There is no “how” in it. It is a STOP. Just a STOP. By ITself. In which the unmovable IT starts to “expand” – like a “flowless-flow”. Can’t put it into words in a better way.
I understand what you mean by STOP and expand. I think there are a number of means of achieving the result. Sort of like “How many ways CAN a thetan screw in a lightbulb?” 🙂
A spot is a location in space. It is just a consideration.
.
2ndxmr
2013-01-11 at 19.50, at 20.15, at 20.37
Thanks for these answers! The reality is the same here! You put it down beautifully!
I can add to it that when there is no filter any more, it’s beingness “expanding”. And also can be the “creation/uncreation” of a thought without any intention to “control” that is without any
“personal will”. It can be the creation of a thought out of Free Will (Flow/Love/Infinity).
Cheers!
Some people here are trying to look through others.
They need to look for themselves.
.
Thanks Vin,
“Some people here are trying to look through others”. It’s a consideration. Whose consideration is it ?
Nobody’s… It is an outcome from the interaction among other considerations present.
.
Got it. Can you look at my commment at 01.02. at 22.12. What do say to the modification of what you wrote?
Right you are Vin ! I can’t stop laughing! To each of you in the spirit of a little game!
Roll down the thread from the first comment to the last! Don’t read the words, just a quick look at the commentor’s name and get the FLOW of the comment! When you get to the last
comment, what do you get?
If this is of any help, I think Vin wants to get the idea across that who and what are anthropomorphic mental projections which attempt to tie the ego, AKA the self, to being “the cause of things.”
Tying ourselves to ideas or “fixing” ideas seems to me to be the root source of a person not being himself, or as the Scientologist would say, “out-of-valence.” If we work this fractal backward; if we start discarding manifestations until we run out of them (good luck! haha) then we might finally arrive at the most in-valence place of all, the Higgs Field, or Nirvana, or Heaven or somesuch, where the wave-function “resides.” Written another way, this would be something that we could say was from the Twilight Zone where it exists but is not yet manifested according to human understanding.
It is a lot of fun and we all like to speculate on what would be existing in that space-time or in that not-quite-space-time, if you will. Vinaire likes to use the adjective unknowable and the Scientologist likes the word static. Religions have words and science has the “Higgs Field,” etc.,. I like to conjecture that place is where everything that ever was or ever could be is. Where would it be located? — space-time which is right here, right there, & everywhere, & nowhere.
If I answered the question, “How would you approach this?” I would answer stop defining it; stop trying to bottle it, and all of us open our hearts and minds to the possibility of infinite possibilities and infinite actualities. If we do this, much of the chaff that we worry about or the confusions that we think is important would simply fall dissolve away and we would see things more clearly.
Happy new year!
Now that was just marvelous! I`ll drink to that!
A toast!
Chris – LIKE!
And a Happy and Simple New year to all!
Yup, this world can use a good dose of simple!
Previous thought. It seems that terminology can be a problem. In fact everyone is probably on the same page, almost everyone, but terminology makes the difference.
Yup, Funny that you bring that up as I deleted some verbiage in that post about how we were being picayunish with one another about the terminology… There is quite a bit of seeing things similarly to one another — more so than disagreeing. You just have to follow any other well trafficked blogs to see it how well we get along.
Yes, deElizabethan. And the Flow underlying terminology can as-is terminology- given one lets that flow. And then we get the amazing differencies of personalities-characters playing for the fun of playing! Kids we are, aren’t we?
Kids we are, to be sure, and playing. Well this is a good time to tell you, as a mostly watcher of the game. Most of you have the patience, fortitude and ability to persist on the path of trying to explain, clarify and understand, here on a blog. I give you guy/gals all a pat on the back and much credit, especially when confronted with a brick wall. You do not give up and I applaud you! I can not myself, nor wish to. Thanks for the very helpful, valuable information given and also some laughs. 🙂
deE – 🙂
Chris: “I would answer stop defining it; stop trying to bottle it, and all of us open our hearts and minds to the possibility of infinite possibilities and infinite actualities”.
I felt the sincerity in your comment but I still see it as an Argument by Gibberish / Argument by Bafflement. It sounds very significant but explains nothing in any meaningful way.
“Stop defining it” is overlooking the fact that “A stable datum is necessary to the alignment of data”. That is self-evident. And a “stable datum” is just another way of describing something that has been “defined”, i.e. given definite and “finite” (de-“fine”) boundaries – and meaning..
Perhaps it’s true that we we should be open to “the possibility of infinite possibilities” but how are we ever going to find that out, or anything else, without defining things first and then aligning data? It’s fine if we are capable of picking up the mountain and moving it all at once, but if not then we’re going to have to pick it up by dividing it into finite portions first and then picking it up one portion at a time.
Hmmm… It was very clear to me and not the least bit gibberish or bafflement.
As I have experienced in this direction, it simply is not possible to define that which is not a finite, physical thing. A definition is by its very nature a bounding, limiting, finishing – a statement of properties and functions. You can certainly define that which SEEMS to surround it, emanate from it, point to it, etc. And even then that falls short because one is not really every speaking of an IT. At best one can elect a symbol to use as a marker, but that symbol only facilitates making reference — it is not a definition but a marker.
define (v.)
late 14c., “to specify; to end,” from Old French defenir “to end, terminate, determine,” and directly from Latin definire “to limit, determine, explain,” from de- “completely” (see de-) + finire “to bound, limit,” from finis “boundary, end”
Example: One cannot constrain, specify, limit, determine or bound the infinite. The second this happens you no longer have the infinite, you have the finite and you are in a different domain altogether, the domain of the finite.
I got that Chris was in fact talking about finite, physical things like “manifestations”, “Higgs field”, “space-time” etc. As for “non-finite” things, I believe their understanding can be gradiently approached using finite symbols. i.e definitions, as LRH did. If not, understanding would have to be gotten through, intuition or revelation, and not everyone is up to those means.
Marildi: If not, understanding would have to be gotten through, intuition or revelation, and not everyone is up to those means
For me, the essence of a cognition IS intuition or revelation. I simply know it is so, know it is true. It may only be a glimpse, just enough to open the door and “let the sunshine“ in.
The explanation in terms of because of this or that or how it changes a state or understanding is NOT the state referred to as cognition, Reworded: it is not the explanation of how it was triggered or seemed to come about in terms of cause and effect after the occurrence of it. The explanation can easily be faulty and so can the understanding that results but that that has nothing to do with that transcendent instant of revelation. Aha!
The truth for me is that it this is not part of the chain of cause and effect, not a finite thing, not a thing at all, but is of an unbounded domain (state) that any participant in this domain (state) has access to (for lack of a better word) by any means or without the need for any means at all. Otherwise even the most basic of basic auditing would not work.
Maria, I can understand that. Makes a lot of sense, got the light! Thanks, DeE 🙂
Absolutely agreed that cognition doesn’t come about merely through rational explanations. However, in auditing, for example, it does come about through specific finite commands that work to open the door to that “glimpse”, as you put it, which opens the door to a cognition. Or as Alanzo put it in a comment just now, words themselves can “point in a direction”, and then have to be abandoned at the level higher than those symbols that words are.
This happens in life too, obviously. Sometimes when I’ve cognited on something and been on what I feel (intuitively) is a higher level than words, I have to make the deliberate effort to “come down to the level of words” (and have said it just that way) if I want to be able to describe it to someone as well as words can do.
That is exactly what I’m saying, that we can take words or other finite ways of “defining” an area of existence and use them as as a means to arrive at a cognition or intuition or revelation or other direct perception. In fact, that is all I’m saying about what Scientology as a path does too. It offers training wheels that enable us to learn how to ride without them.
With logic one stays on the same layer of onion.
With intuition, one travels deeper into the next layer of onion.
With speculation, supposition and assumption, one creates a new layer of onion.
That’s very good, VIn!
Thanks, Valkov. 🙂
You are very welcome,Vin.
And here’s the other thing with that, Maria: most of what happens inside me does not operate on english. In fact, once what I operate on is assigned an english word, it becomes something completely different, masked and hidden from me.
Nope. Human groups corrupt spiritual knowledge. Word clearing and words can only point in a general direction. In order to actually arrive, the words have to be abandoned, and so does any system or “technology”. You have to face the real stuff on your own – as it exists with no words or definitions placed on it.
Flashes, feelings, sensations, emotions – looking at and comprehending these things without any words is what causes spiritual insight.
Looked at this way, Scientology only begets more Scientology. You never leaves its masking apparatus and look at what is actually there – with no system, no language, and no words.
All words, and all systems of any kind, act as masks and barriers to insight.
That’s what I think.
Alanzo
Alanzo: You have to face the real stuff on your own – as it exists with no words or definitions placed on it.
I`ll drink to that too!
Yes, what I notice is that as one tries to explain then others try to align the explanation with the words they know, the systems they are working under, as best they can. And this effort constrains and shifts the essence as attempts are made to identify. I do my best on this blog to find ways to accurately describe while not introducing mis-interpretations but this seems to be nearly impossible, particularly where the effort is to try to align to a specific system.
I think that you know what I am talking about here, I think this is so because there was a post Geir put up with my questions and you got it — I remember you said something like — ah I see what you are doing! I realize now that I was trying to bypass the pre-conceived ideas and step into the essential without getting caught up in any system or definition that would immediately shift into another series of worked out meanings.
I wonder if you have been experiencing what I have been experiencing — if I can describe it well enough that is! It seems like you might have a sense of this too.
I have an instant of insight or revelation or intuition (take your pick of words here). No words can describe it except perhaps aha! It seems to start off as a glimmer, a glimpse, like a tiny ray of light. Understanding shifts. I describe the shift as best I can and see from a new understanding Then another instant of revelation. Its [bigger?] [deeper?] [more penetrating?]. Understanding shifts. I describe the shift as best I can and see from a new understanding The [less penetrating?] [earlier?]..understanding now appears less true or not as [accurate?] [nuanced?] [penetrating?]
This seems to [build?] [spiral?] [widen?] until there is a [mega?] [meta?] [sweeping?] leveling like in a video game where you level out. New panorama. think huge brilliant spotlight or even a vast illumination almost blinding — as an analogy But the explanations just don`t keep up with it — they more and more constrain and obscure that which is intensely profound locking it into a particular world view or paradigm and is not a complete understanding at all. And I guess that is my biggest frustration, that I have this profound state and someone comes along and says, oh yeah, that`s a blah — Confucius, LRH, Buddha, [name of system] covered that. But it didn`t and the system itself doesn`t really describe it. I am now working through how to respond to such efforts without frustration, trying to be patient about such efforts.
Brings new meaning to the old saying: Happy New Year!
So Happy New Year Alanzo. It is a pleasure to have you here.
To me it can also be a situation of “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet”.
As another analogy, it also seems like some people object to someone who is, although speaking to the point in question, speaking French rather than Italian or Spanish or any other language but French – even though the others in the discussion understand French. There seems to be a prejudice against French, or in my case, Scientology terminology and phrasing. I’ve even tried not using Scientology terms and such but it doesn’t seem to make any difference as the concepts themselves get rejected if they’re recognizable as Scientology, which they usually are.
I got it that there is a problem you are running into when “trying to bypass the pre-conceived ideas and step into the essential without getting caught up in any system or definition that would immediately shift into another series of worked out meanings”. However, IMO that is always the potential problem with communication via language and it is always something that has to be overcome with additional communication using language.
If I am the one misconstruing what you write, I hope you would do me the respect of pointing that out, rather than feeling frustrated and impatient because you don’t think I could grasp the profound things you are expressing.
Marildi: No. This is MY frustration. Not yours. I am the one working through it. Not you. Not anyone else. I cannot tell you how many times this has happened to me, as I [cycle?] [spiral?] [revisit?] and what was an glimmer of an idea expands into a profound state for me that can often sound ridiculously innocuous as I try to explain it. Sometimes it even sounds that way to me!.
As an example, I have a very dear friend who is a born again Christian, who congratulated me with great enthusiasm on finally meeting the Lord God and our savior Jesus Christ one day after I had explained about what I experienced in terms of personal revelation. I had no idea what to say in response other than to acknowledge her obvious delight in what she saw as my finally coming to revelation. It was clear that she felt all along that I was lacking this and she was happy I had finally seen the light. She told me she had been praying for me and her prayers had been answered. Praise God!
I would have been far happier had she simply indicated that she was pleased for me or even if she had simply asked questions, instead of deciphering what I said into her own context. But Marildi, people don`t do that most of the time, they do try to align information from others into their own frame of reference or into a preferred frame of reference. I find it difficult and counter-productive to repeatedly say, no its not like that, no its not like that, no its not like that. For all I know they do in fact completely understand and I am simply objecting to finding out that I was the one who was short sighted all along.
Wow, Maria, that’s really generous of you to take that viewpoint.
I suppose people aren’t capable of communicating in any other way than in their own frame of reference(s) – just by definition. My own idea is that there are enough words in a language (at least in the English language) to get across a concept, no matter what it is. Nevertheless, I think you are right that it can be “difficult and counter-productive to repeatedly say, no its not like that…”. Depending on the background or frame of reference the person has, it may require more time and energy that you (or anyone) are willing to spend. And you should have the freedom to choose! I’m glad you got me thinking about this. Thanks for your response!
For me, these flashes, these emotions, these lights and sensations which can not be described ARE the “language” I actually use to operate. And once I become re-familiarized with that language, I begin to deal with the things that give me insight and meaning.
Any time I try to explain these things to anyone else, the insight and the meaning is lost. And if I operate on the language and the labels I am given through others words or instructions, I alienate myself from myself.
True spiritual insight can not be described to someone else.
That’s what I think.
Your example with your christian friend is a very good one. You used words, which began the derailing process, and she plugged those words into her words and systems and the two of you were derailed even further until you both were flying off into a cornfield, farther and farther from the track.
What begins with words, ends with words. Not with insight.
I think I get what you are saying, Maria. But I don’t know.
We can talk about apple pies and freight trains all day long. Totally fine. But spiritual insight? The conversation goes like the one we are having right now!
Alanzo
Marildi –
Scientology was a way for L Ron Hubbard to make money for himself. It was his business.
That is all.
I am asking you to please take a short break from Scientology and to try something else, anything else, for a while. I like mindfulness and insight meditation. But you can do something, anything, else.
Of course, you can do whatever you want to do. But I want you to remember that I am asking you to take a break from Scientology for a while and try something else. Scientology will still be there when and if you want to come back to it.
I know you probably don’t believe this, but I care about you. I care if you waste one more minute of your life in Scientology.
Alanzo
Very well said, Alanzo! 🙂
– –
Slack
Alanzo….got the flow about “language you use to operate”….nice….
Al, it’s really not an issue whether “scientology” was a money-making business for LRH. Let’s grant that it was.
Marildi and I work for Consumer Reports, and we are attempting to establish just 2 things:
1. What was the nature of the products he was selling, which appears to have been a set of tools, and,
2. What was the quality and value of this set of tools?
If you have any actual experience using and applying these tools, let us know, and we will send you a questionnaire to complete which will help us complete our evaluation.
Al, do you think all this thinking you do, hinders your attainment of spiritual insight?
See my reply to you below, Val.
I am going to let you be. I understand what you are going through right now, and what many of the Indies are probably going through right now. I would not wish it on my worst enemy.
It’s been fun working with you, Valkov. I think our discussions have probably helped lots of people tease out the various issues with Scientology and to start up thinking in different ways about it. You’ve been a great partner in this Vaudeville act.
Good luck on your path. You will be fine.
More than fine.
Thanks for all the good times and stimulating discussions.
Alanzo
Wait, Alanzo. Are you just going to blow before answering my question as to what specifics you have to add to the generality that Indies have decided LRH was crazy?
No Al, I doubt you understand what I am going through right now, as I was an “indie” 30 years ago. Do you suppose that blindfold prevents you from seeing clearly at times?
Anything defined becomes a consideration.
.
Maria,
In my reality, the Flow of a profound realization goes through…..a kind of fine energy…..touching the listener……who also “knows” “has” that fine energy but may
not be aware of it when you are speaking about your experience….it dissolves/cracks
some “solid” reality of the other….and you get different emotional reactions, you know…
difference of wavelenghts, that is……liked your comment !!!!
For my next magical trick, I shall attempt to flog a metaphor to death!
Think of the proverbial “box” that everyone is trying to think “outside of.” Think of your definitions and structure as gluing that box together. Think of the box as being “stable.”
Dozens of times we have been dancing on top of this box and discussing it. If a person likes this box then do nothing as it is well supported by agreement and doesn’t particularly need very much in the way of participation from you. Take the blue pill; the story ends; wake up warm and cozy in your own bed; believe whatever you want to believe.
However, if your inclinations run to the masochistic and you just hate being comfortable all soft and cozy in the box and the splinter in your brain is festering and you are ready to scream from the tedium of making all those plates spin on sticks; or you are ready to have a psychotic break and push the A-bomb button just to change up the rock solidness of our good-citizen lives, then let go of the anchor points that you are holding onto so firmly. (i.e. take the red pill and see how deep the rabbit hole goes.)
There’s not an exactly right way of doing this. It seems to take a big curiosity and a big heart to grind it out though. But that’s ok because after a while the grinding it out seems business as usual and we just go on from there.
And then we find ourselves in another box which we need to think outside of….
Yup. That is the way I see it too.
‘Think of your definitions and structure as gluing that box together”.
Actually, definitions and structure make up the box. And having a box allows us to stand on it and thus be outside of it. And then we can dance! Now, doesn’t this look like fun:
Yup! That really does!
I know!
So, let’s get busy and build a better box! 😀
Maybe better we understand this box first. As Alanzo said, “boxes inside boxes.” Possibly we can come to understand what we are doing; understand what is iterating; understand our involvement in these boxes as an undercut to piling on more boxes.
“Maybe better we understand this box first”.
That’s exactly what I’ve been working on by continuing my study of Scientology so as to come to all those understandings you listed. Rather than “piling on more boxes”.
Marildi
Thanks! I love dancing! Fun dance!
I like these magical tricks!
Chris!
Take my love for writing this about this box stuff!!! Can’t stop laughing !! Hilarious !
“there’s not an exactly right way of doing this” – trying to make the infinite into a finite thing is all the failure there is, my take. “dancing on top of the box trying to discuss it” …..but just all of what you write !!
Marildi,
The stable datum is true at the level of the game of the analytical mind. At the level of art there is just creation, no need for definition. We create and then “define” it. Definition gives
a kind of solidity. Analytical thinking is kind of “solid”. Art, love can get it to move, or even
dissolve some part of it which is rigid.
Chris….yes, stop defining it….. I Love your whole post!!!!
Chris:”…then we might finally arrive at the most in-valence place of all, the Higgs Field, or Nirvana, or Heaven or somesuch, where the wave-function “resides.” ”
You’re getting very close but this is where you could actually apply a few axioms and an OT maxim (“the power of a thetan is measured in light-year kilotons per microsecond”) and be even closer.
I believe the primary thing to consider is the zero dimension – the point, the thing closest to a static – which, if you can let your infiniteness go there, is what would be the starting point for a God. (The real simplicity of God’s infiniteness is that a zero point is common to every point in 3-space, which is what would allow “God” to be omnipresent.)
The Higgs field may well just be God’s vibration of creation. Consider what might happen if the creator of the universe was a thetan as defined by Scientology and alternately expanded and contracted its space. Very rapidly. Think in terms of light-years per microsecond. Think in terms of Planck second cycles between light-years large and back to “zero”. Does that sound like power to you? The consequences (a big bang?) are all there, well defined in the axioms.
Another idea that can evolve from this idea of an initial consciousness is the “universal mind”, a concept that is not new and has many names, but the new idea is that it can be understood by understanding the concept of a zero dimension and all the capability that goes along with that. That is your infinite possibility.
The difference between you and I is that I can see a mechanism that explains the infinite and how it can be defined. That definition does not in any way limit the infinite or force it to become finite. In fact, the infinite is well defined by properties of zero (just take your wave function and reduce wavelength to zero). How powerful can a zero be? I’ll re-submit something I wrote a few years ago at Casablanca Tejas:
“With tongue firmly planted in cheek I posit that “not only can theta be a static, but theta can have gender” and profer an old joke: “What is the proof that God is female?” Answer “Because only a woman can make something out of nothing.”
Sexist joking aside, physicists are pretty confident that the entirety of the matter in this universe originated from a spot in space smaller than viewable with the best electron microscope.
Way, way smaller.
And that all that matter appeared in less than a millionth of a millionth of a millionth of a second.
Way, way less.
And it all started with a quantum of instability; a wrinkle, a wriggle, (a twinkle in the eye?!).
So, if that is acceptable to science, why is it so hard to conceive a static?
How about: thetan Yin spots thetan Yang and says “Hey big fella, is that a wrinkle in your space or are you happy to see me?” An uncomfortable silence and then Yin and Yang decide to go half-ers on a new static. But instead of Hollywood rockets in the background they get the whole shebang, er, big bang.
Well, that may be one way to try and conceive a static, but there is also a mathematical way. While the whole explanation of that may be just way too geeky, the provable point of the matter is that a static or even a slightly-less-than-static “static” (or two!) could have supplied all the energy-converted-to-matter that we see in this universe.
And still be able to make an infinite number of similar universes.
Conclusion: universes are just child play to a thetan.
That’s the power of zero.”
This comment is for Marildi:
All that is written above by 2ndxmr are nice examples of CONSIDERATION.
.
Yes, and a number are based on observation.
2ndxmr
Liked the way you wrote it . Asking a question, keeping it there….no mind….”insights” arrive….
2ndxmr:
Wow! Talk about aligning the principles of Scientology with the non-finite and undefinable experiences several people have been commenting on. I hope that some of them will comprehend what you wrote and give you some feedback. That would make for an interesting discussion!
2ndxmr,
” the zero dimension” “the starting point for God” , expanding and contracting “space”, “the Higgs field may be just God’s vibration of creation”.
Real to me. I find the “practical, free use” of the Higgs field’s vibration not only in creation, but also uncreating ! that which Vin defined as a “frozen consideration”. It seems that “one”, using this vibration can “melt” frozen considerations by being the “flow” of life. These “frozen considerations” “pregnant with” energy/emotion seem to be “just there” in “this” universe – giving the apparency/actuality of being solid. One CAN get it cracked up and thus one gets
a LIVE FLOW which produces that we see as CHANGE in this universe (mest, that is under change). And there seem to be “other” “universes”/”levels of conciousness”……
I find extreme value in our attempts to communicate honestly about our “findings” “realizations”
as we are doing now. It helps “beyond” what we call cognitions. “Deeper truth” is getting “out”.
Marianne: “One CAN get it cracked up and thus one gets a LIVE FLOW which produces that we see as CHANGE”
You are talking about something there that I have speculated on but perhaps not done or not the same way. I have used emotion waves at the long wavelength end but not really short waves of the length that I would predict needed to elicit CHANGE in mest. Emotion waves work fine for communicating at the theta level. Can you describe how you get it cracked up?
2ndxmr
“perhaps not done or not the same way”
STOP………………………………………………………………………………………what is the feel you get?
@ comment-26464Marildi commented,
“Wow, That doesn’t sound like the intellectual integrity I thought you had.”
Marildi, these kind of accusatory comments do not help with discussion. The purpose of a discussion is to learn by exchanging viewpoints. One uses experience and experimentation to obtain data and then brings it to the table to be discussed. The participants in a discussion focus on the subject and not on each other.
Marildi, you are as capable of looking as anybody else here. If another person cannot answer the question to your satisfaction then look yourself to answer the question. Do not try to ridicule the other person.
That kind of attitude shows that you think that you have the answer and the other person doesn’t. If you have the answer than why are you asking the question in the first place? Why don’t you just put your viewpoint on the table and clarify it.
We all are trying to make sense out of something that should be pretty obvious. It is the difficulty of putting it into words. This blog is full of considerations. All the time one is dealing with considerations. So, it should be pretty easy to express what a consideration is, but the language simply fails us.
The simplicity is that whatever is considered is a consideration. Now you are not only rejecting this definition, but also ridiculing the formulation of it.
Well, do you have a better answer?
.
Vin, it’s late where I am so I’ll have to get back to you on all this tomorrow. But the key point I’ll make right now is that you are using a particular word and if you are using it in a different way than the definition we all know, you have the responsibility of defining it in the way you are using it. This is a simple matter of making yourself understandable. If you don’t do that, how can a discussion be carried on with you? Please take a look at that and let me know exactly what you mean when you use the word “consideration”.
Then simply ask for better clarification. Don’t just assume things about the other person.
What is your responsibility in a discussion?
.
I found that comment hilarious!
You mean mine? If so, I would agree! was a nice way of saying, “That does not sound like the intellectual integrity you like to think you have”. But I got accused of accusing anyway. (sigh) 🙂
Oops, should have been “IT was a nice way of saying…”
Some identities have a lot of resistance built into them.
.
Or ask for a better obfuscation. 🙂
That is a violation of Discussions and what needs to be avoided.
.
No, Vin, I don’t have the answer to how YOU are using a word. Or the fact that you are using it in an incomprehensible way. I can only ask you to clarify, which I’ve done several times to no avail.
It’s also incomprehensible to me that when I point out a flaw or outpoint in your reasoning, your response is to claim that it is a personal accusation.
None of the above aligns with any sensible rules of discussion and if you’re going to conduct yourself in this way, there’s no use trying to discuss anything with you.
Here is what Hubbard says in THE PHOENIX LECTURES, Capter 5, para 5.
“Things are because you consider that they are and therefore something that is, is considered is. If you don’t consider that it is, it of course can be considered to be something else. But if you recognize that it is a consideration you only have to recognize that it is. And if you recognize that something is, then you have recognized merely that it is a consideration. As soon as you have recognized that something is, IS, you have reduced it to a consideration, and that’s that.”
So, consideration is a thought, a postulate, or whatever word that may appeal to your fancy, but is something perceived at a secondary level as a reaction to some input. That input itself may be another consideration, and this chain can go backward and forward forever.
So, Marildi, please don’t just ridicule other people’s answers. Try to look and understand.
.
V – In your post re Phoenix Lectures I observed six (6) times the word YOU is used in that paragraph, interesting!
Individuality is the stable datum in Scientology as enshrined in Scn Axiom #1. I happen to disagree with it. I believe that “individuality’ is not something native. It is a consideration, or an outcome of other considerations.
But “you” in the quote from Phoenix Lectures is not part of the definition of consideration. “You” is simply associated as being the source of considerations, which I disagree with. To me, a consideration is more like a pattern in space, much like a pattern of electromagnetic field.
.
I consider myself an average person yet a spiritual one. Since you have not given a definition of consideration that I could understand, your posts are all gobble gook to me. But thank you anyway for your viewpoint. I’m not of the higher intelligence as yourself, enabling to discuss adequately with you.
Btw, When I first wrote to your blog long ago and asked for help, you did not address it, except for attacking scientology and making them wrong, as you do to many others I notice, who discuss with you. We are on different wavelengths and I don’t wish to discuss with you further, but may comment, since I respect my own boundaries and I do hope you understand. Thank you.
I thank you for making some effort to communicate with me. 🙂
.
[Corrected version…]
Here is what Hubbard says in THE PHOENIX LECTURES, Capter 5, para 5.
“Things are because you consider that they are and therefore something that is, is considered is. If you don’t consider that it is, it of course can be considered to be something else. But if you recognize that it is a consideration you only have to recognize that it is. And if you recognize that something is, then you have recognized merely that it is a consideration. As soon as you have recognized that something is, IS, you have reduced it to a consideration, and that’s that.”
So, consideration is a thought, a postulate, or whatever word that may appeal to your fancy, but is something perceived at a secondary level as a reaction to some input. That input itself may be another consideration, and this chain can go backward and forward forever.
So, Marildi, please just don’t ridicule other people’s answers. Try to look and understand.
.
I have no problem understanding what LRH is saying in that quote. But did you notice that he says “YOU consider”? LRH gives a definition of “consideration” that includes the idea that there is always “a someone” involved in any consideration.
The thing I don’t understand about what you yourself are saying is that you don’t agree with LRH’s (and everyone else’s) definition – and yet you don’t or can’t state the definition you’re using. I’ve said this several times already but wanted to repeat it one more, for the record.
.
As I wrote yo Dee above, “You” in the quote from Phoenix Lectures is not part of the definition of consideration. “You” is simply associated as being the source of considerations, which I disagree with. To me, a consideration is more like a pattern in space, much like a pattern of electromagnetic field.
.
Yes, let me do the ridiculing, please!
Vinaire, where in the LRH you quoted is there anything at all about any consideration being a secondary level as a reaction to some input?
This is entirely your own dub-in.
LRH is very clear on the ability to create data out of nothing. On an action level, there would be an “unmotivated act”. In other words, one can create an act for no reason at all, with no prior input.
You seem to view everything as running on automatic, including yourself. That’s LRH’s very definition of a reactive mind, isn’t it? All “happening” without volition of any kind, at best a “ghost in the machine” spectator sitting there viewing it all but having no responsibility for any of it?
Much as I tend to see humanity mired in mechanicalness, I will stop short of saying this is ridiculous.
You call it dub-in. I call it looking.
To you LRH may be the standard bearer. To me it is looking and consistency.
Like Hubbard you seem to believe that there is a permanent thetan, self, or spirit. Like Buddha, I believe that it is not so.
Happy New Year!
.
So we really are talking based upon “beliefs”. Where does “looking” come in, then?
Buddha did not say, ever that I know of, whether he himself “believed” or disbelieved in the existence of a PERMANENT thetan, self, or spirit.
But then, neither did LRH, did he?
Buddha certainly spoke of gods, spirits, devils and demons, heavens, hells etc. I guess your issue is whether or not any of these things are PERMANENT, whatever you mean by that……?
Buddha was an iconoclast, and “Atman” just happened to be one of the “icons” or “idols” of his milieu; his point was that it was not necessary to know whether or not there was an “atman” and certainly not necessary to “believe” there was an “atman”, in order to free one’s self from suffering. That was his point, nothing else.
I guess I would say it is equally unnecessary to “believe” such does not exist. “Believing” either way could be a hindrance.
LRH himself would and did put that issue into the speculative bin of “parascientology”, not “scientology”.
PERMANENT means, according to Merriam-Webster,
: continuing or enduring without fundamental or marked change : stable
and according to the Online Free Dictionary,
1. Lasting or remaining without essential change
2. Not expected to change in status, condition, or place
It seems that compared to MEST, spirit or whatever you want to call it, is pretty permanent.
Beliefs, thoughts, speculations, assumptions, etc. are all CONSIDERATIONS. They exist like layers of an onion. Looking helps peel off those layers of onion.
I would rather focus on knowledge rather than on personalities like Buddha or LRH. Thinking in terms of what they believed or did not believe is thinking in terms of authority. One needs to look for oneself and mindfully contemplate if individuality, self, or thetan is something permanent of not.
My contemplation tells me that individuality, self, or thetan is not something permanent.
The steps of my contemplation are provided here:
PHILOSOPHY PROJECT
You are welcome to criticize it without resorting to attention and attacks on participants of a discussion.
.
Vin: “My contemplation tells me that individuality, self, or thetan is not something permanent.”
My question is, who or what is it that arrives at Nirvana?
No one, 🙂
Everything dissolves including the individuality.
.
Vin: “Everything dissolves including the individuality.”
You possibly answered this elsewhere, but when do you see that dissolution occurring? At body death?
At death, the body disintegrates into its particles and the identity that was body is dissolved. Similarly, the thinking and observing part of the person (the living soul) also disintegrates into its particles (considerations), and the identity that was the person is also dissolved. That is my current understanding.
However, the particles remain and they can recombine into another body plus living soul combination. There are infinity of such recombination.
What are the ultimate laws underlying this disintegration and reintegration, I don’t know at the moment. But this seems to be going forever like complex cycles of a wave according to Hinduism.
Nirvana is something different. It happens to a live soul. In my opinion, It is like exteriorization from CONSIDERATIONS. It is the perception-point separating from all surrounding considerations. This is called “giving up of all attachment” in Hinduism. One then sees things as they are without any filters as in Buddhism. There is no individuality in terms of considerations. A perception point is the same as any other perception point. It does not add anything to what is observed or experienced.
Paranirvana is probably what occurs at death, where the live soul, that was already reduced to a completely detached perception-point, merges back into the primary manifestation, extinguishing both and moving beyond the laws of disintegration and reintegration. But this is only my speculation.
The basis of this speculation is removal of all inconsistencies that I am aware of at this level.
.
Thank you, Vin. I got your views much better.
You wrote, “A perception point is the same as any other perception point. It does not add anything to what is observed or experienced.”
Okay, I can see a clear difference between your idea of a “live soul” or “perception point” – and a “thetan” or “viewpoint”. By definition, a thetan does more than simply perceive and record the perceptions. A thetan can form and add opinion (ref. The Factors) and give meaning to what is perceived, as well as postulate and create entirely new perceptions. Specifically, a thetan can originate and create. A thetan is a cause point.
As I see it, unless there is a cause point or element of origination in existence, the universe is nothing more than a vast, complex machine or computer program in operation. In your theory, included in the machine would be perception “points” where energies interact. Any so-called efforts (efforts made without intention) to “remove inconsistencies” are just a matter of mechanics in play with no other factor involved – such as decision, volition or choice. “You”, a perception point, are merely the result and manifestation of accumulated perceptions. And the term “considerations” would be superfluous since those are simply the result of the interactions of recorded perceptions. That is to say, “consideration” is just another word for an energy manifestation which results from other energy manifestations. If I’ve extrapolated wrongly, please explain how.
A very important distinction you bring up is the ability of the thetan to postulate.
At the top end this would include the ability to postulate mest. I don’t believe that is covered in Vin’s model below the level of Brahma.
Please see my response to Marildi in #comment-27196. All abilities are apparencies only. They need to be looked at more closely.
What is ability? What is potential? I think these are much finer considerations (for the lack of a better term), or phenomenon, that needs to be explored.
.
You say all abilities are apparencies only but I’ve seen to many and experienced too many of these abilities to buy the evaluation of armchair logic. Having experienced, I approach the question from “how did that occur?” not from “what possible logic could I come up with to explain how I could be delusional about what I experienced?” Following that path would likely turn me as solid as a rock, especially since I’d have to be in heavy denial of the plurality of observations, made during an unenturbulated state, that were in full alignment with what Hubbard wrote. I guess we’re not only on different pages, we’re in different books.
One is in a state of ignorance, in my opinion, becaise of what one has taken for granted. One does not know what one does not know. So it is better for me to question and look at everything, especially at this level.
You may travel whatever path you chose.
By the way, your remark about “armchair logic” does not belong in a proper discussion. It has no value.
.
@ 2ndxmr. I got the same idea as you – that Vinaire sees the universe as a creation of Brahma. And the creation he describes comes across to me as “an ever-so-intricately complicated set-up of almost infinite dominoes”(quoting myself again, hahaha), apparently created just for the sake of creation. LIke a glorious piece of sculpture to be contemplated. Or a 3-D movie (the original!) to be viewed. No game to it.
As for postulates, so far in Vin’s model, I don’t see that below the level of Brahma there is the ability to postulate, period, let alone the ability to postulate mest.
@ Marildi: I got the same idea as you – that Vinaire sees the universe as a creation of Brahma.”
Whether we call it Brahma, or the 1st awakened, or God, there is very little difference of view at that end. However, I find the Scientological capabilities of that being not only more acceptable but more realistic.
Consider: if that being is going to be able to build a whole universe, does it not make even common sense that the being would be able to make copies of itself? And if it’s an actual COPY of itself, then it would follow that the copy could make copies, and that the copies of the copies could…
Then, if we see that #1 can consider, it follows that all of the copies can consider. Then there is the postulate. If #1 could postulate, all the copies would be able to postulate.
I think it is much more sensible to assume that #1’s first creation would be a copy of itself as at that point “itself” is the only reference point it has. To think that #1 would, as a first step, create a universe, and get it right on the first try,… well, that logic would give me all the more reason to think #1 could have made an exact copy of itself even more easily. And if it was easier, wouldn’t it seem reasonable that it would have been done before the more difficult thing?
If you look at Brahma as a being then you have failed to understand anything that I have written.
.
This may end up as a copy as the first fracking instance hung. 🙂
@ Marildi: I got the same idea as you – that Vinaire sees the universe as a creation of Brahma.”
Whether we call it Brahma, or the 1st awakened, or God, there is very little difference of view at that end. However, I find the Scientological capabilities of that being not only more acceptable but more realistic.
Consider: if that being is going to be able to build a whole universe, does it not make even common sense that the being would be able to make copies of itself? And if it’s an actual COPY of itself, then it would follow that the copy could make copies, and that the copies of the copies could…
Then, if we see that #1 can consider, it follows that all of the copies can consider. Then there is the postulate. If #1 could postulate, all the copies would be able to postulate.
I think it is much more sensible to assume that #1’s first creation would be a copy of itself as at that point “itself” is the only reference point it has. To think that #1 would, as a first step, create a universe, and get it right on the first try,… well, that logic would give me all the more reason to think #1 could have made an exact copy of itself even more easily. And if it was easier, wouldn’t it seem reasonable that it would have been done before the more difficult thing?
I follow you. On the point of creating a universe and getting it right the first time, I think of what paranormal researchers have reported – that there are other physical universes that don’t have exactly the same physics laws as this one, although similar. To me, that seems to indicate first that a physical universe has to be worked out, evolved through trial and error. Since it’s never been done before! And secondly, it makes sense that there would be more than one workable outcome (like the workable tech of the mind :)).That’s actually what I had in mind when I theorized that the creation of the physical universe was an evolution, and that it was hard for me to conceive of a universe being created in one fell swoop in a Big Bang. But I’m not sure I’m looking at that from the right perspective because I don’t know enough of the data of physics. (I hope the physics buffs join in on this whole topic!)
Anyway, it does make sense that a duplication of a known entity, i.e. Oneself, would be a more A to B proposition – easier, as you say. Btw, I once had a student I was word clearing recall having created another thetan. And just recently I came across the LRH references concurring that it happens.
(I didn’t get the joke – “the first fracking instance hung”?
The inconsistency that appears here is the assumption of the First Being.
.
Oh, I know what happened when “the first fracking instance hung”. I bet you tried posting your comment and it seemed to be stuck in “posting comment”. I had that happen once but I found out by checking in another tab that it did go through. Another time before that, I tried re-posting the exact same comment and got the notification that comes up saying it had already been posted. So then I knew. I guess it’s these l-o-n-g threads that are to blame. Anyway, that was a cute line. Hasta mañana.
This thread is reaching its limit.
.
I do not see this universe as a creation of Brahma. If you think that way you have totally misduplicated what i am saying.
.
Vinaire, I googled these two words – “Brahma unknowable” – and found the following (caps are mine):
————————————-
Vedanta calls the ultimate Reality Brahman. Brahman is eternal Being, eternal Knowledge, and eternal Bliss. It is pure, infinite, all-pervading, formless, and without attributes.
The threefold distinction of the knower, the known, and knowledge is common to all empirical experience. This distinction does not exist in Brahman, since nothing exists apart from It. Thus It is described as nondual, or one-without-a-second. Brahman is the eternal Subject and is hence unknown and unknowable by the mind and the senses. It is Knowledge Itself. Brahman is unknowable but one can be united with It.
Conditioned Brahman is Brahman with forms or attributes, and It is worshiped in different religions as Personal God. According to Swami Vivekananda, Personal God is the highest reading of the Absolute by the human mind.
On the identical nature of God with form and God without form, Sri Ramakrishna says, “God the absolute, and God the personal are one and the same. A belief in the one implies a belief in the other. Fire cannot be thought of apart from its burning power; nor can its burning power be thought of apart from it. Again the sun’s rays cannot be thought of apart from the sun, nor the sun apart from its rays. You cannot think of the whiteness of milk apart from milk, nor milk apart from its milky whiteness. THUS GOD THE ABSOLUTE CANNOT BE THOUGHT OF APART FROM THE IDEA OF GOD WITH ATTRIBUTES.”
On the need for different manifestations of the same Reality, Sri Ramakrishna observes: “The Lord manifests Himself, with form or without form, just according to the need of the devotee. Manifested vision is relatively true, that is, true in relation to different men placed in different conditions and environments. The Divine Dyer alone knows in what color He has dyed Himself. Verily He is not bound by any limitation as to the forms of manifestation, OR THEIR NEGATION.”
The one Reality appearing as the many can be compared to the sun seen from different perspectives and through different colored glasses. Each view of the sun is true in that it represents the same sun. According to the Rig-Veda, “TRUTH IS ONE: SAGES CALL IT BY VARIOUS NAMES.”
Sri Ramakrishna practiced spiritual disciplines of different religions and realized that they all lead to the same ultimate Reality. He taught that ALL RELIGIONS ARE VALID PATHS TO GOD-REALIZATION. His message of “As many faiths, so many paths” is a much-needed antidote to all discordance in the name of religion.
http://www.ramakrishna.org/activities/message/message23.htm
——————————————
End of quote.
The above is how I see the validity of working out an understanding of the Creator and of his/her/its creation (even by the standards of Hinduism and its concept of Brahma). Doing so is a “valid path to God-realization”.
Brahma that I use is not the creator of this universe because that would be an absolutist statement. Neti, Neti makes sure of that.
Things may get lost in translation.
Sent from my iPhone
Based on your comment, I don’t think you got the point of that quote. If you did, then your comment seems like a brushoff.
And I don’t see that neti-neti negates the quote.
The inconsistency in the following statement is how can Brahma that has no attributes be classified as a being?
Sent from my iPad
The answer to how Brahma can be classified as a being is in that quote. Please re-read it.
I think this is the quote you are referring to:
“THUS GOD THE ABSOLUTE CANNOT BE THOUGHT OF APART FROM THE IDEA OF GOD WITH ATTRIBUTES.”
Do you always believe blindly in what is written? I think that “what is written is true” is a false datum. What do you say?
.
Vin, you appear to have misunderstood the meaning of “If it isn’t written, it isn’t true”. That is a Scn policy and pertains only to Scn – not otherwise (unless the policy happens to be adopted). It simply means that if you are given an order that isn’t in writing by the person who has the authority to order it, or you are verbally given a piece of Scn tech not written by LRH (the authority of tech), then it isn’t true and isn’t to be followed.
As for that quote I posted, the reason I did so was because it expresses my own viewpoint, and I thought the fact that it was expressed in terms of Brahma and Unknowable would make my view more comprehensible to you. You apparently disagree with the quote, however, which is fine – the discussion isn’t about Hinduism anyway.
The main thing I was trying to say is that I thought it might be enlightening for us to theorize about how the universe was created. And I hoped you would join in, since you like to theorize.
(1) It is difficult to say what is Hinduism and what is not Hinduism. Different people have different opinion about it.
(2) I may theorize, but my focus is not on theorizing.
(3) My focus is on spotting inconsistencies and then seeing what makes sense.
(4) The statement “how the universe was created” assumes that there is creation and that there must be a cause.
(5) To me that assumption leads to inconsistency. I resolved that inconsistency in my PHILOSOPHY PROJECT as follows.
.
FIRST CAUSE:
[“First Cause” is a misnomer. It has nothing to do with the notion of “cause and effect”. “Cause and effect” denote a certain association between two events where the second event is looked upon as the outcome of the first event. “First Cause,” on the other hand, is the property, which makes a manifestation simply appear without association with anything else. It is interesting to observe that the property of “first cause” may be applied to all manifestations before applying the association of “cause and effect.”]
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.
.
“By definition, a thetan does more than simply perceive and record the perceptions. A thetan can form and add opinion (ref. The Factors) and give meaning to what is perceived, as well as postulate and create entirely new perceptions. Specifically, a thetan can originate and create. A thetan is a cause point.”
In my opinion, all the above is apparency only. In truth, “cause” is the result of interactions between considerations at various levels as in a fractal.
.
”As I see it, unless there is a cause point or element of origination in existence, the universe is nothing more than a vast, complex machine or computer program in operation.”
The universe is what it is. “Cause-effect” and machine-like “action-reaction” are simply two different theories to explain it. These theories take the black and white approach. I see those two theories to be different points of an interminable fractal scale. So, there is neither absolute self-determinism as postulated for thetan, no is there absolute other-determinism, as postulated for a machine.
.
”In your theory, included in the machine would be perception “points” where energies interact. Any so-called efforts (efforts made without intention) to “remove inconsistencies” are just a matter of mechanics in play with no other factor involved – such as decision, volition or choice. “You”, a perception point, are merely the result and manifestation of accumulated perceptions. And the term “considerations” would be superfluous since those are simply the result of the interactions of recorded perceptions. That is to say, “consideration” is just another word for an energy manifestation which results from other energy manifestations. If I’ve extrapolated wrongly, please explain how.”
Please see my comments above about thetan and “cause-point” being more a part of black and white approach. The reality seems to be a lot more sophisticated. There seem to be a whole spectrum of considerations and interactions between them that has not been explored. There is a lot more that Buddha says here: THE STRUCTURE OF “I”
.
Vin: “In truth, ’cause’ is the result of interactions between considerations at various levels as in a fractal”.
My question is this – is there any “cause” which is not simply a reaction brought about by another “cause”? In other words, is there any “cause” that isn’t primarily an effect in its causation? Or to word it yet another way, is there any “cause” which is the actual source of the act of causing?
Vin: “The universe is what it is. ‘Cause-effect and machine-like ‘action-reaction’ are simply two different theories to explain it….there is neither absolute self-determinism as postulated for thetan, nor is there absolute other-determinism, as postulated for a machine.”
I’m not sure what you mean by “absolute self-determinism as postulated for thetan”, unless you mean self-determinism in an ultimate/fundamental sense. In any case, your model doesn’t contain any implication of self-determinism whatsoever, that I can see. I read it as an expression of mere mechanics, the description of a machine. What am I missing?
Btw, I got the same impression 2ndxmr expressed, that “Following that path would likely turn me as solid as a rock…”, and I wondered if you were doing your best to make Buddha right or someone else wrong. Seriously, it seems to require that kind of explanation to understand your approach. Unless I’m still missing something…
My thoughts about “Cause” are expressed as follows in the PHiLOSOPHY PROJECT: Let’s discuss that first:
FIRST CAUSE:
[“First Cause” is a misnomer. It has nothing to do with the notion of “cause and effect”. “Cause and effect” denote a certain association between two events where the second event is looked upon as the outcome of the first event. “First Cause,” on the other hand, is the property, which makes a manifestation simply appear without association with anything else. It is interesting to observe that the property of “first cause” may be applied to all manifestations before applying the association of “cause and effect.”]
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.
.
“Everything dissolves including the individuality.”
Yes, I get that everything of substance dissolves. And I know it isn’t substance that arrives at Nirvana, but what is it? It seems clear that there must be some non-substance thing that strives for and eventually achieves Nirvana. So what is it? I would really like to know your answer to this question.
Please see my response to 2ndxmr.
https://isene.me/2012/12/30/happy-new-year/#comment-27183
It is not what arrives at Nirvana, it is what remains after all attachments are dissolved. I call it a perception-point. But even the perception-point dissolves at parinirvana by merging into its own manifestation… something like electron merging into positron.
.
Vin, you post a quote of LRH that says absolutely nothing at all about any consideration being a secondary level as a reaction to some input.
You then immediately go on to expound, in a completely non-sequitur way, that the arising and existence of considerations is the result of some kind of reaction to some input.
This is exactly the opposite of what LRH taught. He taught that considerations occurred because someone considered them, not as a result of some kind of knee-jerk stimulus-response behaviorism or on a larger scale, some kind of dialectically materialist process of thesis-antithesis-synthesis, world without end.
That’s what I called dub-in, because you appeared to be using the LRH quote as a basis for the rest of your post. Perhaps it was really a “bait-and-switch”? I am left to wonder, did you think the quote would create an agreement in your audience, which would facilitate their acceptance of a completely contrary idea from you?
I don’t really think so. Alonzo is that guileful, but you are not, to my knowledge.
So I guess you were just free associating. But you had me worried there, for a minute! 🙂
Valkov, LRH is not an authority for me. My reference point is my own contemplation over inconsistencies.
If you find an inconsistency in the materials we are discussing, please present it without any attention on the participants in a discussion.
Thank you.
.
(1) Underlying all unwanted conditions there is always an identity shift.
(2) The unwanted condition comes about when a person gets stuck in some identity that was assumed during some confusion.
(3) A person is stuck with that identity because that identity is holding down the unresolved confusion for him/her.
(4) The identity operates as a stable datum to align the confusion. But the identity itself consists of confusion.
(5) An identity is basically a set of knotted up considerations that needs to be loosened up by closer looking.
(6) It is the original confusion that precipitates through an identity as an unwanted condition.
(7) Underlying the original confusion there is an original inconsistency that still exists within the identity that is apparently restraining the confusion.
(8) The identity becomes the source of further inconsistencies. It is the continual generation of these inconsistencies, which makes up the unwanted condition.
It appears that all identities and all “self” have the same or similar confusion at their core.
.
Vinaire; According to you: What is the defining difference between a consideration capable of generating further considerations and a consideration that is not so capable (if such exists)?
Well, Geir, I simply have a conjecture that there are some elemental considerations (axioms), from which all other considerations may be derived. There could be something like a periodic Table for these elemental considerations. Analogous to Periodic Table elements, some considerations are conjectured to be inert, some that supply “electrons”, and others that receive “electrons”. Thus, there are “molecular” considerations, which can be infinite in numbers. Many of these considerations may tightly knit together to produce a self or identity.
By the way, I assume these considerations to be some kind of field patterns in space.
So, at the moment I need to do further research into this area to get rid of all the inconsistencies that show up.
.
An interesting reply. But not an answer to my question.
Geir, I’m wondering if considerations can be described at their root as mathematical iterations. If so, then considerations might in some way be self propagating?
Geir
Love your question…..once again, laser precise….be here “with us” and share your questions
and your views (if I may ask you to do that)…some profound is coming out alive……
I am not always capable of answering. Please don’t think that I am trying to withhold anything.
It is a matter of looking, and answers come as they may. You have that capability of looking too. So, look and just depend on my answers.
Please be cooperative instead of being accusative.
.
Vin,
Who did you write this comment to?
That comment was addressed to Geir.
.
I was simply trying to find out what your answer to my question was – your rationale behind your philosophy. How did the notion of accusation enter the picture?
Geir said: An interesting reply. But not an answer to my question.
It comes across as an accusation or complaint that I did not answer your question. I can’t read your mind, so such a remark seems to be out of place.
What do you think would be an answer to your question? You seem to know the answer already otherwise how would you know that I did not answer your question.
What would be an answer to your question? What criterion are you going by?
.
Well, it was simply not an answer to my very clearly formulated and curious question. Please read it again and see if you can answer the question.
There was indeed no accusation in my response at all. I do wonder why you came to think it was. Could you please elaborate on why that came to be?
If your question was clearly formulated from your point of view, then my responses have been clearly formulated from my point of you.
Now please answer my clearly formulated questions to you. 🙂
Sent from my iPad
Vinaire: “Please don’t think that I am trying to withhold anything”.
I don’t say that Geir (or I, for that matter) was doing that but I know that it’s a very unpleasant experience to have someone not accept what you say. This can happen in session too when the auditor wrongly demands more than what is actually there to say. Horrible! Did you ever have that experience?
So, what is the responsibility of the auditor when he knows that he is insisting for an answer (that he wants), which the PC does not have. Should the auditor operate on his expectations, or accept the pc’s answer of “nothing there”?
.
Vin, if the auditor is applying tech correctly, he won’t be insisting on an answer the pc doesn’t have. Sometimes he sees something on the meter that tells him the pc does have more there but the pc may not want to say what it is or he may not yet have even viewed it, so the correct tech is to repeat the question.
Unfortunately, it has also occurred that the pc really doesn’t have anything there and the auditor keeps asking. This could be either because of a false read or because the auditor is mis-reading the meter. If the pc continues to say nothing is there, the auditor should now see the evidence of that on the meter and should indicate it to the pc. But if none of this resolves the situation to the satisfaction of both pc and auditor, the next thing to do is a correction list.
Was your experience different from any of this?
So, what do you think of Geir’s approach in our brief interaction here?
.
“So, what do you think of Geir’s approach in our brief interaction here?”
I think that his approach was based on the fact that when someone uses a word they are using it to symbolize a thought and to communicate that thought to someone else. Since Geir didn’t understand exactly what that thought of yours was (that you were using the word to symbolize) he was trying to clarify it.
Was he? I thought he simply rejected my answer.
Imagine an auditor doing that to his pc… just to use your analogy.
.
Vin: “So, what is the responsibility of the auditor when he knows that he is insisting for an answer (that he wants), which the PC does not have. Should the auditor operate on his expectations, or accept the pc’s answer of “nothing there”?”
That’s a problem that regularly comes up in a session. The simplicity is that the auditor needs to be sure he’s running a charged question. After that there is the task of PC + auditor being greater than the bank and the proper tech being used to help the PC. But it must always be to help the PC. The stuff that gets reported today that would have constituted gross out-tech in my time is something I wouldn’t want anybody to have to endure.
Yes, this is a big weakness in Scientology procedure. There is a great need for poka-yoke.
.
.
Vin,
Aside from this cycle. You keep using the word consideration, and also consider. Dee asked you to give her their meanings, how you use them in your writings. I am too asking you now. Can you please do that?
Marildi,
Can a misunderstood word give a reaction on the meter that would show up as a withhold?
Marianne, a meter read only shows there is charge on something. It is up to the auditor to determine what the charge is on, based on the tech to do so.
I’m not sure I understand what you’re asking but I’ll
[Correction to my post above…]
So, look and do not just depend on any answers.
.
.
Vin,
No, no, no ! You want to shut down the cycle ! No way ! Chris says after watching
the song I sent you that it gives him the chills ! I can’t feel that chills yet ! Do you,
Vin want to finish it like this ? Still, if you do, it’s fine with me, it’s the business of the two of you.
The good kind of chills – goosebumps!
There exists an atomic theory of matter. Can there be an atomic view of spirit?
I think that we can have an atomic hypothesis of spirit. It won’t be out of place in the information age of today.
Is the spirit made up of consideration equivalent of atom? What could be the structure of consideration?
.
I agree. Just in our daily life, we take so much technology for granted that would’ve been consigned strictly to the spirit world a century ago. How elementary will our technology appear a century from now?
It seems a very human mistake to organize knowledge into the physical world but unobservable or imaginary or thought into a spiritual world. Probably both words, physical and spiritual, harbor our misunderstandings about Nature.. I like the word universe. It seems adequate to contain everything. And if it does? We can stop thinking about not yet understood manifestations as spooky.
One of the common filters has been that spiritual is independent of the physical and that spiritual is the source of physical. That is the basis of THETA-MEST THEORY. It is the same filter that exists in Christianity.
To me, both spiritual and physical are different aspects of the same system. I would go as far as saying that both spiritual and physical may lie on the same scale, and that a gradient may exist from spiritual to physical.
.
Vin,
Can I ask you to give me your definition of consideration? Dee also asked you,
I am asking you now too. Thanks.
I have given my definition of consideration many times. If you are still rejecting my answers then you’ll have to go to my blog for detailed explanation.
Here something you could try:
(1) Consider something.
(2) Then look at that consideration closely and thoroughly.
(3) Look at how that consideration came about.
(4) Examine if there is something being taken for granted by you.
(5) See how your understanding of consideration differs from what you think I am saying.
(6) Isolate your disagreement.
(7) Bring that disagreement to the table for discussion.
.
I think what I am suggesting here is pretty fair.
.
Vin,
Thank you! I’ll go to your blog for detailed definition. I understand that you have told it
many times. Can you please give that to me too? In a simple way. Thanks!
Please read the PHILOSOPHY PROJECT on my blog as I asked Valkov to do too.
Please take some responsibility instead of just putting it on the other person.
.
Vin,
Pretty fair, thank you ! The exercise is superb! I would like to give you my observation I have about your cycle with Geir! There is an MU there. It could be the word consideration. You keep using it in your works. You finished the cycle by kind of blowing.
Then you had a discussion with Marildi about Geir – not in a very nice way.Then you were off
to another comment – leaving the “place” without any resolution of the problem.
Vin, the way I see it is, that you gave an answer but didn’t ANSWER the question (clearly
formulated, as Geir says and I agree).
Marianne, you are focusing on the participants rather on the subject. Please do the exercise that I recommended based on the subject.
Thanks.
.
I see it that way too.
I’m not sure how or why this happy new year thread turned to a heated discussion of Scientology – again, but this past year has been really fruitful for me to work out – yet again – the vestige considerations that I’ve had about Scientology — the doubts, the hopes, and the un-compared data. Sorting out the materials is a looming job but I’ve reached a sort of plateau where I can understand that Scientology was truly an unoriginal patchwork quilt of “50,000 years of thinking men.” Hubbard seems to have been at war with himself and confused whether to create and to send Scientologists over a “bridge to total freedom” using the “left-hand path,” or the “right-hand path,” and so sent his followeres down both.
It seems to me that a very basic confusion of Hubbard’s was whether mankind should evolve toward the deification of the self, away from a sense of “oneness,” or whether OT’s could never make it on their own and needed to organize into “hives” for survival. There is also conceptual confusion in The Tech which shows up in praising and striving for higher states of individuality yet all the while condemning any form of individuation. Two examples of this confusion can be demonstrated in Hubbard’s own words in the lofty and prestigious scripture-book known as SCIENTOLOGY 8-8008 versus the HCOPL (policy letter) of 25 June 1963 as follows:
“One of the control mechanisms which has been used on thetans is that when they rise in potential they are led to believe themselves one with the universe. This is distinctly untrue. Thetans are individuals. They do not, as they rise up the scale, merge with other individualities. They have the power of becoming anything they wish while still retaining their own individuality. They are first and foremost themselves. There is evidently no Nirvana. It is the feeling that one will merge and lose his own individuality that restrains the thetan from attempting to remedy his lot. His merging with the rest of the universe would be his becoming matter. This is the ultimate in cohesiveness and the ultimate in affinity, and is at the lowest point of the Tone Scale. One declines into a brotherhood with the universe. When he goes up scale, he becomes more and more an individual capable of creating and maintaining his own universe. In this wise (leading people to believe they had no individuality above that of MEST) the MEST universe cut out all competition.” — L. Ron Hubbard, SCIENTOLOGY 8-8008
and then versus the HCOPL:
“The trouble with O.T.s in the past has only been lack of cooperation and a commonly agreed upon objective. Without these O.T.s eventually fall prey again to smaller beings with bigger organization skill. O.T. is an unstable state only when O.T.s are not cooperating with O.T.s but each going his own way in the strong but fatuous belief he can single-handedly survive. The proof is, O.T.s have not survived as O.T.s whenever this super-individuation collided with the super organization of weaker beings. The answer is to remain organized, with mutual assistance and integrity and not lose touch with or responsibility for all levels of life forms and societies. This means that programmes for such agreement must be offered. — L. Ron Hubbard, HCOPL of 25 June 1963
When I was a devout follower of L. Ron Hubbard, I saw no problem with these types of contrary facts for the first and most important tenet of Scientology is that when in doubt about Scientology, just read and apply Scientology to find the flaw in your reasoning.
Chris, it seems clear to mean that “individuation” and “individuality” have two distinctly different meanings and that while still having individuality a thetan can either be or not be individuated. The definition of individuation is “a separation from knowingness”.
OK. You see higher states then being individual?
Chris, I don’t see the relevance of what “I see” to the discussion we were on. We were talking about what “LRH saw”. So I say again, let’s not change the subject quite yet.
To re-state it, you said LRH was contradicting himself and I still don’t know what you are calling contradictory in those quotes. Or did you change your mind about that?.
Hubbard is clear. Do you understand that spiritual improvement results in a more clearly defined individual? Or do you understand that as a person improves spiritually that his sense of self lessens toward a merger with the Great-All. These are different ways of looking at the spiritual path.
Okay. By “Hubbard is clear” I get that you no longer see any inconsistency in those references you posted (although you may disagree with what he contends). Correct me if I’m wrong on that (or forever hold your piece – or “peace”, depending on your school of thought :D).
The answer to your question as to what I understand spiritual improvement results in is – a more clearly defined individual. In other words, I would tend to agree with the excerpt you quoted from 8-8008:
“Thetans are individuals. They do not, as they rise up the scale, merge with other individualities”.
The reason I would agree and the reason LRH had for saying the above is based on his research, which he explained in Creation of Human Ability under the process R2-48–Separateness:
“This was the process that told me that we are not natively sprung from one
‘common body of theta’. If you run separateness, accentuating the
difference in unity of a being from other beings and things and spaces, he
continues to gain in tone. If you run this process in reverse, how he is
the same as, or is connected to various items, he continues to dwindle in
tone. By handling this latter process, one can press a being down into the
rock-bottom state of aberrations. We have long known that differentiation
was the keynote of sanity, and that identification was the basis of
aberration. This fact is utilized in processing by running separateness.
“It can be concluded that the being is an individual separate from every
other being and that he has never been part of any other being…”
Marildi: ““Thetans are individuals. They do not, as they rise up the scale, merge with other individualities”.(LRH quote)
I would agree with that but I believe that as we rise upscale we may find that we have a common communication medium (perhaps like dimension zero) that we simply are not aware of right now.
As an analogy, consider a sleeping person in the midst of a number of talking, awake persons. In this case the sleeping person may be getting some bits of the conversation about him and incorporate that into whatever reality he might be dreaming or otherwise aware of. (Certainly he may be so deeply asleep that no awareness is there.)
There are several points to this analogy:
1) There is the possibility of a plane of communication that all “awake” participants can join in on.
2) The asleep person may have limited, delusional or no access to that plane.
3) The individuals involved in the communication on the common plane do not sacrifice their individuality to participate on the plane.
I see no reason why individuals, as beings, would need to operate differently. They probably could, if they chose to (to merge or form some other “collective”) but I see no reason why they would be compelled to do so.
“I would agree with that but I believe that as we rise upscale we may find that we have a common communication medium (perhaps like dimension zero) that we simply are not aware of right now.”
I’m smiling here because I was going to say something like that but didn’t want to write too much in a single post. And in any case, I expected Chris to next ask me about my earlier comment about “oneness”. I do believe there is some kind of entanglement of beings and I think it most likely can be described in physics terms, as can the mind. We probably already do create continuous effects on each other “for better or for worse”, as I worded it earlier – even if we aren’t yet aware of it.
2ndxmr, regarding a sleeping person it may not just be an analogy. Everything going on around a sleeping person is being taken in and recorded and thus becomes part of his mind, and even though, as you said, there may be no awareness of it. From what we know in Scientology and other studies, perceived “data” is actually in the form of energy patterns which get “stored” in the mind and, energy being energy, is thus capable of interacting with other energies of the mind.
It also seems evident that people “pick up” (perceive) the energy patterns existing around others, i.e. in the minds of others (emotions, for example), even though doing so is usually below their awareness level. And, like the environmental data perceived and stored by the sleeping person, that “mental” data is also energy and can react with other energy. This is one way individuals may be entangled. They just have to be in the same physical universe with the same space-time.
What Hubbard says is clear — it is easy to understand. That he contradicts himself is the point that I made.
My prediction was and remains that if a person has a problem with these contradictions, then they are no true Scientologist.
Chris, I see your comment as ducking out of the discussion. That makes it look like you really have no good argument to make.
Marildi, can two individuals emerge from the same source?
What are your thoughts on God?
.
I don’t see the “contrary facts” you apparently find in the 2 quotes. Individuality and individuation have 2 distinctly different definitions.
LOL, Val, we almost posted the exact same response – you said the two words were “distinctly different definitions” and I said they were “distinctly different meanings”.
This seems to be the perfect example of a person having confusions about Scientology, based on his own misunderstandings, who then comes to the conclusion that Scientology itself is contradictory and/or in error.
Yep, and Chris’ vorpal sword goes snik snik snik in reply….
And I hadn’t even started ridiculing him!
This is a good example of cognitive dissonance. No wonder Hubbard went mad.
.
Vin: “This is a good example of cognitive dissonance. No wonder Hubbard went mad”.
Vin: “Chris, you have now joined the ranks of Alanzo and Vinaire in the eyes of the pious. Ha, ha!”
Vin: “I think these two belong to ESMB.”
Vin, you are descending along a path you’ve slid down before and you need to apply some looking, fast. Neither you nor Chris are going to win any arguments by getting into this state where you dramatize being the victim and resort to argumentum ad hominem as your final bastion of self righteousness.
What your responses do indicate to me is an unwillingness or an inability to differentiate between what in Scientology provided gains and what created failures. When one ceases to differentiate one begins to identify; there is no longer good and bad, it’s all identified as bad. That’s as equally true for many in the CoS looking outwards as it is for your complaint looking back at the CoS. That identification you see in the CoS is the source of cognitive dissonance there.
However, the argument you make above for cognitive dissonance here fails when the same persons being argued against have clearly stated that they can differentiate between the positive aspects of Scientology and the failures of it, including the failures of LRH.
Many of your arguments don’t make sense to me because they seek to contradict what I’ve experienced as workable fact, i.e. what is true for me is true because I’ve observed it to be true and I can see a result as following from the logic based on the premises of Scientology. If you make a tautological claim that denies one of the premises that I have, through experience, found repeatably true, you should not be suprised if I attack what I see as a fallacy in your reasoning. I don’t insist that you agree with me. Some of the things we argue about are as beyond immediate proof as the Higgs boson was 10 years ago. I am open to discussions about ways to prove or disprove them but not to a tautology that sums up as “Hubbard simply exploited the old superstitions by giving them a pseudo-scientific garb for the modern audience.” A summation like that inclines me to conclude that you know less than nothing about what your trying to argue. The “less than nothing” is a negative of intelligence, not just an absence of intelligence but an active negator of observed data that makes the negator look not just ignorant but stupid.
If you were to say “none of this business about a multi-lifetime being makes any sense to me because in applying Occam’s razor we should only be looking at what possible effects could arise from combinations of macromolecules”, I’d say “fine, let’s figure out some ways to test each premise.” We could have some fun and do some good. It doesn’t matter that we disagree, that happens in science all the time. And if the occassional argument or a fight draws some blood? That’s when you have to apply your Impermanence datum, grin and let it all go.
I’m up for it. Are you? Here’s to a future of high-toned fights, bloody noses and grins. Cheers!
All of us seems to have the tendency to impose one’s morals on others and I am no exception. I shall make no bones about the fact that I do not agree with Scientology morality, especially considering Hubbard to be source of knowledge in those areas where he uttered something.
That may make me an evil person in some people’s eyes. And if that upsets those people then it is their case and their responsibility.
So, the bottom line is to control one’s case and continue conversing without feeling upset.
I am sure you are up to it.
.
Agreed. I do it too, vow to stop, then fall off the wagon. I must be a PTS/SP rolercoaster case and this is proof. Oops. Doing it again… damn!
That wasn’t me. Alanzo made me write those ugly things! You know I wouldn’t do that if I were in my right mind.
2ndxmr: “Vin, you are descending along a path you’ve slid down before and you need to apply some looking, fast. Neither you nor Chris are going to win any arguments by getting into this state where you dramatize being the victim and resort to argumentum ad hominem as your final bastion of self righteousness.”
Please don’t get work yourself unnecessarily. I am looking. I may not be looking the way you want me to look, but I am looking.
I am not sliding down anywhere. If you think that I am heading toward getting myself banned on this blog once again, let me tell you that it is nothing for me to get sweaty about. So, please don’t deal in threats.
I am not here to win any arguments. I am not interested in debates. I am interested in discussion. Proper discussions can occur only when attention is taken off the participants and only kept on the subject. I find that Scientologists have the habit of focusing on the participant when the argument is not going their way. They take everything as a debate, which is not my approach.
It is funny that you consider me to be dramatizing as a victim. Well I don’t think myself to be a victim at all. I just laugh at your Scientology filters that you start pushing when you get upset.
Please calm down!
.
Actually Vin, I believe it was me he threatened with the yellow card. This is why I have gotten my ethics in. You’ll be having no more trouble out of me.
Chris: “You’ll be having no more trouble out of me.”
Cheers, Chris! Cheers!
You are right! That is a commendable rarely seen. But Chris is one who has shown that kind of character more than once.
I say the same,to you, Chris. Cheers!
🙂
LOL! Chris… this is hilarious!
.
2ndxmr: “What your responses do indicate to me is an unwillingness or an inability to differentiate between what in Scientology provided gains and what created failures. When one ceases to differentiate one begins to identify; there is no longer good and bad, it’s all identified as bad. That’s as equally true for many in the CoS looking outwards as it is for your complaint looking back at the CoS. That identification you see in the CoS is the source of cognitive dissonance there.”
Scientology is just a word. Please don’t get stuck on it. Gains come from certain actions that are not copyrighted by Scientology. Gains come from looking and that has been that way since ancient times. I would appreciate if you would converse in terms of particular facts without reference to Scientology, because reference to Scientology introduces all kind of biases. Let’s talk in terms of knowledge, which happens to be the super set to Scientology.
Please don’t take off on tangents by making your own assumptions. I am not complaining about anything. I am seeing Marildi and Valkov jumping on Chris’s throat for making an observation. I am simply riding on their wavelength. If you you want to get to the bottom of my response, simply look at what happened just before it and spot the inconsistency there. Right now you are looking at something late on the chain.
.
2x. thank you so much for pointing in a direction where all of us together can improve the quality of our discussions. Even though the posters here may hotly disagree as to whether an individual spiritual entity exists, I have the impression that we all believe that in some fundamental way we are connected. And affect each other for better or for worse. I think if we keep that “oneness” in mind while we passionately argue our own viewpoints, it will keep us from crossing the lines we shouldn’t if we’re going to “have some fun and do some good”, as you so well put it. This could be the start of a truly NEW year! I for one am making that toast with you. Cheers!!
Marildi, So I am understanding that regarding the basic dispute between “oneness-ism v. individualism” that you “side” with oneness and not individuated individualism?
Chris, if you have the idea that LRH sided with “individuated individualism” I say again that you have not comprehended his statements. We need to complete that discussion first, the one you started as regards there being a contradiction where LRH talks about “individuated” and “individual”. Once we get that sorted out, we’ll be set up to discuss this subject of “oneness”. I’ve been wanting to anyway.
Cool. Referring to the LRH quotes, and to Maria’s research definitions, how do you see it?
See my last comment to you and Maria and we’ll continue the exchange in the same thread.
Marildi, all one has to is discuss the subject and not the participants to have nice discussions going. Discussions gets derailed when one puts attention on the participants.
.
Vin, I get what you’re saying. However, the other point several of us are making is that in a discussion we should be able to discuss what the other person has said – not discuss HIM but what he is saying, including asking questions about that in order to clarify it, as well as pointing out inconsistencies. That’s all part of any normal discussion and is the reason we can learn from each other. So if we ask a question about what someone said, it shouldn’t be interpreted to mean we are discussing THE PERSON.
I never implied that. But to say, “you did not answer the question” is commenting on the person.
Do you see that?
.
No, I don’t. Saying the person didn’t answer is actually making a statement about what the person SAID, as with anything else he puts forth. If someone asks, “What is the color of an apple?” and the other person answers, “Four” or even “Apples grow on trees”, he isn’t answering the question. And the other person has the right to say so as this is a common part of discussion.
What if the person did answer the question, but it not acceptable to the other person.
See! it is just an opinion. So, it should be dealt with discussion. The comment of “you did not answer my question” comes across to me as a complaint and a discussion stopper.
You are taking it as factual, when it is an opinion.
.
No, it’s not a “complaint”. It’s not any different or worse than saying “I didn’t understand what you said”, except it’s “I didn’t perceive an answer in what you said”. But I don’t think we have to be picky about it and word it in some special way – we can use the ordinary wording of “You didn’t answer” and not be sensitive about it.
I would say that most of the time it’s obvious whether a person answered a question or not. But if you feel you did answer, why don’t you just point out what the answer was, or re-state it, or try to make it more comprehensible. At times your answer might be, “I don’t know” – which should be accepted as an answer, although it may be challenged as an inconsistency if it is one.
That’s a stretch.
.
2ndxmr:“However, the argument you make above for cognitive dissonance here fails when the same persons being argued against have clearly stated that they can differentiate between the positive aspects of Scientology and the failures of it, including the failures of LRH.”
Please focus on the point made. It has to do with what was quoted in that post from Chris. Look at those two quotes. Do you see any inconsistency? Do you see any inconsistency in individuality being made the cornerstone of Scientology by Hubbard?
.
2ndxmr: ”Many of your arguments don’t make sense to me because they seek to contradict what I’ve experienced as workable fact, i.e. what is true for me is true because I’ve observed it to be true and I can see a result as following from the logic based on the premises of Scientology.”
Let’s take an example of a person who sees all women as sexual objects. That is true for him. Obviously this does not make it universally true. That person is obviously looking through a filter based on his past experiences.
Do you believe that if there is a conflict between what I am saying and what is true for you, then you are right and I am wrong?
If there is an inconsistency, shouldn’t everything associated with that inconsistency be examined? Are you assuming Scientology’s truth to be absolute truth? Are you assuming Scientology logic, and the premise it is based on, to be flawless just because you agree with it?
Is it possible there LRH and you may have similar filters?
Just asking… 🙂
.
I disagree with this statement – “That person is obviously looking through a filter based on his past experiences.”, to the extent to which it seems to imply that “filters” are necessarily based on “past experience”.
Filters need not be based on anything except one’s immediate whim. Experiences, past, present or future have no relevance at all, unless one wishes them to have relevance.
All filters might be entirely arbitrary creations with no precedent at all, created simply just for the heck of it.
Your basic worldview as expressed in your posts, Vin, seems to be a straight dialectical materialism, which is a one-sided and limited philosophy.
Dialectical materialism is a very narrow filter.
Noted! When you are ready for a decent discussion on the subject, without complaining against the participant let me know.
.
2ndxmr: ” If you make a tautological claim that denies one of the premises that I have, through experience, found repeatably true, you should not be suprised if I attack what I see as a fallacy in your reasoning. I don’t insist that you agree with me. Some of the things we argue about are as beyond immediate proof as the Higgs boson was 10 years ago. I am open to discussions about ways to prove or disprove them but not to a tautology that sums up as “Hubbard simply exploited the old superstitions by giving them a pseudo-scientific garb for the modern audience.” A summation like that inclines me to conclude that you know less than nothing about what your trying to argue. The “less than nothing” is a negative of intelligence, not just an absence of intelligence but an active negator of observed data that makes the negator look not just ignorant but stupid.”
Try not attacking and being more humble and respectful. Then you’ll get a better response.
Scientology’s policy of always attacking and not defending smells of a service fac of believing that one is right and the other person is wrong.
Have you ever felt that way? (I am using Marildi’s technique here… 🙂 )
.
I used that “technique” on you without any implication that you had committed a wrongdoing. What you are saying to 2ndxmr does seem to have such an implication, so it’s not the same technique.
Does asserting one’s “rightness” always imply that one is asserting the other’s “wrongness”?
I think not.
2ndxmr: ” If you were to say “none of this business about a multi-lifetime being makes any sense to me because in applying Occam’s razor we should only be looking at what possible effects could arise from combinations of macromolecules”, I’d say “fine, let’s figure out some ways to test each premise.” We could have some fun and do some good. It doesn’t matter that we disagree, that happens in science all the time. And if the occassional argument or a fight draws some blood? That’s when you have to apply your Impermanence datum, grin and let it all go.”
Then stop attacking and start discussing the subject without any attention on the participants. That is the scientific approach.
Please take another look at Discussions and what needs to be avoided.
.
Vin, Marildi,
Can you please comment on my last two comments on Vin’s cycle with Geir? Thanks!
You’ll have to repeat them as I don’t remember.
Marildi,
Can a misunderstood word show up on the meter as a withhold? This was the question asked from you. Thanks.
I did answer but this thread is long and spread all over the place so you must have missed it. This was my reply:
Marianne, a meter read only shows there is charge on something. It is up to the auditor to determine what the charge is on, based on the tech to do so.
Sure, just as soon as you can tell me where the science is in a summation like “Hubbard simply exploited the old superstitions by giving them a pseudo-scientific garb for the modern audience”. That’s simply an opinion and an attempt to minimize the subject you are claiming to discuss. If you want to present a strong argument, present some evidence. If you just want to vent then open the discussion with that qualifier. I’d have no problem with that. But when you open with an argument about the definition of thetan (Vin:Let’s look at the following definition from Hubbard) and end with a base but baseless remark, you have jumped from presenting a point for discussion to attacking the subject by an ad hominem attack on the founder. I don’t know how you figure that qualifies as a good basis for discussion, but it is a good way to get a sharp comeback pointing out the outpoint.
You want a scientific discussion? Sure, bring it to the table but please leave your emotion based conclusions out of it.
There is nothing scientific about attacking. I have presented the following several time on this blog for a scientific discussion. Have a go at it without digressing into the criticism of participants.
Scientology Axiom # 1
.
.
2ndxmr: ” I’m up for it. Are you? Here’s to a future of high-toned fights, bloody noses and grins. Cheers.”
Yes. I have responded to all your points. Now, are you really up for it?
Do you plan to continue attacking? Or, are you ready to settle down to a discussion?
.
Yes! That was entirely too easy. Humorous that the two most energetic promoters of Scientology on this blog audit the least, ridicule, and condescend with the best. “When in doubt about Scientology, simply find out what is wrong with your reasoning.” I rest my case.
You’re going to rest your case on an Ad Hom argument? Come on, Chris, why not just admit you had an MU? It’s happened to all of us.
Chris: “Humorous that the two most energetic promoters of Scientology on this blog audit the least, ridicule, and condescend with the best.”
Wow, Mr. Pot. That’s a pretty incisive argument that the Mr. Kettle is black…. Ridicule, condescension, generality, questionable data… In some tamer circles a bystander might call out “Yellow card!!”, “Yellow card!!!”.
Thicker skins and leveler heads, however, would simply suggest you restudy the definitions of ad hominem and ad argumentum. Perhaps quickly… before some knuckle-dragging Elronner jumps all over your sorryassed sententiousness.
Seriously, when a bad argument gets shredded one might be better off saying nothing and looking stupid than spouting an ad hom that confirms it.
Chris, you have now joined the ranks of Alanzo and Vinaire in the eyes of the pious. Ha, ha!
That is the price of looking sometimes! 🙂
.
Thank you Vinaire for noticing! haha.
Well, I wasn’t trying to start or join a club. But I do bow to my betters: 2nd transformer for his expertise in “sententiousness;” Marildi for her expertise using “fallacious logic;” and Valkov for his expertise on the stoner drugs that inspired Lewis Carroll!
You have overlooked honorable mention of Vinaire for the superiority of his “Pious Humility”.
I should have said for his “Columbo-like Pious Humility”.
LOL – Colombo-like!
@2ndX — hehe Questionable data? Yes, this is why I quoted Hubbard verbatim so that the resulting bruhaha could be focused on his words rather than mine. I missed on that one, didn’t I?!
In light of your quotation of Hubbard’s “OT Maxim” and your opinion that creating universes is child’s play for a thetan, would you say that the current universe was created by one or more than one thetan?
@ Chris: “…would you say that the current universe was created by one or more than one thetan?”
What I’ve said on more than one occassion was that I could see a mechanism whereby a universe could be created by as little as a single thetan. It might be easier to set up the standing wave pattern if there were two, but I think a single one could do it.
What is basis of the concept of thetan?
.
@Vin
That’s a good question. I’ll answer that from my own perspective for now.
The concept of the non-corporeal starting point is pretty prevasive. Just about all cultures have some storyline that seeks to create an explanation of origin. Now, with a bit of modern physics to help with the timeline, we can track this universe back nearly 15 billion years. There has been speculation that the universe has been cycling (bang, expand, collapse, bang, …over and over)but let’s consider the prior state. For the purpose of a pure starting point there really should be nothing. A total zero. Now that fits the definition of Static:
STATIC, 1. a static is something without mass, without wavelength, without time,
and actually without position. That’s a static and that is the definition of zero.
(5410CM06)
at least once the “nothing” has become a “something.”(a static is something without…).
It may take another discussion to consider ways the original zero went from “nothing” to “something”, but that wasn’t the basis of your question. In considering the thetan we can consider that the static was already at the “something” stage since Hubbard defined the thetan as:
“the awareness of awareness unit which has all potentialities but no mass, no wave-length and no location. (HCOB 3 Jul 59)”
and
“a static that can consider, and can produce space and energy and objects . (PXL, p . 121 )”
So the thetan can be a zero or a static, but it is a static at the “something” stage.
There might also be another thing to consider re the question “what is the basis of the concept of a thetan.” The other thing to consider is that there was a tremendous amount of history already recorded re the spiritual aspect of man when Hubbard started down this path. That history includes records of paranormal activity and various attempts at harnessing that ability. It would be reasonable to conclude that any scientific mind interested in the exploration of this area would try and take the idea back to the starting point, the zero. From that point only one assumption has to be made to reach the definition of thetan: the “nothing” has to become “something” and at that point the something becomes thetan # 1.
2ndxmr, is STATIC beyond consideration. If not then it cannot be a zero.
Please comment.
.
hehe and the snake’s tail grows as fast as he eats it… hahaha. We have a hell of a time with this “static-zero-beyond-consideration-thingy,” don’t we?. None of these are beyond consideration since we just wrote them down. hehe (The glee of my insanity overtakes me, pardon me while I belch. – Where is Katageek when we need a good dose of craziness? Well, never mind, Slack is helping out in his absence and I am in his camp). I am pretty sure that we can count on NOTHING IS UNMANIFESTED and the corollary that EVERYTHING IS MANIFESTED — if that!
I wrote those words in bold letters so that anyone reading will know they are true. (You can’t write in bold unless its true, you know?)
Do you think that 2ndxmr can survive it, or he’ll go crazy too?
I cannot bet on Marildi, she’ll try to wiggle her way out somehow.
.
Well, it is a little bit like pulling the band-aid off a scab. Best to do it quickly so the tearing doesn’t hurt so much! These are the anchor-points; the frames-of-reference; the things to be let go of; the garage to be cleaned. hahaha, I am still feeling a little bit crazy. Your duplication of my original post helped me tune in better though.
This is helping me see that the point of view is not so important as the ability to change one’s point of view at will. Any point of view, any consideration seems to have the same mechanic as any other. The content is unimportant. But fixing one’s attention; investing a lot of focus on making one point of view hold still; seeking permanence seems to provide the oak which snaps in the wind.
Everyone wants to feel safe and secure. To close one’s eyes in their own bed and feel that the space will remain unchanged; still be there when they wake. Human existence can be difficult and fixating on making it hold still all the time seems to provide stress. Letting go of various solidity such as “expectations” is good practice and relieves this stress.
Wow, Vinaire, I’ve lost track of the number of comments you’ve now made about “the person”. Possibly as many as you’ve made criticizing people for doing that – even when they were only commenting on your statements.
Marildi, you are trying to make me wrong aren’t you? I was just joking about 2ndxmr. It was not an effort to target a participant of discussion to distract from a discussion. Tell me what is really your beef here. Please be honest with yourself.
Sent from my iPhone
How about this comment, Vin:
“I cannot bet on Marildi, she’ll try to wiggle her way out somehow”
That was just the one in a series of about a dozen, about me alone. You seem to be using two different filters. One for the comments you make about other people. And one for yourself.
I have said this before, and I still see this: Vinaire is the person with the highest concentration of self-righteousness and arrogance I have had posting on my blog.
@G. Yes, maybe but not the most illogical and I don’t think the most vindictive either. Superiority complex? Yes, but not worse than 2ndxmer. Obstinate and pigheaded? Yes, but not worse than Marildi. Ridiculing? Not really, not like me, Valkov and KG.
He has another side — one that patient, kind and burgeoning with original think. You’ve seen this side of him in person as well as on his blog. Analytical and organized. Being ridiculed seems to set him off and harden his shell, but it softens just as easily.
I know what you are talking about, how he can earn some of this criticism; however, I have been blogging with him on his and my blog for quite a while now and this negative side that you notice is fairly absent in those other venues and he really listens and considers and changes when the environment is slightly less wild than we let it get here. I am as guilty as any for letting my comments get too personal. I can do better. (For a while, until I rollercoaster because of Alanzo suppressing me again!@#$%)
I am glad you recognize what I mean. I hope he does as well so that he can correct this side. Because I do believe this side really hurts the positive sides of his products.
Chris, what you call pigheaded, some have described as persistent.
“…if the individual is not deviating very markedly on his course toward his goal even
when confronted by heavy environmental factors which seek to move him in other directions,
neither is he reacting heavily to his engrams, in proportion to the severe reactions he might
manifest were he less persistent. An individual may be known by his persistence…” (SOS)
It’s sort of the opposite of Q&A. Maybe I should give you some of my pigheadedness so you don’t so easily blow a discussion, eh?
What is that percentage? 🙂
.
*\o/* Appreciate you saying that Isene, thanks.
This will cease now, OK!
Now let’s get on with some meaty discussions.
.
Well, then I am in violation of the discussion policy, ain’t I!
The solution would be to point out a violation as soon as it occurs. This will gradually bring down the number of violations. I think it is already happening. This is a good thing.
.
Vin: “Do you think that 2ndxmr can survive it, or he’ll go crazy too?
I cannot bet on Marildi, she’ll try to wiggle her way out somehow.”
Whereabouts on your wonderful code of discussion does that fit in, Mr. Double Face?
Easy now, we should all maybe just take a break and breath?
Take a deep breath yourself and look over your own comments there, fella.
Thank you. I shall cease and desist.
Sent from my iPad
Thanks, Vin. May we all work towards better discussions. Cheers!
2ndxmr, let’s look at the quote that you provided.
“a static that can consider, and can produce space and energy and objects . (PXL, p . 121 )”
This tells me that Static is being looked upon as “cause” of consideration and MEST. This means that STATIC is not beyond consideration because a statement is being made about it.
That means, STATIC is not zero for Hubbard. It violates the neti-neti test.
.
2ndxmr: That’s pretty much what I see too.
Also, the persistent and widespread sense of being aware of being aware, persisting even in dreams, in NDEs and in altered states of consciousness.
And finally, the observation that a dead body is characterized by the absence of an animating -influence. It’s GONE, brother, GONE. And no amount of scientific or medical intervention brings it back once its gone. It’s “passed away!”
@Maria,
Yes, all the points you mentioned are other aspects of what would cause man to assume there was a non-corporeal part to the whole person. There is one more thing and that is past life recalls. There is way to much anecdotal data to ignore it totally. I would expect more than a few claims have been tracked down by researchers over time. The consequence of this data would be to cause researchers to consider mechanisms whereby the beingness could progress through time. To me, the simplest model of explanation of this is the concept of the thetan.
2ndxmr, past life recall simply tells me that a certain mental pattern of experience has existed before. It does not tell me that the soul or person has existed before.
.
Vin: ” past life recall simply tells me that a certain mental pattern of experience has existed before. It does not tell me that the soul or person has existed before.”
What you propose is a mental pattern of energy that hangs in space at the body death of one individual and somehow finds its way into the body of another individual.Why wouldn’t that pattern just find its way into the persons typically around the recently-deceased? Why would it WAIT for an new body? How does a simple energy pattern begin to get selective?
On the other hand, consider the concept of the thetan which can postulate and decide and select which body it will enter.
Which concept is simpler?
In my opinion a soul disintegrates into smaller pieces just like body does. Neither identity of body or soul remains. A new body is newly constructed from smaller pieces of matter. Similarly soul is constructed from smaller pieces of programming patterns.
The programming patterns have to be compatible with the pieces of body they attach themselves to. This seems more consistent to me.
Sent from my iPhone
All I can say is that your opinion does not match my experience with others, nor my own recalls, of which I have verified one.
Vin: “a static that can consider, and can produce space and energy and objects . (PXL, p . 121 )”
This tells me that Static is being looked upon as “cause” of consideration and MEST. This means that STATIC is not beyond consideration because a statement is being made about it.
That means, STATIC is not zero for Hubbard. It violates the neti-neti test.”
That reference was for the definition of thetan, which, as I said before, comes at the point when the static has become a “something” i.e., after it has awakened from “nothing”.
Awakening from “nothing” makes no implication that it does not fit the definition of zero:
the proper and correct definition of zero would be: “something which had no
mass, which had no wave-length, which had no location in space, which had no
position or relationship in time. Something without mass, meaning or mobility.
(Dn 55! p. 28)
There is no reason why an “awake” zero cannot consider as that does nothing to change dimension. So the “static” can remain a static after it awakens. It can stay a zero until it decides not to. It passes the neti-neti test.
Perhaps same as the basis for the concept of atman.
Buddha considers atman to be impermanent, and I see it that way too.
Do you see a thetan to be impermanent?
.
Yes, in a certain way I do. But I have no idea if we think of it in the same or similar ways. it is as Buddha said, nothing that exists in the universe is permanent. The $64 question is, does the basis, the “ground”, of a “thetan” exist in the universe? The Tibetan Buddhists believe that when a person dies , one of the stages that occurs is what they call the “Ground Luminosity”.. As this emerges, just about everything that was the person is absorbed into it. This is one opportunity to go free. Subsequently is another stage in which the Karmic bundle related to the person who died is reformed and eventually might be reborn. This seems to be if the person has not gone free in the meantime. Either way it appears there is a kernel of consciousness which exists past the death of any particular body.
I see “permanence” as a relative term. Certainly some things last much longer than others.
What is the Ground Luminosity? It sounds a bit like Native State, which could be termed the “ground” of all existence, that Light out of which all existence arises. It is called by some as equivalent to the Buddha Nature.
My reference for some of this is a book titled “The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying” by Sogyal Rinpoche.
It is a pretty meaty book but pretty clearly and vividly written. It describes one of the Tibetan traditions and teaching methods, which is direct person to person transmission of knowledge.
Valkov, please see my response to 2ndxmr here:
https://isene.me/2012/12/30/happy-new-year/#comment-27183
Also, please see my response to Marildi… #comment-27184.
.
I don’t promote scientology, but I do enjoy pointing out the misapprehensions of it on the part of others. Makes me feel smart. If you’re going to dislike something or criticize something, at least understand what it is you are criticizing. Otherwise you are guilty of straw man. Scientology should be criticized justly on it’s own merits or demerits, not because of personal misapprehension of some part of it.
Nyah nyah.
Valkov, In my opinion, Chris understands very well what he is criticizing.
.
@ Valkov, Between unity and individuality, Hubbard votes for both and for neither. If you understand this, please tell me how you see it.
Chris, I will simply refer you to the 4 categories of logic as understood in Buddhism:
1. Is
2. Is not.
3. Both is and is not.
4. Neither is nor is not.
This discussion has occurred several times on this blog over the past couple of years on several extensive threads.
Sounds like you need to Cram on those, or maybe do a complete retread.
I am too lazy to dredge and search this blog myself to find them. I don’t even really know how to find them all, or I would do a “Collected posts of Valkovuddin” myself.
“Although innumerable beings have been
led to Nirvana, no being has been led to Nirvana.”
—Diamond Sutra
Really?
So give us a legitimate criticism of Scientology, from your superior understanding, Valkov.
Let’s see just one.
Alanzo
Raises hand!! Me! Pick me! I can do this! Which definition of legitimate do you want me to use? Come on Alanzo! Pick me! Its not fair — you always pick Valkov!!!
le·git·i·mate (l-jt-mt) adj.
1. Being in compliance with the law; lawful: a legitimate business.
2. Being in accordance with established or accepted patterns and standards: legitimate advertising practices.
3. Based on logical reasoning; reasonable: a legitimate solution to the problem.
4. Authentic; genuine: a legitimate complaint.
5. Born of legally married parents: legitimate issue.
6. Of, relating to, or ruling by hereditary right: a legitimate monarch.
7. Of or relating to drama of high professional quality that excludes burlesque, vaudeville, and some forms of musical comedy: the legitimate theater.
No.
You’re too smart, Maria. And you criticize Scientology all the time. You even might be bordering on being considered to be in ranks with me, Vinny, and Chris soon.
No, I want Valkov and Marildi to answer this one. They seem completely unable to criticize Scientology and L Ron Hubbard, so I have this as a challenge for them.
I’ll give you another challenge assignment later.
Alanzo
Why should I take the bait of an Ad Hom argument about LRH? Really, Alanzo, you should work on those Logical Fallacies. 😉
Marildi –
My challenge stems from this statement by Valkov, not from an ad hom argument on LRH.
I’ve never once seen you able to criticize Scientology. Yet you seem too smart for that. So build up some of your credibility with all of us here and let’s see a valid criticism of Scientology, as Valkov describes above.
Alanzo
And as Marildi says, “For the record,” nyah-nyah is an Anasazi farewell which loosely translated means, “the divinity in me, acknowledges the divinity in you.“
nyah-nyah 😀
Al, you guys have to get rid of your fixed ideas about proponents of Scn – and about me. Here’s part of a criticism I made just the other day:
“It seems to me that LRH made a big mistake on the point of no ‘verbal tech’ (unless his intention was actually misinterpreted). I’ve observed that so much can be gained from sharing experiences and ideas about the written and recorded materials”.
http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2012/12/31/thanks-for-participating/
Okay. Have it your way! I’m not happy about this but I will try to exercise some patience awaiting my challenge question. LOL!
Marildi wrote – on Marty’s blog no less! –
That is quite a step for you, Marildi. And I’ll bet the parenthetical weaseling you did there made you feel like less of a low-toned, out-ethics critic, too!
Can you flat out give a criticism of Scientology tech, and not weasel whatsoever?
Can you say, “You know WHAT! I frikking DISAGREE with ___________ and ________ in Scientology! I have never seen this to be __________________ or ______________!”
Can you do that?
Alanzo
Al, it was just a matter of communicating that I am open to the possibility that I might be missing something. And I was willing for someone to point out what misunderstood or missing data I had, in which case I would have been willing to change my mine.
Let me ask you in return: Have you ever done what I described in the above? Or can you do so now?
Yes. Yes I can.
Unless I’m missing something, it appears that L Ron Hubbard lied about being blinded and crippled in world war 2, and curing himself with Dianetics.
Unless I’m missing something, L Ron Hubbard was an unindicted co-conspirator in the crimes that sent his wife and 10 other people to prison in the late 1970’s.
Now, can you simply express an unqualified disagreement with something, ANYTHING in L Ron Hubbard’s Scientology?
Alanzo
But you haven’t completed the sequence I laid out, which ends where you do change your mind about whatever the criticism was. Give me an example of following the whole sequence.
LOL!
Send me some money first, Al. My educational services are no longer free – at least not to you.
And you want my educational services free?
.
Heh. Have I ever asked for your educational services?
You have asked me questions. 🙂
.
OK Al, here is a legitimate criticism of scientology, from my superior understanding:
It has produced overt products such as yourself.
OOOPs, sorry Maria, I should have told you to set your coffee down…… 🙂
Val –
Do you think that creating me as an overt product was the cause of straight 100% standard Scientology, or was it something from a stupid earth-man did who could not assimilate straight Scientology?
Because if it was a stupid earth-man’s fault then this would not be a criticism of Scientology, and I will have to flunk you on this one.
You have 30 seconds to decide on your answer, and while the wheels are turning in your analytical mind, and the engrams are sparking in your reactive mind, we will play the “Jeopardy” theme song….
Alanzo
Vin,
I commented on the “Post containing nothing.” Please look at it. Then, please, by observation comment on what you get.
I think these two belong to ESMB.
.
hehe I never go there!
Oh I am not so sure he has an MU. More like the variety of definitions on this subject are not consistent — these are all from the tech dictionary with the exception of the last two definitions. I solved the problem when I was in Scientology by determining that I had to use the definition of the time period I was studying, if one was available at all. Now I just ignore them (unless I am discussing on this blog or other Scn blogs) and decide what makes sense and works well for me.
DEFINITIONS:
INDIVIDUAL, 1. an individual is a collection of “memories” going back to his first appearance on earth. In other words, he is the composite of all his facsimiles plus his impulse to be. Individuality depends upon facsimiles. (HFP, p. 111) 2 . somebody who is operating in coordination with himself twenty-four hours a day. That’s an individual. An organism which is unhappy, aberrated, is an organism which is working at cross purposes with itself twenty-four hours a day. (5110CMllB) 3 . when we say the individual we are talking about something as precise as an apple. We are not talking about a collection of behavior patterns which we all learned about in the study of rats. We are talking about something that is finite. We are talking about somebody. The somethingness that you are and the capabilities you can be and this is what we are talking about. We are not talking about the color of your hair or the length of your feet. We are talking
about you. (Abil Mi 5)
INDIVIDUATION, a separation from knowingness. (5203CMlOB)
KNOWINGNESS, 1. being certainness. (PAB 1) 2 . a capability for truth; it is not data. (PDC 47) 3 . knowingness would be self-determined knowledge.(5405C20)
THETAN, 1. the living unit we call, in Scn, a thetan, that being taken from the Greek letter theta, the mathematic symbol used in Scn to indicate the source of life and life itself. (Abil Ma 1) 2 . the awareness of awareness unit which has all potentialities but no mass, no wave-length and no location. (HCOB 3 Jul 59) 3 . the being who is the individual and who handles and lives in the body. (HCOB 23 Apr 69) 4 . (spirit) is described in Scn as having no mass, no wave-length, no energy and no time or location in space except by consideration or postulate. The spirit is not a thing. It is the creator of things. (FOT, p. 55) 5 . the personality and beingness which actually is the individual and is aware of being aware and is ordinarily and normally the “person” and who the individual thinks he is. The thetan is immortal and is possessed of capabilities well in excess of those hitherto predicted for man. (Scn 8-8008, p. 9) 6 . the name given to the life source. It is the individual, the being, the personality, the knowingness of the human being. (Scn 8-80, p. 46) 7 . energyspace production unit. (COHA, p. 247) 8 . in the final analysis what is this thing called thetan? It is simply you before you mocked yourself up and that is the handiest definition I know of. (5608C——) 9 . the person himself—not his body or his name, the physical universe, his mind, or anything else; that which is aware of being aware; the identity which is the individual. The thetan is most familiar to one and all as you. (Aud 25 UK) 1 0 . a static that can consider, and can produce space and energy and objects . (PXL, p . 121 )
STATIC, 1. a static is something without mass, without wavelength, without time, and actually without position. That’s a static and that is the definition of zero. (5410CM06) 2 . a static by definition, is something that is in a complete equilibrium. It isn’t moving and that’s why we’ve used the word static. Not in an engineering sense but in its absolute dictionary sense. (5608C–) 3 . an actuality of no mass, no wave-length, no position in space or relation in time, but with the quality of creating or destroying mass or energy, locating itself or creating space, and of re-relating time. (Dn 55!, p. 29) 4 . something which has no motion. The word is from the Latin, sto meaning stand. No part of mest can be static, but theta is static. Theta has no motion. Even when the mest it controls is moving in space and time, theta is not moving, since theta is not in space or time. (Abil 114A) 5 . has no motion, it has no width, length, breadth, depth; it is not held in suspension by an equilibrium of forces; it does not have mass; it does not contain wave-lengths; it has no situation in time or space. (Scn 8-8008, p. 13) 6 . the simplest thing there is is a static, but a static is not nothingness. These are not synonyms. We speak of it carelessly as a nothingness. That’s because we say nothingness in relationship to the space and objects of the material universe. Life has a quality. It has an ability. When we say nothingness we simply mean it has no quantity. There is no quantitative factor. (5411CM05) 7 . a static, in physics, is called something which is “an
equilibrium of forces.” (Dn 55! p. 27)
*******************************
L. Ron Hubbard wrote:
Universe O/W is based upon the observable fact that a thetan is trapped in a thetan, a mind, a body and the physical universe. If he weren’t, he or she wouldn’t be sitting in a chair. Thus we process the extremely obvious, scouting out with an E-Meter only what obviousness is more troublesome to the pc than the other obviousnesses. Of course it seems strange that a thetan could think of himself being trapped in another thetan but you see this all the time in valences. Ghosts become ghosts by being overwhelmed by thetans they think are ghosts and so on. That a thetan is trapped in a mind and that it is not his own mind that he is trapped in is also obvious. If it were his own mind he would soon as-is it and you see what a hard time he has trying to erase it: that hard time comes about because he is misowning the mind in which he is trapped. And this is true of all traps. A thetan is usually quite sure that there is something wrong with the ownership of his own body and sure enough there is. And of course he’s in the universe without much understanding of it.
[…]
You are probably wondering how we can get away with running “conceive a static”, forbidden in the book The Creation of Human Ability. We can just barely get away with it because of the nature and power of the Comm Process. By damping out excessive individuation the Comm Process increases havingness. A total individual can’t have much of anything—you can’t even have a car really unless you can be, besides self, a “car driver” or a “car passenger”. A totally individuated person cannot be anybody but himself, cares for nobody but himself and can share in no activity of any other person. Hence as we flatten out this obsessive individuation we gain in the pc usually enough havingness to run a massless identity such as a thetan.
Hubbard, L. R. (1959, 5 October). Universe Processes. Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology (1991 ed., Vol. V. pp. 223-225). Los Angeles: Bridge Publications, Inc.
**************************************
By Collective Identity is meant an identity as a plural or generality; e.g. “I’m the army” or “I’m us”. There is no personal identity…
(I am not going to quote the rest of this on this forum as it is from the NOTs materials, but look for it on this forum and you can read about “we are all one” and other references on individuation.)
http://ocmb.xenu.net/ocmb/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=32754&start=30
**************************************
Thanks Maria, great post and link!
Let’s look at the following definition from Hubbard:
THETAN: 3 . the being who is the individual and who handles and lives in the body. (HCOB 23 Apr 69)
Is there such a thing, or this is simply a consideration of Hubbard? What is the evidence?
What I see is an organization of macromolecules, which I assume, have the capability of computing at the molecular level through the massive electronic field in those co-valent bonds.
The physical part of macromolecules develops into various organs, which then organize into a body. Similarly, the computing capability part of the macromolecules develops into the purpose of those organs, when then organize into a soul.
So, there is body and there is soul. These are marvelous organizations. Soul and body are intimately integrated with each other.
To say there is a being that can live independent of the body is an extension of the old superstition that gave us the ideas of the soul going to heaven or hell, places which exist independent of this earth elsewhere in the universe.
Hubbard simply exploited the old superstitions by giving them a pseudo-scientific garb for the modern audience.
.
Excellent comment for stirring up extreme dissonance!
Perhaps it is always the three jewels in a new dress?
The Three Jewels
སངས་རྒྱས་ཆོས་དང་ཚོགས་ཀྱི་མཆོག་རྣམས་ལ།
Sang-gye cho-dang tsog-kyi cho-nam-la
I take refuge in the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha
諸佛正法眾中尊
བྱང་ཆུབ་བར་དུ་བདག་ནི་སྐྱབས་སུ་མཆི།
Jang-chub bar-du dag-ni kyab-su-chi
Until I attain enlightenment.
直至菩提我歸依
བདག་གིས་སྦྱིན་སོགས་བགྱིས་པའི་བསོད་ནམས་ཀྱིས།
Dag-gi jin-sog gyi-pe so-nam-kyi
By the merit I have accumulated from practising generosity and the other perfections
我以所行施等善
འགྲོ་ལ་ཕན་ཕྱིར་སངས་རྒྱས་འགྲྲུབ་པར་ཤོག །།
Dro-la pan-chir sang-gye drub-par-shog
May I attain enlightenment, for the benefit of all migrators.
為利眾生願成佛
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Jewels
What dissonance does it create for you, Maria? 🙂
Sent from my iPad
Here’s the snap answer:
Ha!
.
Right here, right now I can see proof of why I am unable to assimilate straight Scientology. I am looking right at the “three jewels in a new dress” and I see “four.” Obviously due to O-W’s; mis-U, false data; and O’W’s.
OMG! LOL! 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀
The three jewels are: n the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha!
Vinaire, when you post “what I see blah blah blah….” what in the world do you mean by “I”? What “I”? Who sees? Are YOU “I”? Or do you “have” and “I”? If you are not an “I”, what are you? Or do “you” even exist?
I feel that until you obfuscate these more completely, anything else you post about life is not likely to make any sense to me. Geir has also repeatedly asked you essentially this same question for at least a couple of years now, and you have always evaded answering it.
If that is OK with you, please ignore this post and simply continue to bloviate to your heart’s content.
Wow!! New word!! BLOVIATE. What a fantastic word! Never seen it before — it rolls on the tongue just so! Jeez Louise Valkov how did you come upon that word?!?!!
Maria, a guy named RJ used to use it on Marty’s blog a couple of years ago.
hehe
Valkov, if you stop attacking and stop thinking “I am right and the person I am attacking is wrong” and show a bit of humility and patience then probably we can get down to some good discussion.
Obviously, you haven’t been reading all my comments closely enough. I don’t mind repeating myself. I can post my PHILOSOPHY PROJECT here. But I would suggest that you go to my blog, click on discussion, click on PHILOSOPHY PROJECT, and then read it. It is short. Give some time to understanding what “perception-point” is as opposed to self, identity or viewpoint.
If you are interested in knowledge. and you can set your ego aside for a bit, then you will do the above. You may want to shred the PHILOSOPHY PROJECT to pieces and that would be delightful for me. Because I want attention to be given to the subject and not to the participants.
.
I’ll ask it again – If one thinks or feels he is “right”, does that automatically imply the other is “wrong”?
Perhaps continuing to think in such dichotomous terms is actually a problem? So why create a problem where none actually exists?
You tell me twice in this one post, to “stop” attacking and “stop” thinking about rightness and wrongness etc. So, what’s so “right” about your doing this to me? Further on, you continue to say or imply I am not humble enough, not patient enough, too egotistical and possibly lacking in desire to acquire knowledge.
In fact Al is often just as or more “attacking” as I am, but since he is attacking the same people or viewpoints you enjoy seeing attacked, you vicariously enjoy his posts and laud him, instead of criticizing him for being so “attacking”. Well, what goes around comes around, as we say here in the West.
The answer is: There is definitely an inconsistency because there are no absolute right or wrong. When a person is disagreeing and insisting that he is right then he is definitely implying that the other person is wrong relative to him.
The point is by focusing on the participant you are moving away from the discussion. It is a big distraction. Why do you do that? In my opinion, the only reason that one would focus on the participant is egoism.
Let me know what you are interested in discussing.
.
A couple of other definitions from the abridged Scientology Dictionary:
THETAN
The person himself – not his body or name, the physical universe, his mind, or anything else – that which is aware of being aware; the identity that IS the individual. (From Theta, the Greek symbol for ‘thought’ or perhaps ‘spirit’.)
THETA
Energy peculiar to life or a thetan which acts upon material in the physical universe and animates it, mobilizes it changes it; natural creative energy of a thetan which he has free to direct toward survival goals, especially when it manifests itself as high tone, constructive communications.
AWARENESS OF AWARENESS UNIT
The individual, the personality.
ANALYTICAL MIND
(analyser) This mind consists of visual pictures, either of the past or the physical universe, monitored and presided over by the knowingness of a thetan. The keynote of the analytical mind is awareness; one knows what one is concluding and doing. It combines perceptions of the immediate environment, of the past (via pictures) and estimations of the future into conclusions which are based upon the realities of situations.
ANATEN
An abbreviation of “analytical attenuation” meaning a diminution or weakening of the analytical awareness of an individual for a brief or extensive period of time. If sufficiently great, it can result in unconsciousness. (It stems from the restimulation of an engram which contains pain and unconsciousness.)
BEINGNESS
The assumption or choosing of a category of identity. Beingness is assumed by oneself or given to oneself, or is attained. Examples of beingness would be one’s own name, one’s profession, one’s physical characteristics, one’s role in a game – each and all of these things could be called one’s beingness. TO GRANT BEINGNESS means to grant life to something: to permit or allow other people to have beingness.
GENETIC ENTITY
A composite of all the cellular experience recorded along the genetic line of the organism to the present body. It has the manifestation of a single identity. It is not the theta being or “I”.
“REACTIVE MIND: That portion of a person’s mind which works on a stimulus-response basis (given a certain stimulus, it gives a certain response) which is not under his volitional control and which exerts force and the power of command over his awareness, purposes, thoughts, body and actions. It consists of GPMs, Engrams, Secondaries and Locks.” Scientology Abridged Dictionary
Awesome research and resulting post as usual Maria. Thank you.
Between unity and individuality,I don’t understand Hubbard jumping back and forth between and all around these very different concepts — roller-coasting if you will. I would ask your own take on this but already know your opinion from your voluminous writing. 🙂
Aaaw!! And I had so much to say about all this!!! Wait! I guess I did already say it.
But really — really really this time — what I find really interesting about all of this is that I find myself shifting like mad on all these different concepts, with or without reference to any concepts presented in Scientology. i.e. looking from different “angles” and contexts gives me different answers. I am currently looking at the pads on the bottom of the elephant’s feet where they apparently touch the ground.
So true! I also shift points of view rapidly when working on these ideas. I don’t know if this is because I am psychotic or OT!
But seriously, I sometimes read LRH’s take on something and am just OMG! Brilliant! . . . then I’m continuing on and see the contrary statement and go, WTF?! As a Scientologist, I was not allowed t go “WTF” unless I was just thirsty for a good spanking. Being out here amongst the WOGS I have had quite a better time of it although occassionally such as today, here, on this thread, I have been put in my place very effectively!
Witness:
Me too!
Chris, don’t you mean LRH jumping between “individuation” and “individuality”? Or do you mean between “unity” and “individuality”?
The debate between “we are all one” and “we are each an individual” is a red herring, a moot point, if you accept the definition of Static as given by LRH. The reason is, “Static” is defined as unquantifiable. Therefore one cannot say that there is “one” or there are “many”. Those are “quantities”, therefore do not apply.
I understand “oneness” as referring to integrity, an unbroken state. That is the experience of “oneness”, right there. It is the experience of “wholeness”, of being whole and unbroken, as perhaps at the beginning of track or before, as one then comprises all 8 (or more) Dynamics.
As one falls away from this state, one might “individuate”, which means one falls away from being cause on all Dynamics and shrinks to being fewer and fewer Dynamics, eventually possibly getting down to considering he is just a 1st Dynamic which is pretty untenable for survival, because he is putting all other Dynamics in opposition to himself. By this time he is dying quite frequently!
According to LRH it is possible to sink even further down, with the Dynamics inverting through possibly endless iterations. There you get stuff like a person delusionally believing he is God and soon.
LRH actually does a good job describing this in some clear detail in some lectures of his, which if you listened to without prejudice and a little bit of interest, would save lots of time and bandwidth, allowing this blog to make some progress instead of having the same discussions over and over again for 2 or 3 years.
Should read “believing he is God and so on.”, not “God and soon.”
Here is my critiques of STATIC:
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.
We have the following from the Vedas
The Creation Hymn of Rig Veda
This makes the background to be beyond what we can ever consider. The starting point is not individuality as implied in Scientology Axiom #1.
.
Vin: “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.”
These statements are inconsistent with the Hymn of Rig Veda “…The gods came afterwards, with the creation of this universe.”
The concept of creation in the Hymn is very similar to the concept I have from Scientology and what I wrote about in answer to your question on “the basis of concept of a thetan”. The opening of the Hymn:
“There was neither non-existence nor existence then.
There was neither the realm of space nor the sky which is beyond.
What stirred?”
is essentially defining the zero condition from “nothing” up to the point it became “something”.
“…is essentially defining the zero condition from “nothing” up to the point it became “something”.
Becoming “something” would seem to be consistent with the assuming of a viewpoint, the first action of “beingness”, as in the Factors. Would you agree?
LRH also stated that the thetan is “in a little bit of mass”. That was in the Scientology Picture Book but I think it’s from a lecture originally.
@Marildi
Yes, it (becoming a “something”) would be consistent with assuming a viewpoint but there may have been an even earlier step: the “waking up”. That process calls for the ultimate in speculation, at this time. In Vin’s reference, The Creation Hymn of Rig Veda, the waking up point is described as desire:
“Desire came upon that One in the beginning,
that was the first seed of mind.”
That could be although I would have put “desire” out there with “creation of a viewpoint.”
From a physics viewpoint I would try and conceive some means that an instability could emerge in the nothingness. That instability, the first wrinkle, the first emotion, like the cry of a new born child starting the awakening process. Like waking in a dark, silent room and for a moment not remembering where you are, or, occassionally, who you are. That phenomena may be some sort of echo of the original wakening. Even thetan #1 may not be aware of what that was, exactly, so that may be the ultimate speculation.
The Creation quote: “Desire came upon that One in the beginning,
that was the first seed of mind.”
You said you would have put “desire” out there with “creation of a viewpoint.” Just to brainstorm it with you, how about another possibility, that the “decision” to be aligns with “desire”. I can think of it that way too – and the “desire” to be creating an instability. And then comes the action of assuming a viewpoint.
I think the desire to be would be post awakening. From a physics point of view I can imagine a tension occurring similar to getting a crick in your neck or the shrinkage of plastic wrap that is stretched over a bowl.
This would be easier to consider if space were already involved, but the same process of tension can be reduced in size and reduced and reduced towards infinitly small, towards zero.
Mathematically speaking it may be demonstable that the limit of tension as space goes to zero is a non-zero value.
That would mean that tension could exist at the zero point and the release of that tension would be the first wrinkle. (That’s my own tautology and it is open for attack by all my friends here. 🙂 )
However, (to continue the tautology) the first wrinkle could have started awareness of tension. The awareness unit could have made a copy of that tension to re-experience it. From that the awareness unit could have stretched the tension to begin to try and understand it. All is speculation taken from the perspective of an echo of our own awakenings.
Whoa, now we need the physicists here to speak up. Chris? Vinaire? Geir? And whoever? (You know who you are.)
I’ll just say this: per my understanding, every theory has to start with one or more assumptions – or it wouldn’t take us anywhere out of the box. So I don;t think you can be accused of a tautology. Someone can orrect me on that if I’m wrong.
PHILOSOPHY PROJECT
SCOPE:
To investigate the interface between physics and metaphysics
.
REFERENCES:
The Creation Hymn of Rig Veda
Neti neti
.
OBSERVATIONS:
[OK, I am using Buddha’s principle of seeing things as they are. I am defining the scope of Physics and Metaphysics at the outset. I see Metaphysics much broader in scope and Physics to be part of that scope. Physics deals with manifestations. Metaphysics must deal with perception because there is nothing else there. I have been reading Aristotle. Metaphysics did not start out as the subject of perception, but it should have. That would have greatly simplified the subject of philosophy.]
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.
.
[I am posting this again with one less link to escape the moderation queue]
PHILOSOPHY PROJECT
SCOPE:
To investigate the interface between physics and metaphysics
.
REFERENCES:
The Creation Hymn of Rig Veda
.
OBSERVATIONS:
[OK, I am using Buddha’s principle of seeing things as they are. I am defining the scope of Physics and Metaphysics at the outset. I see Metaphysics much broader in scope and Physics to be part of that scope. Physics deals with manifestations. Metaphysics must deal with perception because there is nothing else there. I have been reading Aristotle. Metaphysics did not start out as the subject of perception, but it should have. That would have greatly simplified the subject of philosophy.]
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.
.
But LRH Static is not beyond consideration as I pointed out with LRH quote that you provided.
.
Vin, I don’t see what you are talking about. The Rg Veda talks about “the One”. How is that any different than talking about a “Life Static”? The Veda even talks about the One having or developing a “desire”. That more than “implies” an individuality of some kind.
I really don’t see much difference, and certainly no critical difference.
Valkov, please see the recent discussion on this subject with 2ndxmr.
.
.
2ndxmr
I am not copying it here. What you are writing about in your comment of 2013-01-06 at 7:39 seems to be very close to the truth of how it started. Why are you just ‘speculating’ about it? Put your attention on it and ask the question: How did it start? What’s the root of it? Keep the question there. No thinking. Just keep the question there.
Maria and Chris, you’ve both posted LRH quotes and indicated there was a contradiction in them. Valkov and I thought we got what you, Chris, were implying was contradictory and we responded with why we thought it wasn’t. If you still think it is contradictory you need to explain why – otherwise, how are we going to discuss and resolve it?
Maria, the same for the quotes you posted – I see no contradiction in them either. Please complete the cycle on this.
I actually said: More like the variety of definitions on this subject are not consistent…
INDIVIDUAL, 1. an individual is a collection of “memories” going back to his first appearance on earth. In other words, he is the composite of all his facsimiles plus his impulse to be. Individuality depends upon facsimiles. (HFP, p. 111)
versus:
THETAN 9 . the person himself—not his body or his name, the physical universe, his mind, or anything else; that which is aware of being aware; the identity which is the individual. The thetan is most familiar to one and all as you. (Aud 25 UK)
My comment:
The one defines an individual as a composite of his facsimiles (mind) and the other says the identity which is the individual .(but NOT his mind). This is definitely inconsistent.
I prefer the definition “awareness of awareness unit” to serve as the definition for individual. I am definitely aware of being aware! But when I sleep I seem not to be aware of being aware most of the time I sleep. So what happened to me? Am I just not? Is it simply that nothing registers on the body time-space continuum? Yet when I do yoga nidra, I find that I can extend that state (awareness as found in states of sleep) as the body ceases to produce large motor activity and ceases to respond to external or even internal influence.
I’m an explorer you know. That’s what I do. I don’t really care if something is consistent or not, for most of the inconsistencies I discover seem to result from shifting context. Like I told Chris, lately I am examining the pads of the elephants feet where they touch the ground. I am examining from beneath the pads where the two forms (ground and pads of feet) meet and resist one another. its an odd place to look from but fascinating.
Maria, did you ever play the Elephant Game? It’s kind of a group process some scientologists played here in the 1970s. I’ll try to recall the patter and maybe I’ll post it here.
No I never did — I hope you can remember it!
Maria, here is the general patter and pattern for the Elephant Game:
This is a group process that can be done with kids and adults.
It is a great tension releaser.
Each person is sitting in a chair, or possibly standing up. Sitting is better because it is mostly done
with eyes closed and feet need to be on the floor.(You’ll see why)
Remember to acknowledge the performance of the commands.
The auditor (or facilitator, if you prefer) gives the commands as follows:
1. Close your eyes
2. Imagine a peaceful village of straw huts, with villagers walking around or sitting, children playing etc
(Embellish the scene as seems fitting, to get everyone involved.)
3. OK, got it?
4. Now faintly in the distance, imagine footsteps. Use your feet to slowly and create these. (Have the
group lift and set down their feet gently, alternating their feet as though they were walking.)
5. Gradually have them increase the force (loudness) of the footfalls as they come closer to the village.
6. Imagine the people in the village stop what they are doing to listen to the footsteps.
7. Make the footsteps come louder and faster now by stamping your feet more quickly on the floor.
8. Now stamp faster and faster.
9. Now realize this is a herd of Elephants and they are stampeding towards your village!
10. The Elephants break into the clearing and stampede into the village, flattening huts and anything in
their way!
11. The villagers throw their arms up into the air and shreik run around like crazy to avoid being
trampled by the Elephants!
KEY:
Encourage all participants to continue stamping their feet as the Elephants trample the village, at the
same time as they throw their arms up in the air and shriek at the top of their lungs as they mockup the
villagers running around in fear of the elephants. The people in the group need to experience being both
the stampeding elephants and the terrified villagers.
End off with the elephant steps now slowing down, quieting, and fading away as the elephants leave the village. The village becomes quiet and peaceful again.
That’s the Elephant Game. Anyone with some experience of group processing should be able to run this productively.
It is a great tension releaser.
Each person is sitting in a chair, or possibly standing up. Sitting is better because it is mostly done
with eyes closed and feet need to be on the floor.(You’ll see why)
Remember to acknowledge the performance of the commands.
The auditor (or facilitator, if you prefer) gives the commands as follows:
1. Close your eyes
2. Imagine a peaceful village of straw huts, with villagers walking around or sitting, children playing etc
(Embellish the scene as seems fitting, to get everyone involved.)
3. OK, got it?
4. Now faintly in the distance, imagine footsteps. Use your feet to slowly and create these. (Have the
group lift and set down their feet gently, alternating their feet as though they were walking.)
5. Gradually have them increase the force (loudness) of the footfalls as they come closer to the village.
6. Imagine the people in the village stop what they are doing to listen to the footsteps.
7. Make the footsteps come louder and faster now by stamping your feet more quickly on the floor.
8. Now stamp faster and faster.
9. Now realize this is a herd of Elephants and they are stampeding towards your village!
10. The Elephants break into the clearing and stampede into the village, flattening huts and anything in
their way!
11. The villagers throw their arms up into the air and shreik run around like crazy to avoid being
trampled by the Elephants!
KEY:
Encourage all participants to continue stamping their feet as the Elephants trample the village, at the
same time as they throw their arms up in the air and shriek at the top of their lungs as they mockup the
villagers running around in fear of the elephants. The people in the group need to experience being both
the stampeding elephants and the terrified villagers.
End off with the elephant steps now slowing down, quieting, and fading away, as the village becomes quiet
and peaceful again.
That’s the Elephant Game.
For some reason the whole thing got double posted!
OMG! That’s a scream! That would be so much fun to do!
Yep! It’s best when it climaxes with prolonged shrill shrieking and screaming from everyone, accompanied by the rapid and loud stamping of elephant feet!
And don’t forget the arms and hands thrown and held up in the air as the villagers run around shrieking.
It is a gas!
Maria, and any others interested, I believe the Elephant Game was played, and ought to be played, with eyes open, not eyes closed.
“The one defines an individual as a composite of his facsimiles (mind) and the other says the identity which is the individual (but NOT his mind). This is definitely inconsistent”.
Maria, I see it as simply a matter of choosing the definition appropriate to the context and I think you indicated in a previous comment that this is something you yourself do. It’s something everyone should be doing as it is part of study tech.
The (apparent) inconsistency you pointed out itself suggests the word “individual” is not used in the same way in those two definitions. And the other definition of thetan as “a static” would be one indication of which definition of “individual” is meant in the definition of thetan you quoted. The way “individual” is used in that definition, I would choose the regular English definition of “a distinct, indivisible entity” as the appropriate one.
Mind you, I definitely agree that it isn’t always an easy job to work out which definition is the appropriate one, and that is one big reason there are so many things misunderstood by so many people, in Scientology and elsewhere. But as for the claim Chris made that there is an inconsistency in the references he quoted, I think it’s a relatively simple one to work out.
No. This is a KEY, CORE concept of Scientology. I chose those two definitions because they are OBVIOUSLY and not APPARENTLY inconsistent. The one says IS NOT his mind. The other says IS his mind. And they are both from the the OFFICIAL dictionary for Scientology terms that I was REQUIRED to purchase and rely on. I was able to post this here because this is a real example from my own studies in a Scientology course room and no one could sort out in the course room or in qual. I went and got the references themselves to try to sort it out and they are simply NOT consistent. There is a key difference between the two statements. They are not just different contexts. They are DIFFERENT definitions for the same terms. I really resented being told I had a misunderstood back then, and I still do, especially when something like this is as obvious as it gets. And it was a piss off being told that it was my job as a student to sort such obvious differences out when I had to BUY the book that contained them and spend hours going over them because “I” had a misunderstood, I did not appreciate being made to buy student review hours either based on the notion that it was my misunderstood.
The first and only time I sort of got an answer for the problem was when I learned that others worked on compilations of these materials. That is the most likely reason for the lack of consistency. It came down to my own decision then and it still does. The problem then is, who wrote what? I suspect this is why there never has been a reissue of the promised new tech dictionary.
Maria, I believe I get where you are coming from with these definitions. Never having been subjected to any other-determined evaluations or pressures, I enjoy reading this dictionary and the various definitions. I understood that the definitions were compiled by others, but directly from LRH’s lectures/writings.
I always thought it was an interesting way to track the evolution of LRH’s thought through time – probably about 30 years of time! He published whatever conclusions he had come to at the time, based on whatever research he had done up to that point. Remember an “engram” being “a trace on a cell”, from DMSMH? How long before that was amended? 🙂
Or the evolving definitions of “Clear”? The publication line is like a big long itsa line of LRH’s thinking – that’s exactly what I find so interesting about it.
Fortunately I was never subjected to the kind of thing you’re talking about, with possibly well-intentioned but nonetheless robotic Supervisors etc “trying to do the right thing” on the job but making you wrong in the process!
As you say Valkov following the history chronologically one see the changes. Looking at a dictionary, how does one know which one is the latest or the correct one? Per Maria’s example.
This shows a lack of poka-yoke in Scientology procedures.
.
Vin: “This shows a lack of poka-yoke in Scientology procedures.”
There is a lot of poka-yoke in Scn. It’s called Qual and it can work very well. Operative word “CAN”. If it’s not overwhelmed by unhatted and difficult-to-hat staff. But, yes, situations like what Maria went through are what Qual should be looking in on and handling. When I was at Flag I dug my heals in on a point with a sup. I finally went to Qual – where they agreed with me. The sup went to the RPF.
@2x: And so the supervisor who had applied a wrong idea was fired as a Sea Org member and allowed to redeem themself by taking a couple years tour through the gulag rather than being corrected. Retrained from the bottom up for auditors who “miss withholds.”
To me, this is not poka-yoke, this is just mean spirited punishment. I have changed my opinion for the worse of the RPF since a couple of years now. And the notion of a Div 5 Qualifications is a quite good idea but I have no particular recollection of it being patiently applied.
The point was there is a Qual that can correct. If you had seen the way that sup treated students you might’ve agreed he needed to be fired. It was his choice to accept the RPF and back then it wasn’t nearly as crazy. Maybe crazier than I would’ve tolerated, but not near the reports we hear today.
I understand, then maybe he should have been fired. I was unjustly assigned to the RPF in 1989 and found the experience degrading, and not the good kind either!
In ’89 did they give you the option of RPF or…(I don’t know what the option was then – declare?)
At any rate, if you had the choice, you took the RPF. But you must’ve seen RPF’ers all the time. Did you have noe idea of what you were getting into?
Qual is correction after the fact. Poka-yoke are preventive measures so the error does not occur. An example is making one of the prongs of an electrical plug a bit wider so it can be plugged to the wall socket in one orientation only.
Wikipedia has a nice article on it.
.
Yes, Qual is correction after-the-fact but also training before-the-fact to help reduce the after-the-fact(s) just as electrical codes came in to improve wiring – after the fact of fires caused by shorts and after-the-fact electrocutions caused by undifferentiated plug prongs.
I’ve followed this discussion of poka yok’ing Scientology before. I mean there is the Auditor’s Code. That’s poka-yoke. But all poka-yoke can and will be defeated – no doubt. Especially your NEMA plug/receptacle configs! haha. The Qual is a great idea and applied with a good heart should work wonders. It is the heart of COS and of LRH for writing KSW using the words that he chose to use which has to be called into question.
Maria, I do get your point about the word “individual” in the definition of “thetan”. Would the definition make sense with the word “individual” being substituted with “a particular person”. That’s a definition of “individual” I found in Merriam Webster dictionary, which I’ve inserted in the definition (caps are mine):
THETAN 9 . THE PERSON HIMSELF —not his body or his name, the physical universe, his mind, or anything else; that which is aware of being aware; the identity which is A PARTICULAR PERSON [i.e. the individual]. The thetan is most familiar to one and all as you”.
As you can see, that definition of “individual” would also match the first part of the definition of thetan, which is “the person himself”.
And I think it would resolve the problem you had with “The one says IS NOT his mind. The other says IS his mind.”
The “one” (thetan) and the “other” (individual) are two different words which apply to two different entities. The fact that the definition of “thetan” uses the word “individual” isn’t a contradiction as it uses that word in a different way than how it was used in the definition of “individual” itself. There are many other examples where LRH gives a regular English word a specific Scn definition but in other contexts he uses the same word in the regular English sense. And I agree that it can be confusing.
An individual is a “center of considerations” analogous to “center of mass” What makes it a particular person is the particular bunch of considerations.
Here considerations may be interpreted as thoughts.
.
Marildi – I understand your effort here. You think you are clearing up a confusion for me. I am not confused. There is no confusion. No misunderstood. I do not appreciate you coming from a position that you are clearing up my “confusion” or my “misunderstood.” I understood all of this many, many years ago. Very, very well. How about instead of assuming this superior viewpoint that you understand and I do not, and you have to “fix me up” somehow and show me what I do not understand and have misunderstood, you simply acknowledge that this is YOUR way of working through this obvious inconsistency.
I already worked through all this and I have spent thousands and thousands of hours (years of my life) studying this material and doing exactly what you are doing. I do not think that LRH or Scientology are infallible and in my opinion this is an instance of that fallibility. The truth for me is that these materials need an overhaul to bring them into full alignment. This isn’t going to happen anywhere but in the indie field. And this is the indie field.
If you insist on holding onto and defending definitions that require this much mental wrestling there isn’t much hope for creating a version of it that is easy to work with and does not perpetuate confusions along the way.
Frankly I don’t care whether it is called Scientology or KHTH or [insert new name here] or whatever, what I care about is that when it is presented it is presented clearly and in a format that doesn’t subject people to mental wrestling and all manner of workarounds, with others pushing on others that they have MUs, confusions, etc. to get around difficulties in the materials themselves. This is a project that I am not interested in working on, but I am willing to participate in an ongoing discussion that assists to identify and remedy such problems. Otherwise it is more of the same, “you didn’t get it so you have an MU.” Please Marildi, there has been enough of that already and the C of S is a disaster zone because of it.
No, Maria, my effort simply had to do with your observation that there was an inconsistency. I don’t feel there is one and that was what I was trying to show. Since when is it assuming a superior viewpoint to do such, i.e. discuss one’s own way of seeing something that is in disagreement with someone else’s? I believe you were the one who started disagreeing with how I looked at it, but I didn’t view it as you trying to demonstrate a superiority. You did your best to back up your viewpoint and I did likewise. I would have expected you to continue to respond with whatever you saw to be in error in what I proposed – in and of itself, rather than speculate on my intentions, as that is the way it is done in a fair discussion.
For me, it didn’t take “much mental wrestling” at all to resolve what I can see might have looked like an inconsistency to some people. But that’s not to say a lot of mental wrestling hasn’t been required at times in Scn. I just happen to think it doesn’t happen nearly as often as some people say it does, because most of the time it really and truly is their own misunderstanding. And my experience as a long-time word clearer was that the vast majority of the time confusions are resolved to the person’s total satisfaction.
It isn’t that I’m saying there are no inconsistencies. But when someone presents it as a common occurrence, as Chris did, or someone insists, as you did, that such a basic definition as thetan has contradictions in it, I like to make an attempt to handle their consideration if I think it is in error, as well as to preclude anyone reading the comments from adopting a misguided viewpoint..
Marildi, a word clearer resolves MUs and not just blames others for having an MU. Let’s stop blaming using the phrase “You have an MU” and start discussing the actual subject without any attention on the participants.
.
Maria, this is a pretty dead-on response to Marildi. I wish I had expressed it this way. You referred to Marildi’s approach as “mental wresting”. I was calling it “stretch”.
.
Valkov, yes there was definitely an evolution. But at some point and I am really not sure at all just when, there began this notion that if you disagreed with LRH or found an inconsistency or materials from two different research times were being used at the same time with a resulting confusion, then YOU had an MU or confusion or false data i.e. YOU were the one with the deficiency — always you and never the materials themselves. Part of the problem was the redefining of normal English words such as individual to new definitions as in my example. WTF!. What I saw was the effort to make the Scientology materials work in an aligned fashion by ignoring all inconsistencies and finding definitions that served to make the definitions right even when they were not aligned or poorly laid out. That’s the problem I see on all this.
You said, “Fortunately I was never subjected to the kind of thing you’re talking about, with possibly well-intentioned but nonetheless robotic Supervisors etc “trying to do the right thing” on the job but making you wrong in the process!” — Amen to that!
Maria, the inconsistency that I see in Scientology is that the old theories, even when they are superseded by new ones, are still being promoted as if they are new.
I do not see that occurring in the field of science which focuses on knowledge. Scientology seems to focus on money in a businesslike fashion rather than on knowledge like science.
.
Maria, that was an excellent example and explained very well, thanks. I just say YES!
Marildi: I see. So you really wrote all that so that other people wouldn’t come away with a false idea from me. Okie dokie.
Partly, yes. But also to handle yours and Chris’ erroneous considerations, as I said.
Marildi, why do you think you are right and others are in error?
.
I agree that for training purposes, something may need to be done – I don’t actually know – but beyond that, I think all should be left intact, as a permanent record of the evolution of LRH’s development of the tech bridge.
Now, not having been “through the mill” the way you and some others have, of course I am no authority, but I think most of these definitions are largely academic. In the new Indie training centers they seem to be using materials from the 1970s mostly, checksheets like the HQS, Academy levels, NED and so on. Maybe even the HSDC after the HQS and before the Academy levels.
How important is it to know all these definitions? I’m wondering why you even had to face them? What course(s) were you doing?
I always figured that it would all be tied together in a chronological sense on the SHSBC, if a person went that far.
Almost all this stuff we talk about on this blog, is Parascientology and pretty irrelevant, actually, to being a trained auditor. Why let it intrude into the training of auditors?
What threw wrench in the works was KSW1. It made everything that Hubbard ever said to be scriptures. And scriptures can never be wrong.
It is the enforcement of unconditional absolute rightness of all Hubbard’s writings with no discussion allowed that has muddied the waters.
.
I see. Excuse me, but lets call a spade a spade. You do in fact consider that your considerations are superior (they are not erroneous) and Chris and I are (erroneous) and inferior. Period. You just plain well think that I am wrong (or misguided – more judgment) and you are right and that is the truth of this. Just come right out and say I DISAGREE! You have every right to disagree!!!!
Do you really see what you have been doing in this discussion with me as a workable way of getting your point across? What happened to what is true for you is true for you. Now. Which one is it? Is it true for me or not? Supposedly that is the important element that must not be dismissed. And if it is true for me, is my judgment erroneous and therefore inferior? Marildi this is WHY I am no longer a Scientologist. I will not tolerate this any more. Not from you. Not from anyone.
Here is what I care about: I care that that this method that you have been using to approach this subject causes so much upset that it is surprising that anyone continues with it after such an onslaught. And I think that the dwindling numbers in that group called Scientology reflects the truth of what I am saying.
For the record. I disagree with you. Period.
Maria, I thought what I wrote obviously said I disagreed, but I think there is a difference between disagreeing with someone’s interpretation of something written and considering oneself superior to the person. Big difference. And yes, one could use the word “wrong” to describe what is disagreed with but that’s kind of a loaded word to throw out.
Also, “what is true for you” is fine in terms of which definition a person believes would apply. I was actually asking you to consider a particular definition. You would have been within your rights to tell me you didn’t think it applied.
Marildi, this is mental wresting and stretch to make yourself right and others wrong. Why not look at an inconsistency for what it is without the judgment that your interpretation is right and that of others is in error.
There is nothing right or wrong in an absolute sense, and there is no permanent thetan to be right or wrong either. So, do not get hung up on that
Simply look at an inconsistency for what it is without assuming, judging, expecting or speculating.
This is KHTK advice.
.
Marildi – you said and I quote: Partly, yes. But also to handle yours and Chris’ erroneous considerations, as I said.
Now you are saying that all you were doing was disagreeing. No. You specifically stated that you were “handling” my and Chris’ erroneous (definition: containing error; mistaken; incorrect; wrong) considerations.
Disagree: 1. to fail to agree; differ: The conclusions disagree with the facts. The theories disagree in their basic premises. 2. to differ in opinion; dissent: Three of the judges disagreed with the verdict.
Erroneous: 1. containing error; mistaken; incorrect; wrong: an erroneous answer.
Next you say: And yes, one could use the word “wrong” to describe what is disagreed with but that’s kind of a loaded word to throw out.
Oh I see, you don’t think telling someone that you are handling their erroneous considerations isn’t loaded? Come on. What you did was insert a different word that has the same meaning and not the same meaning as disagree.
Now, Marildi, you say: Also, “what is true for you” is fine in terms of which definition a person believes would apply. I was actually asking you to consider a particular definition. You would have been within your rights to tell me you didn’t think it applied.
I considered it. I told you what I thought. You didn’t respect that. Instead you set about to handle my “erroneous” considerations in what I consider to be a very disrespectful way.
Okay, maybe I’m missing something. Can you give me an example of disagreeing where you don’t think what you’re disagreeing with is in error?
Valkov — you asked — How important is it to know all these definitions? I’m wondering why you even had to face them? What course(s) were you doing?
It was the Student Hat course! The first issue in the pack — Keeping Scientology Working!
The line was: (c) The lower the IQ, the more the individual is shut off from the fruits of observation. I flunked my starrate checkout on the word “individual.” And that’s when the whole thing began. I was referred to the tech dictionary definition of “individual.” And that clashed with what I had read in the Scientology picture book and on it went.
This sort of thing does need to be addressed for training purposes, at the very least some kind of indication that a definition is OLD and not in use. But that’s not allowed. That’s a tech degrade…
It does matter. But I think that it will only be resolved in the Indie field where it is okay to say that something does conflict, is old, is not being used, etc. And it can only be addressed if it is spotted, acknowledged and addressed so it doesn’t itself act as false data that hangs up the training of auditors.
Maria, I believe that one should be allowed to point out inconsistencies, without being blamed for having an MU. It should be followed by a discussion without any assumption of what is right or what is wrong. The discussion itself would lead to the establishment of the datum which resolves the inconsistency.
This is the KHTK advice.
.
Marildi says: Okay, maybe I’m missing something. Can you give me an example of disagreeing where you don’t think what you’re disagreeing with is in error?
No, but I will give you another definition:
OPINION: 1.a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty. 2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.
Your approach to the problem I brought to light is YOUR approach. It is based on a series of beliefs and judgments that you have adopted for yourself. This particular approach does not work for me in this instance and that is likely why I get a different result from yours. We can argue all day long that my approach is erroneous, but in truth, there is no truly concrete evidence that it is right or wrong, only opinion, only belief, only judgment. We cannot go and inspect the object of the discussion together as it is not a physical object that we can measure and weigh, just the same as the way of approaching problems cannot be measured and weighed, and the underlying problem being approached is an intangible as well. So the opinion differs based on past knowledge, experience, approach, attitude, etc. There is every possibility that both conclusions are wrong and both conclusions are right. CONTEXT. I have mine. You have yours. They are not identical.
Okay. Well, we each stated our viewpoint and if neither of us has changed our mind about whether there is or isn’t an inconsistency, I think we can at least agree to disagree.
KHTK Looking is non-judgmental.
.
Yes, of course Marildi, I can agree to disagree! 🙂
Wow. This is a great discussion you guys are having.
You have Maria who is trying to be intellectually honest inside a cult teaching environment. Then you have Marildi, who is the orthodoxy enforcer. She can take any two completely contradictory ideas and shift her viewpoint to make them align, multiple times in the same conversation, and then use socially coercive techniques to wear someone else down enough to just shut up and agree.
This was her basic skill as a long time word clearer in the cult – like Torquemada with a dictionary.
And then you have Maria who refuses to be worn down any more.
So fucking cool Maria!
You are the hero of this story in the fight for intellectual honesty inside a pin-headed, fanatic cult environment.
It’s “Dead Poets Society” and “Braveheart” all rolled up into one!!
Yahoo!!! Go Maria!!!!
Alanzo
+ !
Yes, I am getting to know Maria now, She is cool.
Sent from my iPhone
Hey Alanzo, yesterday I asked you for specifics on the generality you were spreading that Indies have now decided LRH was crazy. You blew the thread right after that.
I also asked you to give me an example of any single time you ever changed you mind about some criticism you had made about LRH or Scn. I had already answered your question asking me for an example of a time I had ever stated a disagreement with Scn (even giving you the link to a comment I made doing just that). You blew that comm cycle too!
Alanzo’s continual blows from these important discussions is the result of his simply being a squirming mess of overts and withholds which he refuses to confront, hence his hit and run style writing of attacking true-Scientologists. Despicable! Now I am giving myself a yellow card for my emotional outburst of entheta but Alanzo knows as everyone everywhere knows that it is his fault for enturbulating me! I wish there was an Indie-RPF for me to send him to so he could clear up his misunderstoods and get better. Now I shall go quietly away and rollercoaster on my own.
*\o/*
It’s your steely eyed ethics presence, Marildi.
I can not bare the light of your dedicated glare.
Alanzo
I wonder how long I can keep “blowing these comm cycles” before Marildi routes me to Indy OSA for handling?
Wow!, Thanks for the acknowledgments!
Thanks Maria. The Student Hat course! My gut reaction is – Why the dickens even use the Tech Dictionary on that course? A good standard everyday English dictionary or 2 should be all that’s required to look up a word like that for that course!
Valkov: “A good standard everyday English dictionary or 2 should be all that’s required to look up a word like that for that course!”
It was one of my pet peeves (on all flows) that people doing a checkout considered that if the word is in the Tech Dictionary, the student being checked out had to give that definition – even when the word was simply being used as a regular English word. From Maria’s description. I got that this is exactly what happened to her. It’s a classic example of rote application rather than conceptual understanding.
Yes deE, to me it is an omission that each entry of a definition of a word, when there is more than one definition for that word in the Tech Dictionary does not have at least a year-date by it to locate it in time. A month-year would be best.
Thanks marildi, for this – “It was one of my pet peeves (on all flows) that people doing a checkout considered that if the word is in the Tech Dictionary, the student being checked out had to give that definition – ”
An example of rote obsequiousness towards LRH’s “authority” or something. I’m sure there are technical words which require the Tech Dictionary, but I think most words do not. Common English words ought to be defined by common English dictionaries, no?
The more I learn, the more I am glad I was never “Org”-anized. Whew! Though I lament not going up the Bridge as far as possible, it sounds like I would have much to unlearn had I spent any large amount of time in orgs.
Val, I would say you did make progress “up the Bridge”. Wish I could remember the reference, but I believe LRH stated that training is actually a road to Clear. It’s real to me that besides auditor training being one side of the Bridge itself, study in general can also bring about knowingness. I’m sure you can attest to many gains from listening to all those tapes. (And for anyone to assume otherwise would be “rote obsequiousness”! :))
Maria, that is a tight-fit. I meant to mention it before but of course you know that. Unless you are small enough, in which case there is plenty of room!
I have become entranced by the sparkles emanating from the elephant’s foot. Its a veritable constellation of flurrying particles vibrating between the topmost layer of ground. There’s lots and lots of room! I must admit that its pretty dark and there is a definite feeling of being weighed down!
Alanzo,
I wonder how many readers are watching the show ! + 5 for your flow ! And I also wonder what your ultimate quest is about?
Marianne –
Your reference is “Don Quixote”.
Alanzo
LOL!
Sent from my iPhone
@ Alanzo: 🙂
Alanzo-
Thanks! Two questions 1. Why “your” reference? Does it mean that you answer this question differently, depending on who asks you? 2. Have you found your Dulcenia?
No, truely : what’s the drive of your quest?
Marianne –
I don’t want people to be lied to about Scientology any more. I want everyone to have all the information they need to make informed decisions about their own involvement.
That is, and has been, my Quixotic Crusade.
As we all know, all the best crusades are totally impossible to win.
But I gotta tell ya, I really think I’m winning this one!
Alanzo
You sure are Alanzo, and that makes us all win! 🙂
.
Admirable crusade Alanzo. I’m on a similar path with same goals. I would be riding a much smaller horse then you of course, but I’m movin’ in the right direction and gaining speed. 🙂
Alanzo
Thank you ! Wow ! This is the flow ! Thanks for your honest words! “….all the best crusages are impossible to win “. You know, Gandhi said something like I am for the Indians and not against the British……..I say I am for/with/ the flow (of life) and not against the mind…..I like it when you are humorous! And also when you “empty your heart”. And your discussions with the other guys…..really fun to read!
Chris,
you say ….”and rollercoaster on my own.” No way! I love rollercoasters, you know, for real! The best I was on was in Florida, its name is Kumba! Ever been there? I have got an invitation to go to Colorado and Arizona this year. If I go, we can meet and have some fun! + Maria OK?
Of Course! Always welcome! But come in winter or adjacent seasons as summer is a time for hiding from our angry Sun God! My contact info is on my blog.
Thanks! I know about the heat from family member. It’s just a plan, we will see ! I am acting more from present time. Would be nice if we who are here met once ! Most possibly in a place with wild nature around, forest, perhaps lake or river…..space….and some “suvival” games….
Well, if you can get close, I will work to help make it happen. Remember the Grand Canyon is in Arizona as well as Indian lore and ruins.
THE SECOND NOBLE TRUTH – The Arising of Dukkha
At the core of dukkha is the idea of impermanence. It is the attachment to things that are inherently impermanent, which causes all suffering. When we look at things as they really are we come to realize the impermanent nature of things, and the futility of holding on to them. This awareness helps us replace fear and anxiety with peace and contentment.
Underlying dukkha there is a thirst, which is bound with passionate greed; and which finds fresh delight now here and now there in sense-pleasures and in becoming this or that.
But there is no first cause of dukkha. Even the thirst depends on sensation, which, in turn, depends on the contact of internal faculties with the external objects, and so on and so forth on the circle which is known as Conditioned Genesis. However, this ‘thirst’ has at its center the false ‘idea of self’ arising out of ignorance.
.
‘Self” is the effort to have something permanent in the confusion that impermanence seem to create.
The answer is let the impermanence be. 🙂
.
I love the Beatles song “Let It Be.”
.
The most fundamental dichotomy seems to be “impermanence – permanence”
On that depends the dichotomy of “confusion – no confusion”
.
I totally agree
– –
Slack
I have obviously totally agreed the wrong comment? hm. I totally agree to Let it be, Vin. .)
– –
Slack
I took your comment correctly the first time. Thank you.
Sent from my iPad
To Vin and Geir,
I like the two of you so MUCH ! I am sending you one of my favourite songs, to have some light fun!
Background story: This song is performed by two brothers in the first X-factor in Hungary. The younger brother registered the elder brother into the show without him knowing about it. The elder brother came out as the winner!!!! No consideration on my part why I am sending it.
Vin : Look and listen. Geir: Listen and look. I hope you will enjoy it as much as I am enjoying your discussions!
Forgot to write down: when the elder brother is speaking in Hungarian, this is what he is saying: my invited guest today is someone, who is very important to me, who I have learnt a lot from.
I like this video! I really like the lyrics to the song too:
I can’t light no more of your darkness
All my pictures seem to fade to black and white
I’m growing tired and time stands still before me
Frozen here on the ladder of my life
Too late to save myself from falling
I took a chance and changed your way of life
But you misread my meaning when I met you
Closed the door and left me blinded by the light
Don’t let the sun go down on me
Although I search myself, it’s always someone else I see
I’d just allow a fragment of your life to wander free
But losing everything is like the sun going down on me
I can’t find, oh the right romantic line
But see me once and see the way I feel
Don’t discard me just because you think I mean you harm
But these cuts I have they need love to help them heal
Thanks, Maria !
These always give me chills!
There should be no winners or losers in a discussion. The purpose of a discussion is cooperation in the clarification of a subject..
It is not like debate where the entire basis is egoism… a desire to win one’s argument.
.
For me, Vin, the problem is, I don’t feel like learning yet another idiosyncratic language, yours, in order to have a discussion. And you are quite right, I do not read your posts in much detail at all.
Then please don’t complain. You are responsible for your condition.
.
I’m not complaining. That appears to be dub-in on your part. No, I am not responsible for my condition. You have converted me to the idea that all that I am is the result of a bunch of considerations that are themselves the results of prior considerations, world without end. Therefore my condition is the result of input.
It’s all input. The input is responsible, not me. How could a humble effect such as myself be responsible? The very idea is ridiculous! Why do you talk nonsense? Can you obfuscate that for me a little further? Or are you just going to leave me here with an understood?
OMG! LOL! Valkov, sometimes you are so funny that I’ve taking to putting my coffee cup down before I read your posts so I won’t spit my coffee out on my keyboard. But you got this me this time! Daamn! 😀
I use one LRH datum and you deny it because it is Vinaire who is using it against Valkov.
Be consistent man. If you want to come my way, then come. Don’t dilly-dally.
.
It was an inconsistency. In using that LRH datum, you were not being true to yourself, since that datum is contrary to your own stated philosophy, which appears to resemble dialectical materialism, in which there is no responsibilty because there are no truly causitive agents, only endless chains of cause and effect.
I consider it cynical of you to use it that way.
Tell that to Al.
Both Marty and Mike have been preparing us for it: It is going to come out in Lawrence Wright’s book that L Ron Hubbard was totally, visibly insane at the end of his life.
In a recent blog post, Marty has found a way to give the blinking faithful an argument they can clutch to against the dissonant storm they will encounter when they consider that the greatest OT who ever lived, the man who created the Modern Science of Mental Health and who promoted and sold the tech that would make everyone sane, was batshit crazy at the end of his life.
It has been reported before that Hubbard was a major PR flap for anyone who was sent to or worked at the Int Base, because he had a Howard Hughes type look and walked around mumbling to himself. The only person not freaked out about it was David Miscavige, because he knew he could hide him and keep the money rolling in. Marty and Mike both worked with Miscavige for decades to ensure that Hubbard’s insanity was never revealed to the public.
So now that this will be totally nailed down and accepted fact, Marty and Mike have started talking about great artists like Van Gogh, who were misunderstood and crazy during their own lifetimes, but whose art was later appreciated. They are saying now that this is how it will be for L Ron Hubbard.
Here’s the new view of L Ron Hubbard from Mike for the faithful:
http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2013/01/04/a-pair-of-worn-shoes/#comments
“Yes, Hubbard was crazy, but so was Van Gogh! And look what we think of him today!”
Will this one work on you? Will this one keep you from looking at and thinking with the facts?
Why or why not?
Here’s why not:
Van Gogh was a painter, not the founder of a self help group that was going to get rid of the need for psychiatry and get rid of insanity in the new civilization it would create. Van Gogh never had billion year contracts to sign to work for him for free, nor did he charge people hundreds and even thousands of dollars per hour to look at his paintings. He also never said that looking at his painting would make you go “clear” and “OT”, either.
Completely different man and completely different situation.
I say this one isn’t going to work. Eventually, even some of the people here on this blog will have to confront the fact that all the auditing and training in Scientology could not keep L Ron Hubbard’s madness from overtaking him.
So given these facts, what conclusion can you make to keep believing in the workability of Scientology?
Marildi?
Valkov?
Let’s see how you can incorporate the fact that L Ron Hubbard was insane to keep bolstering your faith in Scientology.
Start!
Alanzo
You never ask me anymore! 😦
Vinnie, Chris and I have a space for you in our ranks. You can stand right next to Chris. We even have a cap, a sporty blazer, and some shiny shoes for you to click to attention with!
Putting in my request for black uniform with shiny black knee high boots; full length shiny black leather overcoat and shiny black leather hat and golves. mmmm I can feel the power that univorm will give me… People won’t pick on me then!
I don’t look good in black. How about violet?
I mean really Chris, look at my little purple people eater icon! No way this black color scheme is going to work with that!
OMG — find your word!… there’s not going to be room for any colors!
“Mebbe vee must test your dedication?”
LOL!
This is the problem with adding even one Scn critic to our ranks. It’s impossible to please these people! They each want this or that, and no one can agree on anything!
I think I am going to write KCW Series 1 Keeping Criticism Working:
…”We’re not playing some minor game here in criticizing Scientology. Those guys up there mean business. So agree with everything I say or I will expose ALL of your crimes to OSA, and then see where you’ll be!”
(Hit critics with the expose their crimes thing – gets em every time. They shut right up!)
Sometimes the randomity just gets too unbearable and you have to lay down the law on these guys!
Alanzo
LOL!
Al, did you ever see the Russell Crowe movie, “A Beautiful Mind”?
Get it, watch it, then re-read your own posted questions and get back to me – if you aren’t feeling too embarrassed by then.
Many Scientologists just love to give advice but never take it. It is a one-way flow for them. By this you can know a Scientologist.
.
I guess you and Al are the most die-hard Scientological Scientologists I know. You both endlessly give advice to others.
They really really really really want to help. Isn’t that what all advice giving is about when it comes right down to it?
That may be true, Maria, to the extent that any person is “basically good” but then, why don’t they just help? No. The psychiatrists who like to drug and shock people will also say they just really really really really “want to help” all those pathetic “mentally ill depressed people” who just can’t help themselves and therefore need to be drugged and shocked to prevent them from harming themselves or others, and also need “talk therapy” to teach them how to stop their thinking and channel it in directions the therapist considers to be appropriate.
No. By that logic, Stalin may have “really x 4” wanted to help, too. Perhaps he actually thought he was “helping”.
The issue I see, is the person really helping, or is he really just being oppressive, behind a bunch of justifications that he “really wants to help”.
And that’s how I personally see Al. It’s all an ego trip on his part. He wants others to think like him, and will go to any lengths to enforce this and program others to think like him. It’s like he used on say on Geir’s forum – he’s on “a mission from God” and of course that makes him feel that anything he does is justified – ie, to him, the end justifies the means.
I’m sure he’s not unique, there are plenty of anti-LRH groupies on Tony O’s blog and other sites, as well as would-be anti-LRH opinion leaders. That’s not the issue. I have rarely met a person so self-absorbed, evaluative, lacking in understanding of others, lacking in the ability to grant beingness and duplicate, and unwilling to let others be self-determined, as Al is.
Vinaire is a bit of a different story, but he does feel he has advice to give. Other than that, he’s not really like Al to any great extent.
Sure, this will be called ad hom and an address to the person. However I see it more as a summation of Al’s presentation of himself towards me and others he perceives as “scientologists”, and who therefore need thought-stopping to correct their thinking, and behavior modification, or bluntly, brainwashing, to his way of thinking.
He may “want to help”, he may think he is helping, but his methods are antithetical to my values, to my Russian family’s values, and I believe, to the freedom values of most Americans.
Perhaps eventually, by the kindness of folks such as yourself, Al will give up his oppressive behavior and start to really help others instead of obsessively trying to change them. I won’t hold my breath. Hell, most recently he has stated in posts on this thread that he has been using me and my posts as a foil in order to influence others. Some would call a person who acted that way a “manipulative asshole”. But the bottom line is, because he’s “on a mission”, he doesn’t care.
These advice-giving guys need to wake up and apply the non-existence formula. And others who are enabling them to continue doing what they are doing might consider whether or not that is the best course to take with them. Of course any genuine admiration or respect should not be withheld.
Now-now! I was just getting ready to agree with Valkov and still do there in his “Stalin” paragraph but the rest I can’t agree with.
Alanzo has strong feelings toward the oppressive nature of Scientology and he isn’t wrong. If someone else is able to use various Scientology to a good placebo effect, nothing, not even Al is stopping anyone. His diatribes aren’t stopping anyone’s thinking that I can see, and I hope mine aren’t either.
Advice: an opinion or recommendation offered as a guide to action, conduct, etc.:
Valkov! You do realize that I was speaking of people “giving advice,” right? Obviously massacring, torturing, enslaving, drugging and electro-shocking people is not giving advice! I think it is quite a stretch to compare anyone on this blog to mass murderers of the twentieth century or perpetrators of physical violence or abuse against another’s will. Alanzo and Vinaire may engage in verbal jousting and smack downs, may trade insults, and may take positions that really offend you, but I hardly think this qualifies them as burgeoning Chairman Maos!!
Or are you just enjoying a brief reconnoiter as a Feral White Russian? If so, carry on (at least until that Viking Lord reappears and thunders across your sky) LOL!
Hubbard’s concept of “people are basically good” encompasses your comment and my understanding of what he meant by that was that good is surviving and people always try to survive even when committing suicide… odd way of putting, but there is an odd kind of consistency in this. Removing people’s aberrations and then training them in the right ways to do things would ultimately overcome even Adolph Hitler’s predilection to roast jews in order to help mankind. I don’t particularly adhere to this, though I can see examples of it and I do understand it. This was my point of agreement with Valkov.
Maria, Lost the right place for this …
I missed giving you a pat on the back for handling that confusion earlier with Maridi, it was very interesting and helpful. Thanks. 🙂
OK I’ll back it up a step from my logical extreme. Most psychiatrists do “advise” people who come to see them, to take a drug. Some advise some of their patients to get electroshock treatments. Some time back,some psychiatrists “advised” that some people be given lobotomies or trans-orbital leucotomies.
All in the name of “Help”.
I do not know what Al, for example, would actually do if he were in power. But I can look at his tendencies and approaches to dealing with me and others on the subject, and I can extrapolate those out to a consistent extreme. It sounds to me like Al would go to great lengths to insure that an interest in scientology was at the very least very socially unacceptable. That’s “big brotherism” in my book. That would not be a “free society” in which I would want to live. The “catholic”, politically correct mores in such a society would make studying or practicing scientology very difficult if not impossible. I think at bottom, this is the kind of society Al would like to see. “Deprogrammers” who use force also supposedly want to “help” people. Those kind of things are inconsistent with my cultural values.
Perhaps they were naive, but my family actually sought refuge in the USA because they were searching for “freedom”. Having a Big Brother like Al sitting on my shoulder nattering at me about how I should think about LRH or Scientology is not my idea of freedom. Whatnext? MyTV set scanningme tosee whatI am reading or listening to, and reporting it back to AL HQ? No thanks. Let me read or listen to whatever I’m interested in and think for myself, please. If I want his evaluation, I’ll ask for it!
I don’t agree with the above assessment of Alanzo as it contains lot of assumptions.
What I get is Alanzo is for the exposure of all information so people can make good judgments.
.
@Valkov
I believe that it comes down to a few extremely important principles that need to be fostered and protected at all costs:
Freedom of speech, and that includes dissenting & minority voice
Individual rights to life, liberty and justice
Individual rights to participate in civic affairs and processes
Freedom of religion, including minority religions and belief systems
Dissent, disasters and conflict play an important role in all of our lives, rather like the pain mechanism of the body that lets you know that something is in danger or is damaged. All life is in a constant state of flux and there is need to create and foster an operating basis that works towards sustainable systems, with enough stability for progress, encourages innovation and maintains enough flexibility to address inevitable change, be it environmental or due to earlier systems going stagnant or awry.
It is quite alright for you to protest what others do, and you should. And that means that it must be alright for them to protest what you do.
As regards Scientology, it should be addressed on the same basis as any other religion, and if the Church of Scientology acts in ways that are found to be offensive then it will suffer the consequences like any other organization will in this Internet enabled world. If it cannot garner and maintain sufficient support, then it will not prosper. It cannot and will not do well if it violates the principles above by its actions. It is in no different position that any one of dozens of religions (and organizations in general) in the world today — there are those who would ban Islam, those who would jail all Mormons, many who would outlaw all religion in general. All of them must face this sort of thing in today’s world of open information, including exposes, propaganda attacks, false and hate speech. Nothing new here except that every person has a voice now, not just those in positions of communication power.
I believe that it will all come out alright so long as the free flow of communication is not interrupted or stopped.
Thanks Maria. I’m fine with someone, even Al, criticizing something I specifically say or do which has an adverse effect on another. Bring it on. But that’s not what he does.
He uses obnoxious manipulative tactics to try to convert me to his way of thinking, by 1. negating what I think in various ways, mostly by labeling me and actually not responding to the substance of what I did say, and 2. telling me repeatedly what I should think instead. He’s not here to communicate with me, he’s here to push an agenda concerning how people should think and feel about scientology.
Yes, I am aware that I am myself often blunt and come across as negating. But I like to think I can usually tell the difference between fact and opinion. or the difference between LRH’s lectures and the actual practices of the Church, for example. He indiscriminately lumps it all into one big ball of whatever, and right there I tune out.
@Chris-
My problem is, I listen to LRH lectures (Congresses, ACCs, whatever) and I never seem to find this “oppressive nature of scientology” you mention.
Damn, Val. You are on a roll!
This is why, unlike Al, I recommend that you participate in Scientology.
Chris, my question is why would you recommend participation in something you think is a hoax and detrimental.
There is only dust covering a diamond. One just needs to dust it off.
.
What a nice observation, like it! 🙂 simple food for thought.
Valkov wrote:
This is quite a tirade, Val.
I have to believe that you really believe this, or else I don’t think you would have written this. I have to believe that when you look at me, you see a potential Joseph Stalin, or a Pol Pot, or dare I say, a potential Adolph Hitler, just clamoring to get a grip on governmental power so I can keep you, and everyone else, from being a Scientologist.
I will say that, if I had governmental power, I would find a way to prosecute the Church of Scientology for fraud – just as they did in France, and as they are now doing in Belgium. I would find a way to revoke the tax exempt status of the Church of Scientology in the United States, and I would find a way to prosecute DM for false imprisonment, human trafficking and anything else I could prove in a court of law, under the rules of evidence, and following the Bill of Rights and every other constitutional restraint that I would willingly have on my governmental power.
If I were in power, I would not need to make interest in Scientology socially unacceptable because it already IS socially unacceptable for anyone who knows what Scientology actually is, and who knows what a free society is. Obviously, this excludes you from that category.
This is hardly like Joe Stalin or Hitler in the 1930’s, though.
It’s more like, you know, present day France.
Or Belgium.
Having said all that, I think I’ve overwhelmed you, and if so, I apologize. I truly did not think that I could make you go so PTS to me. A little PTS, maybe. But I never thought you would start hallucinating on me.
Alanzo
Thanks Al. Now we’re getting somewhere.
So, I guess in your town, or your state, or your country, it would be considered “socially unacceptable” to listen to LRH lectures? Or how about, finding a twin and using the Self Analysis lists with each other? Socially unacceptable? What would be the social consequences of showing any kind of non-antagonistic interest in LRH or Scientology?
How about opening a training center where people could do courses, like the HQS course, a Dianetics course, etc? I guess that would be VERY “socially unacceptable” in your town, right?
What would happen? Would there be a whispering campaign about it? Would folks who showed an open interest in Scientology materials or5, God Forbid, actually doing some kind of practical, be de-friended by your social circle? Would the local restaurant still serve them, perhaps grudgingly? Would people frown when they saw me on the street, and cross to the other side to avoid me? Would parents hide their children when they saw me coming?
Just how “socially unacceptable” would it be, in your town, to be associated in any non-antagonistic way, with LRH and Scientology?
@Chris – “This is why, unlike Al, I recommend that you participate in Scientology.”
Not sure what you mean by “participate in Scientology”?
Probably because you already know all the pit-falls they don’t tell people about. Then you can experience more of the benefits that it offers. The problem isn’t keeping people from, it’s educating what they are going into.
Val –
What deElizabeth said.
One of the incredibly revealing things that happens when you wake up from Scientology is that people start to include you in the discussions that they were always having about Scientology, but because you were a Scientologist, they didn’t say these things to your face because they didn’t want to insult you and your religious beliefs.
I don’t know if this has ever happened to you before, but people WILL talk, and they DO talk about Scientology. Scientology is generally not socially acceptable.
Scientology is generally considered a bizarre space alien totalitarian cult which brainwashes its adherents with hypnotic techniques, by most people in society. Those people are simply not talking to you about this because they are too polite to talk about it with you. But they are talking about it among themselves. And that is what they are saying to each other.
Try this: Find a person who has known that you were a Scientologist, but who is not themselves a Scientologist, like a family member or someone you work with. Just as an experiment, tell them that you have realized it is a kooky space alien cult. See what they say. They are very likely to breath a huge sigh of relief and say something like “Thank GoD! I never wanted to say anything to you about this, but those people are WHACKO! And I am so glad that you have now gotten yourself away from them!”
I don’t believe it is the government’s role to tell anyone what is or isn’t socially acceptable. I believe, like it says in the Declaration of Independence, the government’s primary duty to protect the rights of its citizens. And a person has, and should continue to have, the right to believe or engage in any kind of whacked out space alien thing that he wants. The government should only step in when laws are being violated and people are being harmed.
But people themselves decide what is socially acceptable. Not the government. And I have to say, people really have decided that Scientology is not socially acceptable. Here, try this: Go into a bar and try picking up a chick with the line, “Hi there. I’m a Scientologist.”
See how far you get.
I have actually done this, by the way. It does not work. Just mention the word “Scientology”, in almost any context, and watch people scatter.
Alanzo
A good post, Al.
Since you are up for experimentation, try this a few times: get the girls attention with a smile and then look deeply into her eyes. So deep that she’ll be sure you’re looking at her soul. Then say the same thing – “Hi there. i’m a Scientologist.”
On an reasonably uptone girl it will cut through normal social responses more often than not.
Wow, that’s really creepy.
Well Al, since I’m not a practicing Scientologist, and don’t go around telling people I’m a Scientologist, your advice is moot. However, I’m well aware that in America, a person’s religion is a private subject and it is something folks usually leave alone in the interests of getting along in a diverse society.
Since I believe “most people” have never met a Scientologist and have likely never looked into the subject directly themselves, I assume the negative impression you depict is likely the result of negative press, and propagandists like yourself.
Where do you stand on this kind of demonization of the subject? Apparently you are wholly in favor of it?
It appears each person will have to work out for himself/herself how to deal with this kind of generality, or just stay “in the closet”, so to speak. Or just let “people” whisper about them, which some people will do anyway.
2nd, uptone girls may not be what Al is seeking, ya know? 🙂
@Vin
Maybe, but…
I suggested reasonably uptone girls as they can usually hold their position in space a little longer. It’s not fair, at all, to do that to a girl who’s anywhere near sad.
The best he can hope is that saying he’s a Scientologist will keep a girl from instantly falling in love with him. Being a Scientologist it might take a few minutes more.
There’s really no mystery to it. If there’s a ability to recognize the being and an admiration flow, a Hitler could get past a social recoil that otherwise would be the pre-programmed product of “Hi, I’m a _____.”
Speaking for the girls, I can attest to the workability of an admiration flow and recognition of the being. With Al it may take more than minutes, though. 😉
Valkov: “I assume the negative impression you [Alanzo] depict is likely the result of negative press, and propagandists like yourself.”
It looks like you didn’t read Alanzo’s comment 2012-07-26 at 17:50 https://isene.me/2012/07/18/mark-shreffler-tone-scale-seminar/#comment-20797
Valkov wrote:
Yeah. It’s all lies, Valkov.
The negative press and propagandists like myself made it all up. We’re terrified of anyone going free or getting better.
Wow, man. It’s amazing that you can keep reading all those blogs you say you read and still not see the damage that Scientology does to people. Some people just never will. Like the Nazis who fled to Argentina, the Communists still hunkered down in East Germany and holding out in Russia, and the Scientologists at Int Base and on Marty’s blog – they are just never going to get it.
Oh well. You have a nice life, Val. And keep me in your dreams.
Alanzo
Valkov & 2ndxmr,
highthetaorg (2012-08-05 at 16:34) have made a very good point https://isene.me/2012/07/18/mark-shreffler-tone-scale-seminar/#comment-21577
Al, Thank you for the totally straw man response. You depict attitudes that no real person here or on Marty’s blog(and those are real people over there,regardless of your attempts to stereotype them in cartoonish ways) actually holds.
I never said that what the critics post is “all lies”.That IS a LIE YOU POST ABOUT ME and others who find somethng positive in LRH’s works.
Ii never said or even inferred that you “made it all up” or are “making it all up.” That is another big LIE YOU are putting forth. Many of the posters on Marty’s blog are ahead of the curve in publishing first-hand accounts of the destructive side of Scientology.
What I object to in your approach is the one-sidedness of what you publish, the spin you put into your posts, of focusing on the negatives and leaving out the positives. Fox News IS “fair and balanced”, compared to you.
THAT is why I call you a propagandist, not simply because you just publish lies. You DO publish LIES, but those are usually lies or misrepresentations like the ones you just published in your post about me and posters on Marty’s blog. To that extent you are purely a “liar”, whether you believe what you publish or not is not the issue.
LRH said it as well as anyone. Since you are supposedly a grad of the Ethics Specialist course, this quote should be familiar to you:
“A test that declares only antisocial personalities without also being able to identify the social personality would be itself a suppressive test. It would be like answering “Yes” or “No” to the question “Do you still beat your wife?” Anyone who took it could be found guilty. While this mechanism might have suited the times of the Inquisition, it would not suit modern needs.”
It is useless to protest against how one is being misunderstood or being misinterpreted.
It is much better to make one’s position clearer more and more in a positive way. That is what I try to do. That is following the discussion policy.
.
Valkov –
You are not a practicing Scientologist but you will quote L Ron Hubbard to me.
All right. I can see that I upset you again, and I didn’t mean to do that. So let’s change the subject.
What do you think that Marty is doing on his blog right now?
You’ve probably seen these weird, whole track surveys he is doing. Today’s is really a doo-zee. Don’t you think?
Have you ever stepped back and taken a look at the idea that a person, by being asked questions from another person in a room, could look in to his human mind and come up with such pretended CERTAINTY as those people have on the questions they are answering?
Really. Marty is asking questions that no human being on Earth knows the answer to. But Scientologists not only believe they know the answers to these questions, they KNOW they know the answers to them! It is KNOWLEDGE to them, not faith!
Do you think this is healthy? I mean when you look at the relationship between self-identity and memory, and you realize that these people are telling themselves these stories about their own self-identities, and with such CERTAINTY as they are displaying there for the most part – don’t you think it looks a little crazy?
The reasoning processes they are using for these, the underlying rationale, really does border on the appearance of mental illness. Don’t you think?
I’m not saying they are. They are just acting out their “now-I’m-supposed-tos” as Scientologists.
But it has the appearance of total crazy to me.
Does it to you too?
Alanzo
It is playing with considerations. There are infinite variations of it. Within this perimeter lies everything from creativity to being created… from cause to effect… This is a large plateau…
But there are mountains beyond.
.
Yeah yeah Al. (Put your coffee down Maria)
I’m not a Scientologist but I quote LRH to you. Duh. I also quote St. Luke, St. Matthew, Lao Tzu, Dalai Lama, Gurdjieff, Berdyaev, Groddeck, Carl Jung, Gotama Buddha, Mark Twain, etc etc etc etc.
Doh! What is a poor Armadillo to make of this person? He doesn’t fit into any of an Armadillo’s ready made 2-dimensional pigeonholes. Oh my oh my what is Armadillo to do???
Al, I don’t know what Marty is doing on his blog, with the surveys. I speculate he is collecting data fora book he is writing.
As for the posters who have responded to this last survey, I don’t know.
Perhaps they are Martians, or work for the FBI?
The only advice I give is discuss the subject without attention on participants. 🙂
.
That might be good advice if the people making posts were able to keep themselves out of their own posts.
Do you really think that happens?
Yes, that happens on Vinaire’s Blog.
.
Confirmed. It does happen on Vinaire’s blog.
Yes, that probably does happen on his blog. btw, I read some good interesting things that were helpful for the moment and liked some paragraphs. However, imho he is not a good example of what he promotes and I don’t see much spirit.
Another btw, do you know if Vin has another person who posts for him, since he reply’s to his own posts quite often as if he’s someone else.
What do you say about that Vin, help me out here?
When there is an inconsistency one should also look at one’s own considerations and/or filters. One must not identify with them.
.
Honestly Vin, I don’t understand the way you communicate sometime. Guess I have to study your philosophy to do that.
I will assume you reply in 2nd person, for whatever reason, you have the answer, I don’t care That much, was just curious if it was only you or you change persons! Now I will consider it to be whatever I think it is, so why even ask you a question, right?
I will not identify with my considerations and filters, I “must not”, thank you very much, Radha Swami.
LOL! What is a person but a bunch of considerations!
.
See deE? I told you he would laugh.
@deE: LOL! No worries, it’s just a peccadillo of his writing… I used to be distracted by that as well. After a lot of practice, I just read right through the stuffiness and get to what he means and that works well for me… hahaha (“swami” LMAO – Vin will laugh at this as well!)
Thanks guys. It actually happens right here on Geir’s blog, too. And on most blogs, including Tony O’s! Most people are very respectful and considerate of the feelings of others.
I guess I shouldn’t bust in here and overturn furniture, break the fine china, and snark at people quite so much, as tends to happen when I’ve stayed away too long, actually!
The only one who really deserves it is Al, after all. 🙂
Valkov –
OK, so we aren’t even trying to say anything other than Hubbard was mentally ill now. All right. So Hubbard was mentally ill – and genius often goes with mental illness – that’s the PR Line now.
The trouble is that genius and mental illness often *does not* go together, especially when the person who is mentally ill is a guy who created a method he says will get rid of mental illness, and who audited himself his whole life. I know you have a hard time seeing this, because there is so much at stake for you if you really look at it.
But L Ron Hubbard was not anywhere close to John Nash, or Vincent Van Gogh, or any of the people the new shift in PR positioning is trying to make him into. It’s just not going to work. No one, outside of existing Scientologists who are desperately clinging to their past wins, are ever going to buy this.
Valkov, can you see how much the positions you have taken on L Ron Hubbard have shifted in just the short time you and I have been going around and around with each other? Can you see how many times you’ve called me a liar for saying Hubbard was crazy at the end of his life?
And now you have shifted to telling yourself that Hubbard is like John Nash?
Wow man. You must have really invested a lot of your self identity into Scientology and you feel like it will all be gone if you just face the facts. I know that feeling. I had to face it too. But I decided that it was better to seek and to live with the truth than to keep deceiving myself, and others about L Ron Hubbard and Scientology.
It’s hard. I know it is. And so I am going to lay off of you because I know that I am the last thing you need in your life right now. But you know now, and I know now.
You and I know now.
Good luck with stuff. I hope you make the transition easily and things go well for you.
Alanzo
Hey Al, I didn’t get that Indies are now saying LRH was crazy. The only specific you’ve give on that is a quote of Mike Rinder and I interpreted it differently than you. This was the relevant part:
“…And therefore, who is to judge madness? L. Ron Hubbard should be viewed this way, and ultimately will be.”
The operative idea there being “…who is to judge madness?”.
But leaving that aside as debatable, do you have any other specifics?
A lengthy answer to the straw man you put up in my place. You apparently missed my point entirely. Or maybe you didn’t – maybe you are just spinning what I said to vent your spleen and continue your attack on me? Or maybe you really didn’t understand? You seem to continuously be giving me the choice of considering you to be either stupid or venal. I don’t appreciate that.
Go in peace, Valkov.
It gets better. There is an adjustment period, during which you should always remember to give yourself some slack, but it gets better. It gets a lot better than continually trying to prop up the house of cards of being a Scientologist ever was.
You will do great.
Good luck to you.
Alanzo
On the of chance that you actually did not get my point about LRH, Nash, etc, I will spell it out.
Nash was able to be both a great mathematician and a schizophrenic at the same time. Being schizophrenic did not preclude his mathematical ability.
Does the fact that Henry Ford was a bigoted racist somehow imply that he was not capable of establishing a company that manufactures good, valuable automobiles? No.
Does the fact that by our cultural standards, Mahatma Gandhi was a pedophile, a child molester, prevent him from inspiring and leading a large country to freedom from British Imperialism? No.
Does the probability that Martin Luther King was likely an unfaithful womanizer and possibly physically abusive of women, somehow make it impossible that he could lead and inspire an entire country to grant their oppressed people greater civil rights and freedoms? No.
Anyway, Al, I think you should give up trying to twist logic in the service of your propaganda(read – forgone conclusions), at least here on this blog. Stick to Tony O’s blog, where you have an admiring following who already have a ready-made anti-LRH bias. You get plenty of positive strokes there. Be content with those.
Well, I can’t let this go by: “Stick to Tony O’s blog, where you have an admiring following who already have a ready-made anti-LRH bias. You get plenty of positive strokes there. Be content with those.”
Valkov, Why don’t you stick to Marty’s blog where you, I guess, have an admiring ready made Pro-LRH bias (or at least it used to be). Has some discontent become visible there and if so, so what? My snarkyness aside….. ‘Open’ communication is still the key!
I read four blogs regularly and Isene’s blog has always impressed me as being fair, looking for truth, high toned and intelligent. I’ve learned so much from all these blogs, sites, keep up with current SN news plus research. My purpose is to find the truth for myself, by looking at different viewpoints and facts, not just agree with a particular group, as in the past. I hope to help others that need/want information or encouragement, through learning and educating myself.
Tony’s blog has been most beneficial to me and others for news, facts and some fun. The fact one is dealing with some raw public or wogs, btw, like we all were at one time, most are very intelligent and know more about the subject and where to find proof and they speak up. One can learn a lot from these people who also include many ex’s and some indies. One who gets his head out of the sand can look and grant beingness, if that’s of interest, of course, meanwhile to be helpful to others for their own understanding. The majority want to see changes occur within the organization. You’d be surprised how much most of them care about all the abuses and members. They are interested in how this all came about, the truth and what they can do to help.
By expanding or allowing, one can see the the bigger picture and hopefully see the win, win.
@DeE
That was a really good summary of your activity on the different blogs and how you view the info and what you hope to gain. ” My purpose is to find the truth for myself, by looking at different viewpoints and facts, not just agree with a particular group, as in the past. I hope to help others that need/want information or encouragement, through learning and educating myself.”
This is what I love about the blogs as well, and about the Internet in general. I am more hopeful about the future than I have ever been as a result. When I first began this evolution a few years ago, I found myself despairing that there would ever be anything but a world constrained into a sort of super controlled society running on unthinking and heavily conditioned obedience, coalesced into a two-layer schema of entitled order givers/makers and disenfranchised order receivers/followers. This layering effect was what I saw in the evolution of the current C of S as it increasingly sought to super-control its own members and “rule the world” instead of empowering individual endeavor and diversity. I no longer fear this outcome, for as I read the blogs and the comments, I am continually heartened by the tremendous goodwill I find, whether expressed in scathing and critical voice. fearful exaggeration, carefully considered intellectual argument or blind love of group and friend. Its extraordinary and exciting.
Yesterday I stumbled upon a petition being raised to send to the government of India,the Verma Commission, and the Mehra Commission, calling to urgently strengthen sexual violence legislation and enforcement, and to launch a massive public education program with hard-hitting and high quality content designed to bring about a profound shift in the shameful attitudes that permit and promote violence against women. When I first accessed the petition there were just over 600,000 signatures. In the last 12 hours, that number has jumped to just shy of 820,000. You can see the signatures as they come in every 1 to 2 seconds from locations all over the world. I was mesmerized and heartened and grateful, just watching this amazing demonstration of the love of people from all walks of life raising their voice in a concert of goodwill. You can see it here — it is a wonderful thing: http://www.avaaz.org/en/end_indias_war_on_women/?bWPEKab&v=20663
I share your purpose De E and I believe that all of the participants on this blog do too, coming from a diverse set of viewpoints and approaches that all contribute to what I believe is just the beginning of a new era in the dream of a new civilization.
Happy New Year!.
Thank you Maria, I love the way you write and think and I learn so much from you and others here.
“I am continually heartened by the tremendous goodwill I find, whether expressed in scathing and critical voice. fearful exaggeration, carefully considered intellectual argument or blind love of group and friend. Its extraordinary and exciting.” YES!
What a fast moving site given above with “end indias war on women” wow, I was impressed, signed up and emailed. They are about at 833,000 now. Thank you so much for this.
deE,
In fact I read 3 blogs fairly regularly – Geir’s blog, Marty’s blog, and Tony O’s blog. I used to visit ESMB occasionally , and still do, but rarely. There is a lot of good information on ESMB. I also used to read WWP. That is a great site for links to LRH audio materials – his lectures, which can be downloaded for free.
Both Tony O’s blog and ESMB are safe harbors for what I call “anti-LRH groupies”.
Can you deny that a certain number of posters on Tony’s blog and ESMB too, are “knee-jerk LRH haters”?
I never posted that ALL the commenters on those sites are like that. But there are some who are there simply there to chime in with “Lynch LRH! Lynch LRH!” as their sole contribution. Sometimes they don’t actually known beans about Scientology, either. They are not even Ex-scientologists. They are there just for the cheers and beers, like the occasional individuals at ball games whose main contribution is screaming “Kill the umpire!”
Which is OK, “everybody’s got to be something….” as they say around here near where I live.
None of this negates the intelligent aware and informed people who also post there, and on ESMB. There are some true Boddhisatva regulars on ESMB.
Heck, I post on Tony O’s blog occasionally myself. And used to post on ESMB, but not as Valkov. Got somethumb’s ups and good feedback for some of my posts.
I call’em as I see’em. It’s best not to generalize. The “anti groupies” are there. Often they equate “scientology” with “church of scientology” and have no clue about the philosophy or technical applications, at least not based on their own study. They just propagate the line that :”TRs are hypnotism” and such, which they heard or read somewhere from some “authority” who didn’t study the philosophy in detail, or do any practical, either.
I would encourage Al to go back to ESMB, but I believe he is still banned from there. Inthe meantime ,in some ways Tony’s blog is “the New ESMB” and Al can and does get many positive strokes there.
There are two things that need to be added about Alanzo’s participation:
1) his admitted interest is primarily stirring things up (ostensibly to get “believers” to look)
2) his comments are most often aimed at persons, not arguments, with the effect of causing polarization of critics against person(s)
These points constitute the characteristics of a troll, which I would guess Al would embrace rather than deny.
While his comments get critical traction I have not seen any impact of them amongst the several of us who critically examine the PRODUCTS of Scientology, seeing where the tech is adequate and under what conditions it would fail, as opposed to the personality (and even the sanity, although end-of-life sanity issues might be new news) of LRH.
I have said several times that LRH should have issued a policy “Do as I Say, Not as I Sometimes Aberratively Do”.
The problems with his leadership certainly went beyond that but the real point is that we can now look at that (at least those of us not in the CoS), dust ourselves off and go about planning a better way to deliver Scientology.
I do understand that Al thinks Scientology is so dangerous that it should be banned, burned and scattered to the winds. There has been a lot to give him ammunition in that regard, if the positive results are totally ignored.
Valkov has suggested this blog is more a para-scientology blog than a pro-scientology blog. That’s also my take and where I’d like to see the OP’s taken even more deeply – not that we don’t seem to end up on that path anyhow – but as a para-scientology blog, trollish diversions are just a waste of time.
The basic point here is that a blog thread starts with an OP (original post) and the comments should generally deal with the content of the OP. In the case of a New Year and possibly a New Age we have waxed a little enthusiastically and had a few dust-ups but have overall come out much more cohesive and even considerate of opposing views. All that in spite of Al but not because of him.
And while that comment may cause a kefuffle it is said in the spirit of actions that forward progress here and don’t detract from it. So my suggestion for dealing with an intent to troll is: look at the comment; decide if it is on the OP or just intended to incite; if it’s intended to incite then do your best to ignore it and just continue on the thread of the OP.
As Valkov has said, there are already blogs out there taken up with the intent to take down Scientology. Spleen venting should be done on those venues.
It would be nice if we could have at least one venue where the focus was simply on progress and, sure, ways to correct the failings. There is enough bandwidth required for just that that it justifies the internet maxim “Don’t feed the trolls.”
“It would be nice if we could have at least one venue where the focus was simply on progress and, sure ways to correct the failings.”
What a concept! Awesome post! 🙂
Hey Vlkov, thanks for answering me. I read your post 3 times and so much to take up, finally I got it, and that is… I’d love to bull-bait with you. 🙂
I am not so sure that this is a “para-Scientology” blog at all but I am absolutely sure that it is Geir Isene’s personal blog, entitled “Explorer of Free Will.” This is what Geir says is the purpose of this blog:
“Among the various pages on this site, you will find creations of art, music, fiction, philosophy, programming and other technical stuff, HP calculators, thought provoking blog posts and much more.
Blog posts will range from Philosophy and Scientology, IT, Intellectual “property” and politics, physics, mathematics and astronomy, art and HP calculators, and whatever else pops to mind”
Geir is remarkably tolerant, only stepping in when personal insults get outrageously out of hand to his way of thinking. He extends his welcome to you two and to Alanzo as well and anyone else who wishes to contribute, with little to no evaluation of each individual’s communication style and complete freedom for any to express their opinion, even when that opinion is diametrically opposed to his own. I find he has an amazing sense of humor, and many of the posts that appear to be trolling are hilarious caricatures and off the wall diatribes — you should know Valkov, you are one of the people famous for caustic, yet extremely funny posts that on many blogs wouldn’t get past moderation and honestly, I really do try to put my coffee cup down when one of the over the top exchanges between you and Alanzo starts up!
To Geir: I’m happy!
Maria – thank you for that great acknowledgment!
@De E
Thanks for the nice acknowledgment DeE! I have come to enjoy all of the diverse communication on these various blogs and I love it when some comment jars me to the nth degree — I see it as an opportunity to examine what about it is so jarring. I learn so much that way! Vinaire made a post the other day that really went BANG in my universe and I decided I would see if I could track down what about it was so dissonant for me. I found it, but it wasn’t to do with reason at all, and really couldn’t be articulated in those terms. While struggling to find some means of articulating what I had found, the Poco song Crazy Love came to mind, a song I have not even thought of for at least 30 years! And it perfectly expressed the sense of what I had discovered. Really nice catch!
I’ve been going back to the petition website — its gone from 833,000 to 873,000. It’ll hit a million tonight for sure! Yesterday I sat and watched the new signatures come in and there were hundreds from South America and Europe with a scattering from North America and Asia. About an hour ago I looked again, this time there are hundreds and hundreds from North America, and in between every country in the world now. So amazing!
Maria, I too enjoy diversity and a nice song is always a winner! 🙂
“It’ll hit a million tonight for sure!” That is so amazing, yes, to watch just splendid.
Shows how around the planet, all these individuals are trying to make something go right, and help, each an individual yet all working together, a force for justice and truth. What a wonderful game we can play and win, with our higher priorities.
De E — that website has reached the million signatures target and is still going strong!
Hello guys and gals,
My lap is so old that it can’t at all handle the speed of your comments. It’s not seen negative in any way to reflect just a tiny little fraction of consequences before you write your own ideas for the next comment. Yes, I will buy me a Macbook air 13” asap, meaning way before I buy food or any other stimuli, but 15000 Nok is a lot of money for me in these times. Of course, if any of you seriously intellectual individuals, especially those made of money, could buy one of my pictures, the world would go on more smoothly as i can relax fully and have an awful lot of fun so to speak at the same consequence. The new trend word is of course PC, as in Per Consequence, which is a much more precise way of expressing yourself .)
Have a magic touch. 🙂
– –
Slack
and
RockmyStar on Twitter, Youtube and Urørt.
I would recommend all participants to ignore violations of the discussion policy as stated below:
The purpose of a discussion is to learn by exchanging viewpoints. One uses experience and experimentation to obtain data and then brings it to the table to be discussed.
The participants in a discussion focus on the subject and not on each other. A discussion is not a debate where one is in a contest to win argument against others. There is no need for sophistry. In a discussion there are no opponents. All participants are on the same side. On the other side may just be ignorance. In a discussion each participant’s viewpoint is bound to change and evolve as he/she learns from the data pooled together by all.
Thus, a discussion is a cooperative effort. There is no reason to censor any data in a discussion. The data simply needs to be examined in detail.
However, there are distractions that can keep one from discussing a subject. Such distractions may be introduced in the following ways:
1. Defending a viewpoint instead of looking at the inconsistency generated by it.
Some people literally view God as a person who has created this universe. They completely ignore the inconsistency that a person has a form that occupies space, and that form and space are also things that are created as part of the universe. So, God cannot be a person and the creator of the universe. But such people, who believe that god is literally a person, would not like to discuss this inconsistency. They would simply insist that their viewpoint is right. They would reject others who think differently.
2. Focusing on participants instead of tackling the data being presented in a discussion.
This is what happens in the situation described in (1) above. But otherwise too, any focus on participants rather than on the subject of discussion causes much distraction. Such an action may involve commenting on the perceived behavior and characteristics of another participant; and/or becoming accusative, emotional and combative.
3. Not providing clarification of one’s viewpoint in a disagreement, instead calling the other person wrong.
In any disagreement effort should be made to clarify one’s viewpoint as much as possible. Not doing so, and simply saying that the other person is wrong, does not resolve anything. It only produces distraction.
4. Not caring in a disagreement if the other person clarifies his/her viewpoint or not.
A person can be so convinced about being right that he would not even ask the other person for further clarification in a disagreement. He would not even listen if the other person offers any clarification. He simply would not engage in a discussion. This kind of behavior also produces much distraction.
.
Thus, distractions to discussion come from a person who does not want to engage in the discussion in the first place. He could be treating the discussion as a debate, or he may simply want to be right. He has got his mind made up and closed. The above four behaviors are indicative of that.
.
Vin, that is wonderful! Why not lead by example?
I am doing my best.
.
Ps: Should those be the rules or purpose of this thread. Is it? Just askin’.
BTW Vin, you provide many, many laughs for me, along with some exasperation due to the apparent, tho sincere, proselytizing, IMHO.
Well, I’m not here to “look for inconsistencies” in the first place, so I guess those rules don’t apply to me? 🙂
Hey you,
I am – Therefore – You are.
– –
Thank you.
– –
1. What do you demand from me?
2. I demand minimum 75 % Theta in every comm cycle from this consequence on. All other comm will be ignored completely. If that is too much for you I suggest you ignore me. .) Vinaire, yes. If you are unsure what real Theta is, wordclear that single term.
3. First policy is stated on my site. (Definition of an SP)
4. Second policy says the following: We hang each other with the existing rules described in my post re. Star Hang System.
5. Now we may be able to land the cos, psyches, christians, buddhists etc. with minimum pain caused. In that case, we choose a leader for the so called Theta Universe, hereafter TU. Suggestions must be announced on my very own home page in the form of a reply. The leader will be credited in due time, that might be minutes, hours or even longer. It’s all a matter of consequences. Minimum of 80 % is needed for the leader to be in the right role.
We just need abundance of theta, that’s all there is to it.
Create – splurge on it.
Maria, fantastic song you brought up tonight.
My, possibly, last words, are these:
Be who or what you cannot be. i am me whatever you might see.
– –
Slack
Love it Slack! Join you in the TU.
I am to you, whatever you make me out to be.
Relief, on an instant basis, deElizabethan. 🙂
– –
Let’s say I want you to answer the first question of my 5-point-plan. I also tell you that in practical fact I am the TU leader even though Astrid Nora Finseth has been known, in certain circles, to be the leader of TU since some time after 3,75 billion years or the creation of the physical reality a lot of us call the MEST Universe.
I am working 24/7 to save this struggling sector 0.
I actually had 2 minutes off some minutes ago.
That felt beyond magic. -Truly, it did.
Remember that I just want you to be you to the fullest. Do you or anyone else here at Geirs Palace want to be appointed the leader of TU? If so, who of you are most capable of spreading Theta around?
Now, of course, all the 3 I call the B-gang, really want to talk with me – that’s crazy, wild and more.
There is so much going on in my head right now that it’s hard to breathe and relax fully at the same time. Remember to duplicate our SHS – Star Hang System. You didn’t believe 75 % came right from my heart, did you? .)
Roughly 50/50 is the final deal for my exchange with every other life unit, minimum, that is.
– –
Slack,
dancing with a scarf enjoying Cries like a baby and more. %)
“Remember that I just want you to be you to the fullest……………… most capable of spreading Theta around.”
This year or this second, I am working on being me to the fullest in flowing out some snark, truth and a sprinkle of theta and having fun doing it. Maybe being a bit of TU too! Yes, I felt the sprinkle back and makes me smile even if I do it myself, I’ll give you the credit since you are an inspiration or, 50/50. It is magic isn’t it?
Thanks Slack, glad you liked it!
.)
457 replies after just a “Happy New Year!” wish… Well, if there is a virtual agora, here is the place. Nice way of beginning 2013, Geir! 🙂 I think you should start to imagine something new, something that could reinvent blogging. It’s not a joke, think about it.
Dragos,
As a matter of fact you have a lot of “responsibility” for these comments. 🙂
1) Obviously, Geir wants to create a mystery about June 23 2014.
2) So, I started a thread for guessing about June 23 2014. (Ferenc Francisco 2013-01-01 at 02:34)
3) You joked: “Poor Geir…let him alone, don’t suffocate him with predictions :-)” (Dragos 2013-01-01 at 14:32)
4) Marildiv replied to your comment with a reference to Scientology Axiom 10. (marildi 2013-01-01 at 20:14)
And the rest is history …
It reminds me the butterfly effect.
http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-the-butterfly-effect.htm
By the way, my best guesses are:
¤ On June 23 2014 there will be some kind on monetary or financial reward for Geir.
¤ Geir will start his retirement.
Retirement??? Maybe from the golf club, if he is member in any of it. No way! He’s an active man. What not something happier? Wedding or becoming again a father? Anything is possible. Think positive 🙂
Let me get back to Chris’s original post that created all this activity on this thread.
http:// isene.me/ 2012/ 12/ 30/happy-new-year/ #comment-26548
In that quote from Scn 8-8008, Hubbard is talking about Identity versus Individuality as if they are two entirely different things. Are they?
(1) Individuality comes from the peculiarity of considerations associated with self.
(2) Here I am using consideration in the sense of any thought (speculation, assumption, idea, opinion, judgment, decision,… you name it).
(3) Self is a sense of “center of considerations” analogous to “center of mass.” This is not based on any authority. It is based on how it appears to me.
(4) So, individuality is associated with self, because the group of considerations, represented by self, are peculiar.
(5) When there are no considerations, there is no self either. There is only a fluid perception point without individulaity.
(6) Self is a perception point fixed by considerations that give it an individuality.
(7) Identity comes about as fixations enters through interlocking of considerations. It is self overalyed with another layer of fixation.
(8) The idea of onion presents a great analogy here. Each layer of onion would represent an identity. As we peel off these layers of onion, the self will emerge at the center of onion.
(9) As we get rid of that center also by getting rid of everything around it, we are left with a fluid perception point which is free of any considerations… free of the whole onion.
.
In my opinion, Hubbard did not look all the way through on the subject of individuality.
.
Maria, I read your discussion with Marildi with interest. It is my opinion that Marildi’s onion will start peeling off sooner or later. 🙂
.
Please note that I added link to an electronic copy of an old version of Scn 8-8008, whose copyright has expired and which is in public domain. You may easily search any concept in this electronic copy… knowledge is free… yay!
Let’s take this reference presented by Chris in “Comment-26548.”
(By the way, you may click on the date of any comment to get the “comment URL” at the top… then change the comment# to the number given here, and you will get to the comment I am referring to):
“The trouble with O.T.s in the past has only been lack of cooperation and a commonly agreed upon objective. Without these O.T.s eventually fall prey again to smaller beings with bigger organization skill. O.T. is an unstable state only when O.T.s are not cooperating with O.T.s but each going his own way in the strong but fatuous belief he can single-handedly survive. The proof is, O.T.s have not survived as O.T.s whenever this super-individuation collided with the super organization of weaker beings. The answer is to remain organized, with mutual assistance and integrity and not lose touch with or responsibility for all levels of life forms and societies. This means that programmes for such agreement must be offered. — L. Ron Hubbard, HCOPL of 25 June 1963
The situation Hubbard is addressing here is lack of cooperation and a commonly agreed upon objective among OTs. Now OTs are the ultimate in individuality. After all that auditing, OTs have shed off all their identities. What does that mean?
That simply means that they have shed off all the fixed interlocking among their considerations, but the considerations are still there. Each OT has his or her peculiar considerations, which bestows individuality upon them. In the absence of these considerations their would be no difference from one OT to another. Any idea of a potential difference would again be a consideration. So, we are talking about an absence of that consideration as well.
Hubbard wants all the OTs to have the same considerations to act in unison. This would result in losing the individuality.
That’s where lies the inconsistency in Hubbard’s theory. You can’t have the cake and eat it too. 🙂
.
Thank you.
That was a very good synopsis of my thoughts on the matter.
Oops, my last reply should have come under Chis’ comment of “That was a very good synopsis of my thoughts on the matter”. Here it is again:
You mean your thoughts on the matter are the same as Vinaire’s – just your opinions, not based on anything in the actual reference quoted? Or, for that matter, any other references? That could explain why you refused to discuss it with me.
As long as there is the concept of “survival” , there is the concept of ” fear” and also there is the concept of “personal will “. At any “level”. Fear is still Mind.
These are various considerations. One should be able to change one’s considerations. If one cannot then there is an inconsistency.
.
So the alternative to organizing or acting in agreement on anything is anarchy? That’s what you 2 seem to be saying. If you co-operate with your wife by coming to dinner on time, you
“lose your individuality”?
Uhhhhh, “gimme a break”?
There is nothing absolute. You have your break. 🙂
.
Well Vin, the way you stated it – “Hubbard wants all the OTs to have the same considerations to act in unison. This would result in losing the individuality.
That’s where lies the inconsistency in Hubbard’s theory. You can’t have the cake and eat it too. 🙂 ” – it sounded pretty absolute.
If absolutes are unobtainable, then perhaps there is actually no inconsistency here? Or over there, either?
Valkov, What is consistent with my considerations is the following:
“The Absolute Truth is that there is nothing absolute in the world, that everything is relative, conditioned and impermanent, and that there is no unchanging, everlasting, absolute substance like Self, Soul, or Ātman within or without.” ~ Buddha
If your interpretation of LRH materials is consistent with the above then I have no problem with your interpretation.
.
Vin, in the quote of Buddha he says there’s “no unchanging, everlasting, absolute substance like Self…” From the use of the word “substance” I don’t see that he is talking about thetan, which is defined as being a static and thus would have no substance. It would make more sense that he’s referring to what LRH called an “individual”, which is defined as “the composite of all his facsimiles, plus the impulse to be” (HFP). That particular entity is the one that would have no absolute substance.
In the exchanges about “self” it occurs to me that some people may be using the word to mean thetan. while you are using it with the meaning of “individual”.when you say there is no self. Is that true?
Valkov, that is a good question. The answer is that I see “consideration” as a substance too.
I see progression of substance as follows:
(Consideration –> Space –> Energy –> Matter) –> Time
I put “Time” outside the parentheses above, because it is a measure of the “condensation” from Consideration to Matter.
As long as there is consideration attached to thetan or Static, these concepts have substance.
.
The above response is to Marildi.
.
The definition of thetan is essentially “a no substance thing”, which is essentially the same as the definition given to Brahma as “beyond consideration”. Both words describe a “something” that is without substance. How can you accept one and not the other?
To me, thetan is a consideration derived from Theta-MEST Theory. Individuality is a consideration, and consideration has substance.
To me “pure potential” is also a consideration per the “neti-neti” principle.
.
To me, individuality is neither absolute nor permanent, and that applies to the concept of thetan. I see thetan as an apparent “center of considerations.”
.
To me, there cannot be any permanency or no permanency to something that is not part of a time stream. That is how I see it. Now that I have said it, I see no reason to beat that argument to death by bringing it up many more times in this or other threads. That is also how I see it.
I am not as certain as you are.
Only thing I know is that I don’t know. 🙂
.
Vin: “Hubbard wants all the OTs to have the same considerations to act in unison. This would result in losing the individuality.”
There is a rationale behind forming a group: a group offers more survival potential than an individual. That is why the 3rd dynamic (groups) is higher than the 2nd which is higher than the 1st.
Being on a 3rd dynamic does not mean sacrificing all one’s 1st dynamic or one’s 2nd. The inversion of that idea (sacrifice for the 3rd) is an aberration of the original dynamic structure.
Vin, does Hinduism have some similar construct for the group? All cultures are formed around groups and while all individuals of a civilized, law based society sacrifice either agree to or are forced to limit certain individual desires, that is generally considered acceptable.
Hubbard’s idea of OTs collaborating as a group is no different, so yes, a certain amount of individuality must be sacrificed to have a workable group.
But the whole of Scientology is based on premise of individuality. This idea of individuality is enshrined in Scientology Axiom #1. It underpins the whole philosophy of Scientology. Here we are talking about more than just first dynamic. The idea of dynamics is a secondary thing. It is the breakdown of the purpose, according to Hubbard, which drives that individuality The first dynamic is a small part of that purpose.
So, dynamics are secondary to the basic concept of individuality. Please don’t confuse individuality with the first dynamic. In Scientology the eighth dynamic would be the fulfillment of that individuality.
Hinduism is based on freedom of thought. It looks at all religions as part of the same family. There is no conversion in Hinduism because there is no special kind of knowledge. One should look at all knowledge.
Cultures are formed around its fundamental thought. Hinduism originally was a very open culture. With interaction of other cultures that tried to rule over it, it has been messed up. All those traumas need to be run out.
.
The philosophy of Scientology is based on the concept of the Static. There is no individuality to the concept of a Static. There is no separation possible in Static – since there is no space involved. Static is pure potential. Nothing more.
Geir,
WOW ! At last ! Alan Watts also SPOKE OUT ! Truth ! Come on ! Truth !
That is not correct. Please see my critique of Scientology Axiom #1. It has been posted on your blog a couple of times.
Sent from my iPad
I believe my summary here is correct and that your criticism is incorrect.
Did you just reject my answer/observation 😉
That’s a gotcha moment, hahaaa.
Isene, your replies crack me up! 🙂
It is all consideration. 🙂
.
@G: Agreed but to be fair, the subject is muddy. Plus “the Static” is Hubbard’s conjecture which provides the placebo that allows my considerations to say, “over there — a state outside the state of being a state” something to reach for, to quell my nerves while I re-adjust my considerations. “Static” is a stable datum and not a static, at least that’s how I find myself thinking about it.
Then I think you are adding to a static something that isn’t there.
Yes Geir, anything I would add to the static is not there. The considerations about how Static may consider, etc., are Hubbard’s additive conjectures about Static, right?
Not quite – pure potential includes any potential. No is-ness, but potential for any is-ness.
Ah, I see. Can that be for real?
@G – I think you are going to the physics idea of wave-function or Higgs Field or somesuch with your comment about Static to me being not and isness but a potential for any isness.
If I’m following you then is this comment of 2X and his LRH ref in the same line of country?
“Scn 8-80 ref:This static has the peculiarity of acting as a “mirror”. It records and holds the images of motion. It even can create motion and record and hold the image of that. It records also space and time in order to record motion which is, after all, only “change in space through time”. Played against motion as a kinetic, the static can produce live energy.”
. . .or not?
Potential is also an additive.
Sent from my iPhone
Chris, one of the qualities LRH said a static should have (Scn 8-80, sorry exact ref not at hand) is the ability to act as a mirror of anything that it perceived. Mirroring could go so far as the ability to make a mirror image of itself, in other words, a copy.
Then, of course, the copies could make copies.
As tough as the concept of the static is to grasp, it does allow the answering, in a logical way, of all the questions of creation.
In an earlier posting you asked how many thetans it would take to create a universe. I had another thought about that so I’ll try find that section and post it on that thread. The answer satisfies a few more questions I’ve been dealing with. Perhaps it will elicit more questions from you that will be of further help to an advancement of the topic.
Cool. Your comment dredged up my failure to understand anti-matter. Oh I can glibly recite the definition but I don’t understand it. Any relation to this “mirroring” you describe?
Chris: “Your comment dredged up my failure to understand anti-matter. Oh I can glibly recite the definition but I don’t understand it. Any relation to this “mirroring” you describe?”
There wouldn’t have to be a direct relation. But I want to got back to your question abbout how many thetans it takes to screw in a light bulb…
The main problem I had with a single thetan model was how to account for all the dimensions that physicists see as necessary to define the quantum structure. What your question stimulated was the realization that a group of thetans could account for it. Here’s how: the basic mechanism is spacation – enlarging and then shrinking one’s space (while you can probably do this to a degree, a thetan in very good shape would have been able to do it to a very large degree. Think kiloton lightyears per Planck second). So that idea brings up a picture of something like a beachball inflatingto full extent and deflating to a pinpoint over and over, very quickly. Just consider if it was only a beach ball doing that and you were trying to hold it compressed. Think how hot you’d get from the workout.
Now get the concept of a beach ball within a beach ball doing the same thing. If they are expanding and contracting at exactly the same rate and in the same phase (both expanding together or both contracting together), you really wouldn’t notice a difference from what you noticed with one beach ball. Let’s call that a one dimensional cycle.
But, if one goes through an expanding cycle and the other goes through a contracting cycle you’d have a very different effect, especially when we add the property that one beach ball can pass through the walls of the other beach ball. The holder of the balls now has even more energy to deal with. When the phasing of the expanding and contracting is such that one completely fills exactly at the same time the other one completely empties we have a condition that is the equivalent of two dimensions.
Getting to a third dimension with beach balls stalls but we are familiar with 3 dimensions so if we go back to considering thetans, and we get 3 of them expanding and contracting in a particular arrangement (maybe think flat, round plates this time; plates that can expand far and contract back to zero) then we have 3 dimensions.
Although tis model can be continued to any number of dimensions, let’s just say that 6 to 10 thetans doing this in harmony, expanding a dimension and then collapsing it, rapidly, could set up a standing wave pattern with a staggering amount of energy in it and all the conditions required to set off a big bang.
After that it would all be history.
The moment one attaches a consideration to Static, it doesn’t remain Static any more. In other words what one is saying has nothing to do with the true Static. This includes saying that Static is a potential for anything. This is also a consideration added to the Static.
.
Yes, Hubbard has been inconsistent. It is almost like Hubbard had two different definitions for Static.
.
When I was in Scientology, I looked at Static as equivalent to Brahma, but I was severely corrected on Flag for that. But my gains came as long as I maintained that equivalence.
.
.
I also took to the definition of Static as that “thing” which is no-thing. I have been corrected for that as well yet made gains in my thinking commensurate to my thinking in that way. Geir has made a remark about potential which sounds like a twilight between something and absolutely nothing so I am curious if he can shed more light on that concept.
That, my friend, is covered in my article “On Will”
Now i use the concept of BRAHMA or UNKNOWABLE in place of STATIC, and I am doing very well. 🙂
That is absolutely all that matters! oops. I used absolutely in two posts in a row.
Scn 8-80 ref:
This static has the peculiarity of acting as a “mirror”. It records and holds the images
of motion. It even can create motion and record and hold the image of that. It records also
space and time in order to record motion which is, after all, only “change in space through
time”. Played against motion as a kinetic, the static can produce live energy.
I don’t agree with this summation, Geir. It’s like saying that the philosophy of Christianity is based on the concept of God, therefore no individuality is possible there.
99.% of scientology is about anything and everything except the Static. It is all about everything that potential brings forth. Since the potential is as far as we know infinite, it includes the potential for existence of individuality. Scientology is explicitly all about increasing the abilities and awarenesses of individuals from the get-go
It’s also not accurate in my view, to say that something can or cannot exist in or with regards Static. When you do that, you are hypostatizing Static. If you limit Static in any way, it is no longer Static you are talking about, but some concept you have formed of it. some consideration you have created about it, not “thething in itself”. Yes, I know Static is not a “thing”. That’s exactly my point.
I said “based on”.
I will let you and Vin flog this one to death.
My EXPERIENCE is the STATIC as well as the Higgs field (before knowing about its existence by reading about it). Awakening happened to me a year ago. Live with the Flow. Did scientology before it. Studied/cleared hard. The Axioms are true. Just different
wording. The static is a fact. There is no separation.
Did that awakening add to or alter your ideas about the dynamics and ethics?
Good post, Valkov.
.
I know you said that, about it being “based on”, Geir, and I figured it was to stimulate some discussion.
And yet it wasn’t, because it was apparently discovered by methods of study proceeding from effect back to cause.
However it also has always seemed to me that LRH already knew or recalled the Axioms. But he still had to do the work of proving them out in practice.
Valkov,
No. Scientology is the “taking away” of the “concepts” of individuality step by step.
MT, not quite sure what you’re saying “No.” to, here:
“Valkov,
No. Scientology is the “taking away” of the “concepts” of individuality step by step.”
The map is not the territory. Taking away the “concepts” of individuality is not the same as taking away the actuality of individuality.
I recall frightening someone once, who was interested in Scientology because she dreamed of being “pure mind”. I mentioned that one could go further and attain a state of a having no mind at all. She did not like this one bit, because she associated that with a condition of imbecility, inability to think etc, a kind of very unfree vegetative state, like a grinning idiot or lobotomized person.
When in fact it can be, and originally was, quite the opposite, a state of immediacy with no artificial sense channels, “mind”, or other vias involved.
Recently there was a post on Marty’s blog by some who was incredulous about some R-factor she was given at Flag about NOTs or perhaps about soloing on OTVII. It had something to do with there being (in my own words) no longer any subject or object at that level, only the auditing taking place. Well, this missed her reality completely and turned out, for her, to be evaluative.
If I can somehow locate this comment I will copy it, but I’m not sure how to even begin searching for it. I wish I had noted or copied it when I read it, it was quite noteworthy.
In any case, my point was that I believe LRH was consciously aware of much of the Axioms from the beginning, but had to workout the mechanics in detail. This is based on listening/reading to some of his lectures from that time period. He explains, among other things, why most people have a lot of trouble remembering the Axioms verbatim.
My other point would be this – the reason it is called “awareness of awareness” is because that is literally what it is – an “I” that is the root of of the “I” – an I of the I. This is the I that is able to be both I and You, and Him and Her all at the same time, and that is Pan-determinism. But it is still an “individuality”. However it is not any particular “identity”. It is the center of awareness which is aware of being aware. At bottom it still makes decisions that may not be the same decisions “you” make, or assume quite the same viewpoints that you assume, in totality. Scientology could be said, similar to what you posted, to be the removal of identities until what is left is the pure individuality in it’s complete integrity(oneness), no longer alloyed(defiled, stained) by “other identities”(valences, pretences, whatever. (See “OTVIII”). These are not “my ideas” but my attempt to duplicate what LRH said in lecture.
As LRH says, “identity closes space, individuality creates space”, or words towards that effect.
This what LRH conveys to me. As Geir says, “your mileage may vary.”
End bloviation, out.
Great comment, Val!
Val,
Thanks for your comment, got it. One thing to add: there is awareness without being aware. Without any center. More about it later….thanks again!
OK MT, I can give you my perspective on “Awareness without awareness” right now. There’s no such thing, really. One is either aware, to whatever extent, or one is not. Of course there are degrees on a grey scale.
But, there may be awareness without any awareness that there is awareness. One can be aware – any living thing is aware – without having any awareness that one is aware.
Some living things are aware that they are aware. Example: a living body is aware – it perceives an environment around it, and may react to stimuli. When an awareness of awareness unit associates with that living body system, then we can have a situation of something being aware of the awareness taking place between the body and it’s environment.
Actually, an awareness of awareness unit could theoretically associate with a mechanical body which has sensors built into it by which it is aware of its environment. Kinda like a person driving a modern computerized automobile that can park itself and automatically maintain a safe distance from other cars while moving on the road in traffic. Modern jetliners fly themselves to a large extent while the pilot really has little to do except act as it’s “awareness of awareness unit”, monitoring whatever the plane’s sensory systems are reporting.
Well, as you say, more about that later.
To me, awareness implies interaction among considerations. Then there are also considerations about interactions among considerations. Then there are considerations about those considerations that are about interactions among considerations, and so on.
So, I don’t understand why one should stop at “awareness of awareness” and not continue to more degrees as in an infinite series or a fractal!
.
Vin- “To me, awareness implies interaction among considerations. Then there are also considerations about interactions among considerations. Then there are considerations about those considerations that are about interactions among considerations, and so on.
I’d love to see that in clay demo! And don’t ask me too!
V… you are totally lost… in that ancient forest of considerations.. 🙂 no matter which way you look you see one… hehehe..
The comment from Elizabeth above violates the discussion policy.
.
🙂
“violates the discussion policy”
Vin, I see this so often from you it reminds me of someone taking the 5th in court 🙂
This comment violates the discussion policy.
.
Vin, I amend my comment about your discussion policy to “Pleading the 5th”
Geir,
In your view, experience has that potential any “peculiar, different from mest” “qualities”? Like a kind of “tension” out of which creation is born?
Nothing but pure potential. Similar to potential energy in the universe.
BRAHMAN is different from STATIC then because neti-neti frees up BRAHMAN from the consideration of potential even.
.
Mind you – this is my personal view. Your mileage may vary.
Thank you. I’ll stay with neti-neti and BRAHMAN for now.
.
Geir,
Thanks! There is a funny perception : when ” I ” start the day, I actually start no-thing. When I finish the day, it seems that no-thing has happened. So : it’s all no-thing, that is static, that is potential all along!
Vin: “With interaction of other cultures that tried to rule over it, it has been messed up. All those traumas need to be run out”
That’s an interesting observation and certainly the same goes for Scientology, though it’s really been overrun by itself.
Vin:”So, dynamics are secondary to the basic concept of individuality. Please don’t confuse individuality with the first dynamic. In Scientology the eighth dynamic would be the fulfillment of that individuality.”
The logic of that statement (…dynamics are secondary to…) doesn’t make complete sense as one cannot attain the 8th dynamic without fully having in the lower dynamics. The 1st dynamic is the only dynamic on which an individual could (theoretically) operate fully on his own determinism. But if he did so to the detriment of the other dynamics he would collapse them and be unable to reach the 8th.
At the 8th dynamic one would necessarily have both individuality and community (the 8th dyn, the god dyn should imply properties of god including ability to be omnipresent, i.e. in full community with all), so to imply that the 8th is all about individuality is incorrect.
2x, “…one cannot attain the 8th dynamic without fully having in the lower dynamics”.
What you said gives more clarity to this statement about the 8th dynamic.
“The basic characteristic of the individual includes his ability to so expand into the other dynamics. But when the seventh dynamic is reached in its entirety, one will only then discover the true Eighth Dynamic.” (FOT)
In Scientology, one is looking at all eight dynamics from the viewpoint of the individual..These are part of the drive to survive.
In Buddhism, that drive is not there at the level of Nirvana. There is simply “looking” through a fluid non-individual perception point. Even that perception-point merges with the manifestation ultimately.
Maybe there is no manifestation ultimately. There appears to be a manifestation because there is a perception point. Ultimately, they as-is each other analogous to an electron and positron merger.
.
The being encompasses all eight dynamics – IS all of them – which I believe is equivalent to The God Theory. Very similar to your ideas. I think your cramming at Flag was a big mistake.
Yes, that cramming was a mistake. It was done by Dennis Erhlich… and not too pleasantly.
.
My idea is that knowledge goes beyond the being. Being is a subset of knowledge.
It is difficult to wrap one’s wits about that idea.
.
Vin, in one of your posts you have indicated a belief in Brahmanism which, as I understand it, re-absorbs the essence of the individual at some point along the persons development. You also quote Buddha basically saying there is no soul or lasting portion.
Those two concepts appear conflicting. Can you expand on your view of how Buddha and Brahma can give a unifiable viewpoint?
I don’t know what Brahmanism is. I simply talk about BRAHMA, and the “neti-neti” principle that helps realize the concept of Brahma. The “net-neti” principle easily leads one to the intellectual understanding that BRAHMA has to be beyond consideration. But to realize that is something wonderful.
When somebody discovers something about Brahma, then the “net-neti” principle tells him that what the person has discovered is another one of his deep consideration. Brahma is beyond that. So Brahma acts as a carrot to keep looking, and cleaning out all of one’s considerations (hidden, suppressed or newly generated).
Soul may appear to be permanent but it is not permanent. This is because soul is always there when one is looking through it. When soul is not there then one is not aware. There are no moments of one being aware of there being no soul.
If you are running into confusions with these concepts, then please look at the considerations that are out there on this subject, and the considerations that are part of you. Keep looking at them until the intuition comes about why that confusion is there.
Logic doesn’t work well in this “rarefied” atmosphere.
I have tried to explain it here: WHAT IS UNKNOWABLE?
.
Vin: “Ultimately, they as-is each other analogous to an electron and positron merger.”
That’s a conceivable outcome but not necessarily the only one. As an extension of that, along the lines that Scientological thought would take me, the being could simply leave the envelope of this universe and go off and do anything, including starting another universe.
The model of the universe I envisage requires a source for the Higgs field. I have described a model for that based on a multiple of dimensions set up by a multiple of thetans. That model requires either a standing wave pattern (Higgs field) set up by thetans who then depart or a continuing presence by the thetan group to keep the Higgs field energized.
I am beginning to think that the Higgs could simply be a standing wave pattern across some extensive volume (envelope) that our material universe is still expanding into.
In that model no energizing source is required, so God(s) could have left the envelope or could have joined the game in the sandbox they had created. In this case, a thetan reaching the god dynamic would find the room empty, or maybe a note saying “Welcome to the job!”.
I prefer to think that once the 8th dynamic is reached (which may not be possible until all beings are able to reach it – an ethics consideration) a choice will be possible, or actually, more choices to play or not play the game, now knowingly.
I see any universe (and that includes beingness and beings, doingness, havingness, etc.) as an extension from BRAHMAN. As-ising of such extension means a return to BRAHMAN.
A thetan or thetans are part of such extension.
All considerations of models, Higgs Field, dimensions, energization, etc., are also part of such extension.
.
Vin: “I see any universe (and that includes beingness and beings, doingness, havingness, etc.) as an extension from BRAHMAN. As-ising of such extension means a return to BRAHMAN.”
The concept of Brahman is close enough to the concept of Native State that, fundamentally, we see more similarities than differences.
An early goal of brahmanist scholars was to understand origin. That is what I seek to do also by seeking to understand the building blocks of the universe and how the building blocks were built. I consider each step in that direction to be a valid and worthwhile step. If it opens the door to greater ability, that will be a bonus, but knowledge is the first goal.
I’m way ahead of you guys :), or even Ken Ogger’s research discovering the universe machines, a “portion” of theta, continuously creating the universe (at least I hadn’t heard of that until Ferenc posted a comment about it a few months ago).
This was my mostly-serious theory back in Sept 2011:
“[…] Hmmm…maybe PP [pure potential] actually IS in the Universe. After all, why create a game you can’t play? And if God weren’t in fact Here in some meaningful sense, what would there be but a pre-determined, deterministic, be it ever-so-intricately complicated set-up of almost infinite dominoes. A machine. Or, at best, a near-infinite Rube Goldberg machine, just for fun.
“No. I say it’s a kind of board game where, like playing chess against oneself or some chess machine, it’s still a game! And PP gets to be involved, to participate. This would mean that PP is doing all the re-creating of the frames of time – but from the “outside.” Omnipotent PP could easily handle all those spinning plates. And this gets it off OUR plate (whew!), we the semi-potents (at least until we get back together with all the other selves of PP).
“All this would mean that PP is the one continuously re-creating the Original Creation of an energy field and is the one collapsing wave functions as needed to create young new Beings in the expanding Universe Game. All those Beings created by PP, in PP’s image, would be the ones who created – and are creating – all subsequent levels of creation as part of the continuing evolution of the Universe, the Game of Life. (I can think with this theory of evolution better than the one that says the whole physical universe was created at once, with the Big Bang.)
“Whaddoyouthink?”
https://isene.me/2011/09/07/sunchronization-problem/#comment-9380
If PP had been able to create the universe in an instant and if all forms were of “intelligent design”, He wouldn’t have needed 13 + billion years of cool-down before the game could be played. Unless watching the cool-down and evolution was just PP’s petri dish experiment. 🙂
But, good job on the advanced thinking.
What you say is at least similar to what I meant by a continuing evolution. I had the uncertainty principle in mind and the notion that not even the physical universe was pre-ordained to necessarily exist in the form it does now. (But when it comes to physics, I do realize that a little learnin’ is a dangerous thing!)
It takes even less learning to pull a trigger. I think you’re safe. 🙂
LOL 😀
2ndxmr
” Did that awakening add to or alter your ideas about the dynamics and ethics?”
Awakening means that the Flow of Life awakens, the sense of ” I ” (that is separatedness) is gone. In my case there is no “filter” and most of the mind collapsed too. The “feel” of it is kind
of “no-thing”, expanding and contracting and also love and “free energy”. There is a “mind”,
kind of “patterns and concepts” but they are not “mine”, just there. There is a kind of sense “when the mind enters – kind of use of analytical thinking” which is slower than just “knowing”.
I wrote it down because it can give you a kind of perspective that it is a different type of life,
there are no “ideas” “thinkingness” about the dynamics or ethics in it. Just perceiving, knowingness and “intuition”. When there is an “issue”, I just “know” or “don’t know” and if it is in scientology,I look up the reference which pretty much aligns with what I sense/know. The ethics conditions are like this. Seems to be a precise description. The dynamics is actually one Dynamics, “division” is a mind concept – there is no more concept like that here. There is Being, expanding and contracting. I hope I answered your question ( ?)
Marianne: “I hope I answered your question ( ?)”
Answered beautifully. Thank you!
So, it’s “deja-vu all over again”. Hinduism is based on freedom of thought, how many thousands of years ago? As is Scientology, just 60 years ago…..
Yet the physical manifestations of Hinduism and Scientology have resulted in a society with rigid caste system, and the Sea Org and RTC etc on the Scientology side.
Something Gurdjieff said about what happens to the “ray of creation” as it propagates through the material world…..?
In the traditions he studied, creative energy travels through “octaves”, and he said there are 2 points in these “octaves” where there is a “gap” it cannot bridge on its own, where it needs conscious effort from outside or else it will degrade.
History seems to confirm something like this.
Interesting, Val. The use of the word “octave” makes it sound like he’s talking about wave manifestations, like a tone scale.
Have you compared what Gurdjieff is saying to Scn principles? I think you’re one person who won’t necessarily assume I’m trying to reduce everything to Scn. What I’m actually interested in is comparing datums of comparable magnitude and looking at others’ insights to the same phenomena described in Sn, and at their amplification of the same phenomena.
marildi, I did not get into that aspect of it much. I was more interested in the psychological ideas. But yes, scales definitely have much to do with it. Even scales in the musical sense. But much of it parallels stuff like the Know to Mystery scale, scales of condensation and rarification. It’s all of the usual traditional stuff presented in somewhat new ways in more modern language. There is a lot of detail about the structure of the universe that I didn’t really get into at the time.
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_of_Creation
Interestingly enough, you can see that the scale depicted there is “holonic”. That’s a great word that came up on Marty’s blog in his latest post about Wilbur and Van Gogh.
Also note that it can be seen as circular, just as LRH comments about his own scale.
Here’s “holon”: A good word to know:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holon_(philosophy)
Actually 2ndX, if you’ve served in the Sea Org, then you have reality on how little individuality is desired of these members. Possibly this is why staff cannot get auditing? Why the New World Corp is a myth? If auditing reduces the filters; the considerations which comprise the ego, then it wouldn’t serve to have highly processed staff members trying to apply KSW in my opinion.
Bottom line for me is this is simply one of many inconsistencies which could have and should have and would have been ironed out if “The Aims of Scientology” were truly the aims of Scientology rather than just one more PR positioning point in a cascade of them. I’m not making a case for there’s nothing good about Scientology. I’m making a case for learn all you can about all you can and apply what we know for the greater good and press on. Scientology is no more. For any who think that the bones of Scientology should be resurrected and put to better use, the door is wide open as never before. No more interference from COS and no more hidden data lines. To me, this is a slam dunk for anyone interested.
I agree with Geir about placebo and feel that Scientology works very well in that context. And once again, “placebo” is not a downgrade to any mental health technology. Sometimes a person just needs and excuse to get started “looking” as Vinnie says.
I’ve not served in the SO but did a significant amount of time at an org. My estimation of the SO declined in the ’80s to an equivalent of your’s. I doubt, though, that if either you or I had attempted to form a science of the mind, even a good one, that we would have made it past a publisher’s door, let alone set up any sort of organization, good or bad.
What I will say is that the time from 1950 on has been a good learning experience for us all, and to echo your sentiments, maybe we can begin building a better, extended and kinder bridge.
Maybe we can.
Evidently you guys are not using the word “placebo” in the sense in which I understand it:
A placebo (pron.: /pləˈsiboʊ/ plə-SEE-boh; Latin placēbō, “I shall please”[2] from placeō, “I
please”) is a simulated or otherwise medically ineffectual treatment for a disease or other medical condition intended to deceive the recipient. Sometimes patients given a placebo treatment will have a perceived or actual improvement in a medical condition, a phenomenon commonly called the placebo effect.
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo
Care to enlighten me on what you mean by it, or just let me wander in darkness…?
Perhaps send me a sugar pill upon the ingestion of which, i will understand what you mean by the term, without anything further being said?
They are really talking about the placebo effect rather than placebo.
Since the placebo-nocebo school of thought hasn’t answered this, let me paraphrase:
The idea is that if a PC goes into session with the idea he will get gain, then he will (placebo effect). Contrarily, if the PC expects no gain from the session or auditing then no gain will occur (nocebo effect).
As an anecdote, in the early ’80s a person was regged to our org and sold Book 1. It went along smashingly with the PC finding engrams and winning. Then, despite PC willingness to continue she began have headaches and unblowing pains. She was quickly a crying wreck and wanted no more auditing. She reluctantly agreed to a session with a Grad V auditor. In a few hours this PC was handled and later so was the Book 1 auditor. What had he done? Well he’d audited the PC past clear in about 20 hours and then continued the blown-out, exterior PC on engram running, which, as a tech trained person would know, could (and did) have significant consequences. Now, I don’t know what the PC’s expectation was going in, but I doubt it was “Clear”, and I know she went into that Grad V session reluctantly and with very bad indicators. I saw her. What emerged, though, was a glowing, restored Clear who went on to be a powerhouse staff member in the SO. The type the SO and the rest of us could be proud of.
After consideration of this topic on placebo-nocebo I can’t say I’d know the limit of gain from the placebo effect but I would suspect it would generally be short term with a roller coaster effect. For those who got long term gains from the placebo effect, hurrah!
From my own point of view and experience, gains were usually won with hard work both by auditor and PC. Hard meaning both put their hats on, the auditor to guide, the PC to dig. At the end of it, though, the PC had an ABILITY gained which went well beyond the wins and cognitions had along the way.
And it is Abilities Gained that are the true hallmark and indicator of progress up the bridge.
As a post script I will also say that other frames of enhancement might work equally well or better than the Scientology bridge. The anecdotal evidence is accumulating for that. I will say, though, that Scientology, in the hands of a skilled practitioner who really understands the mind is fantastically powerful. I wouldn’t say, however, that it is a route for everyone.
2x, please say more about the other types of enhancement that you say might work as well or better than Scientology. Geir said he would be writing a post on this too and I’ve been interested.
Also, from your experience or study of it, how would you classify the people that Scientology would not be a route for?
Marildi: “please say more about the other types of enhancement that you say might work as well or better than Scientology.”
I believe what I said was there was anecdotal evidence of other things working. Today on Marty’s blog, for instance, there was a video of a practicer of meditation who demonstrated some significant mind control clearly shown on a simple EEG. The missing data was how an OT would compare but it was an impressive performance.That’s just a handy reference for your question but there have been other comments I’ve seen (but won’t go looking for) that support the claim anecdotally.
As far as my idea on who will best benefit from Scientology I’d say that the person has to have a seeking attitude, not be totally antagonistic to the subject, to start with, then ideally read and attempt DMSMH (both delivering and receiving), and then find an Indie field auditor. I think that the goal of learning about the mind is fundamentally necessary. That goal will help a person get over many of the hurdles and occassional losses that seem to occur even with well delivered auditing.
Yes, I saw that post and other such things and I too have wondered how they actually compare to Scn abilities.
As for the things needed to benefit from Scn, what you say makes total sense. At least some of that was stated by LRH too. “A seeking attitude” I think is what he called “hopes or desires for auditing or knowingness” in HCO PL Sources of Trouble. And “not be totally antagonistic to the subject to start with” is also covered in that PL, Also, from what I know about LRH’s stress on training and from my own experience, it makes sense to “ideally read and attempt DMSMH (both delivering and receiving)”. That is where you get a basic understanding of how the mind works.
Thanks for that!
The problem with auditing that I see is
(1) Dependence on another person (OK in the beginning)
(2) Dependence on processes (OK in the beginning)
(3) Dependence on e-meter (maybe OK in the beginning)
It is continued dependence on one of these crutches that eventually becomes a problem.
.
Nothing wrong with what you say except this is not the point of the placebo-effect comments. These comments are based on the notion that a person improves or degrades because of what he is doing. The placebo and nocebo effects in these comments are posed as an excuse for the person to use (to him/herself) to get better or worse. It is not a commentary on the quality of any treatment. It is a comment on the attitude of the participant’s attitude toward the reason they say they are improving or degrading.
Thanks, 2nd, your post makes sense to me, but I’m still not getting it. I am familiar with what is sometimes called “the placebo effect” by psychiatrists and clinical psychologists. However what they describe can easily be accounted for in other ways than by “patient expectation”. It is essentially accounted for by the fact that the Comm Formula is in play, whether by hospital staff, therapists, a nurse, the cook, the janitor or whoever happens to be around and actually 2-way communicating.
I am interested in how Geir and Chris relate the concept of the placebo effect to the application of detailed technical procedure such as auditing with an e-meter. And that is assuming the pc is receiving competent C/Sing and auditing. But since neither is an interned auditor to my knowledge, except for solo auditing, perhaps they are not the right people to ask?
Re-posting this in the right place:
Valkov, I’ll throw in my 2 cents. The related thing I see is the factor of altitude and the degree of it the pc grants to the auditor. That’s essentially the idea of expectation. But on the other side of the coin, that expectation isn’t going to last if the auditor – or any practitioner – doesn’t know what he’s doing. And your point about training and experience in tech is the biggest factor in how much credit a person will give the tech in and of itself, IMO.
Vin, I may disagree with this depending on definitions and some specifics.
You have simply restated your original post, which is a big generality.
Hubbard does not “want all the OTs to have the same considerations (PLURAL)”. He never said this anywhere. He did want OTs to agree to co-operate at times for specific purposes. You are making it seem like he wanted “all OTs to be the same”. This is practically impossible on the face of it, because no 2 individuals are exactly alike in the first place. There is virtually no way even any2 beings could be exactly alike in every respect.
People agree to co-act around particular issues everyday without each one losing his/her “individuality”.
It just really surprises me that you would post that agreeing on some common purpose, goal or project would somehow result in the loss of one’s individuality. Observation of everyday life completely belies that idea.
Just because you agree to work on a project like, oh, anything, with other individuals, do you somehow lose your individuality? Lets say its a dog rescue project, like a no-kill animal shelter, or work with others to get a political candidate elected, or a law passed protecting women and children from abuse, or even a project to get a road paved by working together.each in his own way, does anyone “lose their individuality”? Or even something like a social event, a pot-luck dinner.Each participant holds the same considerations that it will be on Friday night, each one will bring a dish, maybe even there will be agreed upon considerations about who will bring salad, who will bring entrees, who will bring dessert etc. Does anyon else individuality? No.
So I really don’t get where you’re coming from on this.
”Vin, I may disagree with this depending on definitions and some specifics.”
Valkov, The problem of definition can be overcome by making the same point using different words.
”You have simply restated your original post, which is a big generality.”
These kinds of statements do not belong in a discussion. They do not add value at all.
”Hubbard does not “want all the OTs to have the same considerations (PLURAL)”. He never said this anywhere. He did want OTs to agree to co-operate at times for specific purposes. You are making it seem like he wanted “all OTs to be the same”. This is practically impossible on the face of it, because no 2 individuals are exactly alike in the first place. There is virtually no way even any2 beings could be exactly alike in every respect.”
Please, please… calm down and stop assuming mean intentions in others. I have no axe to grind. I just want to achieve greater understanding. Help me with it.
My understanding is that what makes two people different individuals are their considerations and nothing else. What do you think of this premise?
”People agree to co-act around particular issues everyday without each one losing his/her “individuality”. ”
My point is much more fundamental. Two people with no filters can agree on any project instantly and accomplish it without any friction at all. It is the “individuality” (filters plus other considerations) that acts to slow down any such cooperation.
”It just really surprises me that you would post that agreeing on some common purpose, goal or project would somehow result in the loss of one’s individuality. Observation of everyday life completely belies that idea. ”
Please, please… this is another example of an additive with no value like the one that I pointed out above.
”Just because you agree to work on a project like, oh, anything, with other individuals, do you somehow lose your individuality? Lets say its a dog rescue project, like a no-kill animal shelter, or work with others to get a political candidate elected, or a law passed protecting women and children from abuse, or even a project to get a road paved by working together.each in his own way, does anyone “lose their individuality”? Or even something like a social event, a pot-luck dinner.Each participant holds the same considerations that it will be on Friday night, each one will bring a dish, maybe even there will be agreed upon considerations about who will bring salad, who will bring entrees, who will bring dessert etc. Does anyon else individuality? No.
So I really don’t get where you’re coming from on this.”
Please see my comments above.
.
I spend a few hours with my family, get some shut-eye and you guys write all night long – left me in the dust — Happy new year anyways!
You mean your thoughts on the matter are the same as Vinaire’s – just your opinions, not based on anything in the actual reference quoted? Or, for that matter, any other references? That could explain why you refused to discuss it with me.
What interested you in that post?
Next year, I will stop after “Happy New Year” 🙂
Please don’t do it 🙂
LOL! There’s no denying, we love to blog with one another! hahahaha!
Whewwwww! I did it. The tripple nickel comment.
I was comment #500. And just a bit ago #600 too! Can you beat that? Maybe you should go for #666!
I think we need a Bloviators Anonymous organization.
Hey, speak for yourself. I’m a strong, proud bloviator!
Chris, I don’t feel you bloviate. Perhaps by Norwegian standards only! 🙂
Pssst! Chris! Vinaire!
Shhhh! I’m blown from two comm cycles with Marildi right now and I am staying in a barn outside of town in order to lay low for a while. I’m on the lam. Can you guys send me a toothbrush and some shaving cream, and a couple of pop tarts?
Thanks.
Alanzo
Flavor of pop tart?
Strawberry, with sprinkles.
And make sure Indy RTC doesn’t follow you.
Alanzo
I gotta admit, Al, you do make me laugh. Part of the reason, though, is that it’s a sure sign you don’t have a leg to stand on. And you know it. 😛
INDY RTC IS HERE!!!
SCATTER!!!!!
Al, I’ve notified the villagers and they are coming for you with torches and pitchforks.
Valkov, I’ll throw in my 2 cents. The related thing I see is the factor of altitude and the degree of it the pc grants to the auditor. That’s essentially the idea of expectation. But on the other side of the coin, that expectation isn’t going to last if the auditor – or any practitioner – doesn’t know what he’s doing. And your point about training and experience in tech is the biggest factor in how much credit a person will give the tech in and of itself, IMO.
Sorry, Val. This was supposed to go under your post about placebo.
Maria, your name makes me think of that beautiful song “Ava Maria”, when I read this…
https://isene.me/2012/12/30/happy-new-year/#comment-26984
.
Here it is:
.
Thank you Vinaire!
I have a song for you too! I hope you like it!
“One more time to live and I have made it mine”
Lovely, Maria. Thank you.
.
I like the one for me and also the one for Chris. These songs are simple.
Others are too complicated.
.
Happy New Year! 🙂
.
And a song for Geir!
p.s. Geir, I should add that I hear this song between you and Annette and extending…
And a song for beloved Marildi!
Souma Yergon, Sou Nou Yergon is a Senegalese term meaning, “If we had known, if we had only known”. The native language is Wolof.Souma Yergon, Sou Nou Yergon is a Senegalese term meaning, “If we had known, if we had only known”. The native language is Wolof.
Thank you, Maria! I loved everything about it – the meaning, the music, the dancing, the whole vibe. You chose well for me! And you are beloved too! 🙂
And Valkov, I have posted this one for you before — it still seems to be my song for you:
Thank you Maria. This is a great song and video and very fitting. 🙂
And this one’s for Alanzo!
Interesting that you see me in this.
Alanzo
Actually, I see you seeing this with all its pain, all its absurdity, all its beauty, all its horror, and all its humor.
All right. Thank you.
Believe it or not I think Kevin Smith is a little too high-toned for me.
Alanzo
And for Chris:
Oh, and Chris, here’s a set of apps you can use to extend your white noise viewing experiments! In particular, check out the 2-D Vector Fields Applet!
http://falstad.com/mathphysics.html
And with a tear rolling down his cheek, he pushed his chair back from his computer monitor and got up and went out into the kitchen and kissed his wife and hugged his kids and talked.
And 2ndxmr, although I don’t know you very well:
Thanks, Maria. A song I’ve always enjoyed even if I never understood the lyrics. (Just looked them up. Appropriate. Thanks.)
And Marianne:
BEAUTIFUL………BEAUTIFUL
Thank you Maria ! Both the music and the lyrics fit ! Love the scenery too! Love flying, the clouds, the sea! Real surprise present ! Thank you very, very much! Love back to you!
And a song for all of us and for anyone I have missed in my discography!
HAPPY NEW YEAR!
Thanks Maria for this song for all of us! Love the images !
Following what Maria started
One of my favourites – For All of Us – with Love
Maria,
I am not sure, are you sending this song to me, or to the other girl called Marianne? Sorry for this strange question.
It is for you Marianne T. I don’t know the other Marianne at all.
Yes, I felt so but I asked as there is another Marianne who posts sometimes – you may have read the thread Tolerance, that was when she last posted, if I remember well. But she doesn’t use her full name. She has very-very good posts.
Marildi,
What is the difference between something having cause and something not having any cause?
If the cause of universe is God, what is the cause of God?
What is the difference between “universe” and “God” if both are existing?
I have answered this in my PHILOSOPHY PROJECT. What is your answer?
.
Marildi,
If everything existing must have cause, then why is God an exception to the rule?
What makes God different from rest of the existence?
What is the cause of that which is deemed as cause?
Does the concept of “cause” and “creation” apply to everything? If not then how do you explain the exception?
Do you find the concept of “Uncaused cause” consistent?
I am trying to cover the subject of Cause from all angles.
Marildi, if you say that God is an exception to the rule because it is God then it is just a tautology. It is nothing more than an arbitrary consideration.
An arbitrary consideration has no cause (logical connection). Then any manifestation may be arbitrary. Then God is not the only exception to the rule.
.
.
And that leads us back to the PHILOSOPHY PROJECT.
Voila!
.
Vin: “And that leads us back to the PHILOSOPHY PROJECT”
But obviously nowhere’s near a physical explanation such as I provided earlier.
What do you want me to say?
.
What I would say is that your considerations aren’t complete unless you consider a physical mechanism from which consciousness could arise. A mechanism that eliminates the need for “God” to always “have been”.
What are your considerations that fill that supposed gap?
Sent from my iPhone
Happy New Year, Marildi!
.
You too, Vin! 🙂
2ndxmr per https://isene.me/2012/12/30/happy-new-year/#comment-27289:
“This [putting thought at a spot] is an ability drilled into auditors so that they can deliver a command to the PC on a bypass of certain PC circuits that would otherwise block the execution of the command..”
.
(1) This means that the auditor is trained to bypass the circuits that the pc has. But how does differentiate between the analytical and reactive circuits? Isn’t there a danger of the auditor bypassing the determinism of the pc, thus bringing about conditioning? What is the poka-yoke here?
(2) The bank can be as-ised only by the pc’s looking. The auditor cannot look for the pc and as-is pc’s bank. So how does auditing occur under this scenario?
(3) Why doesn’t the auditor handle those factors first that are blocking the execution of the command? Doessn’t this by-pass amount to forcing the pc?
(4) Isn’t Reactive mind being used as a justification for forcing the pc?
.
This is similar to a person being forced under psychiatry.
.
.
2ndxmr: “When the PC begins to see that an auditing command can get executed despite the rebellion from his bank he learns he can be at a cause point over the bank. At that point control turns from the auditor to the PC.”
.
(1) To me it seems like the pc has become conditioned to obey the command like the Pavlov’s dog.
(2) How does one know the pc is now obeying the command under his own determinism?
(3) A person becomes better only through self-determined looking. TR-8 is inconsistent with this datum.
.
Whether or not the pc is to “obey” the command is determined by neither the pc nor the auditor – it’s a matter of whether or not there is charge related to the command.
p.s. And I should add that the charge is real to the pc.
Sorry! I mean that the item in answer to the command/question is real to the pc.
To decide what command to give to the pc to handle his charge is a big evaluation in itself, and then insisting that pc must F/N as the result of the process is a bigger evaluation.
.
Vin: “To decide what command to give to the pc to handle his charge is a big evaluation in itself, and then insisting that pc must F/N as the result of the process is a bigger evaluation.”
That is the practice that gets people through engrams. Few people who have run out a life changing engram would argue your idea that the auditing process, including reaching and indicating the EP are evaluations that they would rather not have received.
Not necessarily true. My first experience with auditing was R3R engram running in 1969 All that was required was a safe environment and mindful looking. The auditing commands were quite general and simply insisted that I look. My early experiences with auditing are recorded in My Introduction to America. That auditing was very simple. The simpler it was the better it worked.
What really worked in Dianetics and Scientology became very clear to me when I trained on IDENICS and applied it’s procedure for almost a thousand of hours without e-meter, either face-to-face, or on phone and Skype . It was the simplicity of Idenics that struck me.
That then got me looking into Buddhism, which is claimed by Scientology as its ancestor. That is when KHTK was born. KHTK consists of the best of Scientology… the most simple and workable part of Scientology.
.
Vin, I don’t know what you mean when you say “the auditing commands were quite general” for R3R. My recall of them from when I did the NED course is that they were not that different from the somewhat revised ones on R3RA, which are pretty specific and precise.
I was simply given the command repeatedly to find the incident that was causing my condition. It took a long time before that incident came up, but that was ok.
.
2ndxmr: https://isene.me/2012/12/30/happy-new-year/#comment-27291
“There’s really no major difference between that kind of control transfer than any training a person receives before operating a complex machine: there’s an introduction to the machine followed by some training and then hands-on experience guided or overseen by a competent person. The only difference is that the machine is the person’s own mind and the competent trainer is the auditor.”
.
(1) So, mind is a machine and the thetan is totally self-determined. This seems to be a black and white type absolutist theory.
(2) Thetan appears to be a tautological concept in Hubbard’s theory with no real connection with anything. It is just standing in a corner by itself. It still seems to be an unknown variable in the equation of life that Hubbard started out with in Dianetics. That equation is still unsolved. Hubbard simply mocked up that unknown as the solution in itself.
(3) To me a functioning software and hardware go together. They cannot function independently. Seperated, both software and hardware are incomplete and non-functional.
.
You need to train as an auditor to get past jumping to the random conclusions you get to as a result of having no idea of auditing technology. In order to straighten you out it would take too many years that I’d rather spend on figuring out fully the relationship of the thetan to this universe.
Like I said before, we’re not just on different pages , we’re in different books. You get through yours, I’ll get through mine.
Please, please, please… keep the evaluation of participants in a discussion aside, and discuss the ideas.
If you refuse to discuss, or can’t discuss, then that is ok..
.
Vin, I don’t think you are differentiating between a comment about your statements and a comment about you. Since you have no auditor training, its not an attack on you personally to say that your remarks about auditing are not consistent with the materials themselves. It’s just a comment that your statements are INCONSISTENT with the materials.
Why don’t you keep the discussion on the topic itself instead of bringing in auditing principles, which you essentially have no background in.
Marildi, you are also in violation of the discussion policy in your justification above.
Just discuss the ideas presented. It doesn’t require reams of explanations.
If long explanations are required to discuss a simple concept then that is an inconsistency in itself.
.
Okay, let me rephrase that: Your conclusions about the tech do not align with the written tech itself and thus are inconsistent with it.
Well, I look at things as they are. I find the written tech inconsistent. There is no requirement for me that I should be consistent with the written tech. if that tech is inconsistent.
.
Vin, I actually have respect for some of your accomplishments and abilities. But when it comes to your comments about Scientology, my observation is that you are in fact misinformed, including on some of its basics. I’ve observed this to also be the viewpoint of most, if not all, posters who have had exchanges with you and who are tech trained and experienced. I think that evident fact is an inconsistency you should look at because it really undermines your credibility. And it will undermine your ability to contribute to improvements, which would be unfortunate.
This comment from Marildi violates the Discussion Policy.
.
How so, specifically? That was a comment on your statements about Scientology.
I get the idea that any criticism of your comments, such as their being inconsistent or whatever, is taken personally by you and you then label it as a personal comment. I can understand the feeling because none of us particularly likes our comments to be criticized any more than we like personal criticism. But criticism of what is being said is just part of discussion.
Per discussion policy, you should be commenting on those statements and not on the person making those statements.
If you disagree with a statement then provide your understanding in its place, and why you understand it that way.
.
This is to point out that I do not take LRH ideas for granted. LRH materials may be unquestionable to you and 2ndxmr, but they are not unquestionable for me. You may take LRH materials blindly as a standard, I don’t.
.
It’s not a matter of taking LRH’s ideas for granted. It’s that some of us have observed that it works the way LRH says it does. Not even to say that it works 100% of the time, just the great majority of the time.
Here again, this comes down to basing one’s ideas on the available data, rather than on pure reasoning that may in fact be very plausible sounding but for which there is little or nothing to support.
I don’t know what you mean by pure reasoning. I am an engineer. I work in the practical world with practical tools. I see things as they are and I do not bypass inconsistencies as I come across them. I tackle them head on.
The observation of inconsistencies in Hubbard’s theories is not a result of “pure reasoning”. It is a result of looking without filters. One can look through one’s filters and give credit to something totally different, and miss out spotting what is really working.
In my opinion, what works in Scientology, when it works are the 12 points of MINDFULNESS. They underlie all the millions of words in Scientology.
.
“The observation of inconsistencies in Hubbard’s theories is not a result of ‘pure reasoning’. It is a result of looking without filters”.
When someone comes up with “inconsistencies” that are based on misinterpretations, to my thinking there must have been some filters in use (be they MU’s, mishandlings, or what have you).
What misinterpretation?
.
One cannot say if an inconsistency is based on misinterpretation unless one looks at it more closely, because the materials claimed to be misinterpreted can themselves be wrong.
So, calling an inconsistency a misinterpretation without looking more closely would be judgmental (prejudicial).
.
I have started to see wonderful results from around the world from self-application of KHTK. That has been my goal actually. It seems to be happening now.
Yesterday I got a wonderful win from India (through Facebook) from self-application of KHTK.
Few weeks ago I had gotten another wonderful win from Mexico from self-application of KHTK. It is on my blog. There have been others.
It is happening finally. 🙂
.
This is great, Vinnie. I’ll say again that you could probably contribute well to any improvements or extensions of Scn. But to do that requires a good understanding of it to start with, IMHO.
I disagree with the fundamentals of Hubbard’s theory. These fundamental’s can be discussed without doing the Class Xii course.
.
Vin,
“Thetan” is neither hardware nor software. It can be likened to the person who operates the computer, and to the energy, like electricity, that makes the computer something other than an inert object that does nothing.
How does the thetan compare to a ‘perception point’ that is not attached to any considerations?
I believe that even knowingness is a consideration.
.
You tell me, since ‘perception point’ is your term. What are the qualities/abilities of a perception point? I need to know that before I can compare. In any case, they are words that point to some reality, and are likely in either case not the reality itself. Thus it doesn’t really matter to me which one is used, if they are pointing to the same reality or actuality.
I find the thetan to be attached to considerations under the pretext of playing games.
I’ll take a stab at answering your questions. Here’s my understanding:
(1) The way the auditor differentiates between analytical and reactive circuits is with the factor of charge. The charge in a facsimile can have more power than the pc, i.e. more power than the pc’s ability to handle it, and thus the facsimile handles the pc. That is to say, it enforces the pc’s thoughts and actions in accordance with the contents of the facsimile. That enforcement is what is meant by “reactive”. Charge is the sole thing being removed by auditing. It is what makes up the totality of case and it is what gets in the way of the pc’s full self-determinism.
(2) Auditing has everything to do with looking. As explained by 2ndxmr, a step toward the ability, to look is auditing that bypasses a pc’s circuits, which is done in order to demonstrate to the pc that his bank can be handled. When the pc realizes that, he is able to look and take over the control of handling his bank.
(3) As indicated above, the factor that is blocking the execution of the command is the pc’s own considerations, which Tone 40 auditing (the bypassing of circuits) handles. The reason this doesn’t amount to enforcing is that the pc is basically there to get his case handled and that is the agreement on which auditing proceeds. And, just to repeat, this bypassing is only a short-termed gradient.
(4) Already answered in (3). The Reactive mind is the accumulated by-passed charge, which is energy that is objectively observable with an e-meter.
Correction in (2);
There shouldn’t be a comma after “ability”. It should read: “…a step toward the ability to look…”
Also, in the last sentence, rather than “able to look”, it should be “WILLING’ to look”.
Vinaire: (1) This means that the auditor is trained to bypass the circuits that the pc has. But how does differentiate between the analytical and reactive circuits? Isn’t there a danger of the auditor bypassing the determinism of the pc, thus bringing about conditioning? What is the poka-yoke here?
Marildi: (1) The way the auditor differentiates between analytical and reactive circuits is with the factor of charge. The charge in a facsimile can have more power than the pc, i.e. more power than the pc’s ability to handle it, and thus the facsimile handles the pc. That is to say, it enforces the pc’s thoughts and actions in accordance with the contents of the facsimile. That enforcement is what is meant by “reactive”. Charge is the sole thing being removed by auditing. It is what makes up the totality of case and it is what gets in the way of the pc’s full self-determinism.
Meter reacts on analytical thoughts also. There is the phenomenon of dirty needle. There are all different kind of things that the meter can react on. I still don’t see how an auditor can differentiate between analytical and reactive circuits with the factor of charge. This has nothing to do with my not being a Class XII. It has everything to do with how a trained Scientologist can explain it. I understand that 2ndxmr finds it difficult to explain and that is fine with me. There are many others here who can explain.
The self protective mechanism of the mind, unless interfered with, will never bring up a facsimile that is too much for the pc to handle. So I don’t buy what you have written above. I believe that the application of TR-8 does interfere with the protective mechanism of the mind and puts the pc in danger. It seems that violation of self-protective mechanism of the mind is built into Scientology and Dianetics auditing.
.
Vin: “Meter reacts on analytical thoughts also.”
The point is that analytical thought doesn’t react INSTANTLY on the meter. If you mean to say that it does, then I would ask what observed data you have to support that notion. The preponderance of empirical evidence I know about supports the LRH materials on the subject, which state that the only thing that reacts instantly are thoughts restimulated in the reactive mind. (A possible exception, per my understanding, is that a Clear’s postulates can read.)
Vin: “I believe that the application of TR-8 does interfere with the protective mechanism of the mind and puts the pc in danger.”
Again, what evidence is there to support that belief? I will accept your point that you don’t have to be a Class 12 – or have any training at all, for that matter – to consider and have views about the tech; it’s totally your right to do so and to have your own beliefs. But you should take another look when the data doesn’t match and in fact is contrary.
My overall views on the tech are based on my observation that the majority of experienced auditors and C/S’s do find that the data supports the written materials.
I did the e-meter course when I was at Flag in the 70s. I also did the Professional Word Clearer’s Course on Flag when those Word Clearing issues were coming hot off the press. Later I audited Scientology processes on others. So, I know what you are talking about. Instant reads are very easy to see when the confusion is at the top of the mental stack in the pc and is being addressed by the process. But if the process is asking for a confusion that is not on the top of the mental stack then you run into problems in auditing. This is the problem of “discrete C/Sing”. This is not the problem in Idenics or in KHTK where “continuous C/Sing” is used by training the person to apply MINDFULNESS, especially:
1. 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.
The person is already in confusion. That is why he is there asking for help. You don’t have to stimulate anything with auditing questions. Simply handle what is already stimulated in the order it is stacked up in the person’s mind. Then all the problem with missing instant reads go away. Even the need for e-meter goes away.
Mindfulness is the key. It bypasses the C/Sing problem of Scientology.
.
Thanks for the background on your Scientology training. I take it that you never did Upper Indoc TRs though, correct? Or delivered Objectives? That is where TR8, embodied in TR9 is used to get the PC to confront present time and get relocated in present time and out of the effects that drugs typically have on the mind.
Did you ever try delivering Idenics on a person who had a heavy drug history? Just wondering how they did.
By the way, I am talking about early 70s when I was on Apollo. Hubbard was there too. I had several exchanges with Hubbard but only through written notes and never face-to-face.
.
Again, when the confusion on the top of the mental stack is being addressed, TR-8 may not result in conditioning, but otherwise it would if it forces a person’s attention deeper into that mental stack.
.
“…if it forces a person’s attention deeper into that mental stack”.
Per my understanding, that’s exactly what TR 8 and the meter ensure doesn’t happen. To begin with, the meter doesn’t read on things that are “deep in the mental stack”. And TR 8 simply bypasses circuits that would block the command. It goes straight to the bank and restimulates what is there AND is real to the pc and AVAILABLE to him.
Is that so?
.
marildi, do you have a reference for this: “And TR 8 simply bypasses circuits that would block the command. It goes straight to the bank and restimulates what is there AND is real to the pc and AVAILABLE to him.” ?
I’m not saying this is not correct, or that it is not one purpose or perhaps one result of applying TR8, but my understanding is that TR8 is about the auditor, because before he audits anyone, an auditor must do ACT ONE, which is to make sure he does not have within himself any counter-intention to helping this particular person, and has just the pure intention to help this person without reservation
Also, as I noted in a post nearby here, I see Tone40 as comm that is direct person to person or “thetan to thetan”. As such it ought to have the effect of destimulating, validating, the pc, not restimulating him.
This is a different view, that’s why I am asking for a reference on what you posted..
Val, here are some basic references. First, an excerpt from the TR 8 drill:
PURPOSE: To make student clearly achieve Tone 40 commands…
[…]
“This also helps the student get a reality on placing an intention in something apart from himself. Stress that an intention has nothing to do with words and has nothing to do with the voice, nor is it dependent upon thinking certain words. An intention must be clear and have no counter-intention in it. This training drill, Tone 40 on an Object, usually takes the most time of any drill in Upper Indoc, and time on it is well spent. Objects to be used are ashtrays, preferably heavy, colored glass ashtrays.”
And here are definitions of Tone 40 and Tone 40 auditing:
TONE 40,1. defined as “giving a command and just knowing that it will be executed despite any contrary appearances.” Tone 40 is positive postulating. (PAB 133) 2 . a positive postulate with no counter-thought expected, anticipated or anything else; that is, total control. (PAB 152) 3 . an execution of intention. (HCOB 23 Aug 65) 4 . means unlimited space at will. (5707C25)
TONE 40 AUDITING, 1. positive, knowing, predictable control toward the preclear’s willingness to be at cause concerning his body and his attention.(HCOB 3 Jul 59) 2 . control by direct tone 40 command. (HCOB 2 Apr 58)
.
My point of comparison for Tone 40 would be “looking without filters.”
One can achieve this in oneself, but one cannot induce it in another by a simple command.
.
(Val, re-posting this in the right place, together with the post giving the other references.)
Here are excerpts of some Tone 40 drills. The second one is the higher gradient, where the student drills the assessment with an e-meter. As you can see, the 8 in the name stands for TR 8 intention.
TR 8-Q
Name: Tone 40 Assessment.
[…]
Purpose: To deliver the thought of a question into an exact position with or without words.
[…]
End Result: The ability to land a question with full intention into an exact target area, broad or narrow, at will and effectively, whether verbally or silently.
[…]
TR 4/8-Q1
Name: Tone 40 Assessment Prepared List Session Drill.
The number, TR 4/8-Q1, means: TR 4 for Pc Origin; TR 8 Intention and Q for Question; 1 for first part.
Position: Student and coach sitting at a table; A Meter is used, session admin, using prepared lists.
Purpose: To train a student to do all the actions necessary to deliver a full session smoothly, using prepared lists done with Tone 40 Assessment.
http://www.suppressiveperson.org/sp/archives/1836
Good question, Valkov. Your view does make more sense that TR-8 has more to do with ACT ONE.
.
Marildi wrote:
“The point is that analytical thought doesn’t react INSTANTLY on the meter. If you mean to say that it does, then I would ask what observed data you have to support that notion. The preponderance of empirical evidence I know about supports the LRH materials on the subject, which state that the only thing that reacts instantly are thoughts restimulated in the reactive mind. (A possible exception, per my understanding, is that a Clear’s postulates can read.)”
Whoa there, sister!
There is no such thing as an “analytical mind”, or a “reactive mind” or a “Clear”. At best these are parts of a MODEL for the mind created by Hubbard to explain Dianetic procedure and do not exist in any other form. They are certainly NOT real objects and you can not make statements like this without appearing foolish.
You are living in the fallacy of Reification wherein you are treating pieces of a model as something with a concrete reality.
Stop it!
And learn this!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy)
You are too smart to keep doing this to yourself!
Alanzo
Alanzo, you have a way with the words. I did miss that inconsistency.in what Marildi wrote.
I don’t agree Al. “Reactive mind” as in DMSMH describes something I can observe in myself.
If you are a past life Clear as you have posted you think you are, then it is logical that you may not observe this in yourself, as a “clear” no longer has his own reactive mind. Another way of saying this is that a Clear is at cause over his reactive mind, therefore it is no longer “reactive” (stimulus response for him) as such.
Additionally Al, many thinkers going back to Plato have noted the existence of analytical thought, reason, rational thought etc. as distinct from other parts of the person and his faculties and drives.
Especially Plato.
Your point does not support the use of parts of a model for the mind as a concrete factual explanation for why the needle on a meter moved.
You can see that, right?
What if I said that “it is only the Id which causes the INSTANT READ. The Superego does not read instantly. Except for the totally well adjusted person, who has eliminated his own Id, and the instant reads he produces.”
First of all, the use of parts of Freud’s model to factually explain why a meter read is ludicrous. And then, the statement about the “well adjusted person” who has eliminated his own Id also reading instantly is a self contradictory statement.
A lot of logical problems here in this discussion.
Please notice them.
Alanzo
Al, I specified that my posts were a reply to your assertions that
1. The reactive mind does not exist, 2. that the analytical mind does not exist, and 3.there is no such thing as a Clear.
I did not mention e-meter reads in any way shape or form, thus your comment is non-sequitur to what I posted.
Can you just respond to the content of my posts?
Val –
I got involved in this discussion because of Marildi’s statement here: “The point is that analytical thought doesn’t react INSTANTLY on the meter. If you mean to say that it does, then I would ask what observed data you have to support that notion. The preponderance of empirical evidence I know about supports the LRH materials on the subject, which state that the only thing that reacts instantly are thoughts restimulated in the reactive mind. (A possible exception, per my understanding, is that a Clear’s postulates can read.)”
That’s the context.
Let’s say “communism” caused the needle to read. Or “justice”.
Do you know what the fallacy of reification is?
That.
Al, a reactive thought or a charged thought is something that can be measured in the physical universe, on an e-meter. Even a simple pinch test shows that the charge exists – in the physical universe – and that it is instantly associated with a thought.
Actually Al, I believe I was the first to use the word “reification” on this blog. However, what reification is, is treating an abstract concept such as “justice” or “love” or “compassion” as concrete and observable MEST things. The statue of Justice, a woman wearing a blindfold and holding scales is a good example. However that is often done in art, poetry and literature.
“Science often uses “constructs”, but a construct is different from an abstract concept such as Love, Justice, Morality,or Ethics. Here is a little bit about constructs in science from Wikipedia:
The concept of a “construct” has a long history in science; it is used in many, if not most, areas of science. A construct is a hypothetical explanatory variable that is not directly observable. For example, the
concepts of motivation in psychology and center of gravity in physics are constructs — they are not directly observable. The degree to which a construct is useful and accepted in the scientific community depends on empirical research that has demonstrated that a scientific construct has construct validity (especially, predictive validity).[7] Thus, if properly understood and empirically corroborated, the “reification fallacy” applied to scientific constructs is not a fallacy at all—it is one part of theory creation and evaluation in normal science.”
So I do know what reification means.
Do you?
normal science.
Valkov
Beautifully written what you write about reification and construct! So can we say that the intangible con-scio-usness gets manifested in normal science?
MT, I don’t think I can speak to that, except to say that “consciousness” is a construct made to explain some phenomena, but is not itself observable, according to “science”.
Or is it? What does “awareness of awareness” mean, if consciousness and awareness are synonymous? Is one conscious of being conscious? Or aware of being conscious? Or conscious of being aware? Is there really any difference in meaning between the 2 words, in English?
“Conscious” is from Latin; “Aware” is Germanic but possibly also ultimately from the Latin for “fearful”.
Both words seem to have a lot to do with “perception”, which is another relatively undefined word or construct.
We all have a sense of what it is, but what is it, exactly?
I believe that Analytical and Reactive cannot be treated in terms of black and white. They should be treated as part of a gradient scale. There seems to be a gradient from totally analytical thought to totally reactive thought. Hubbard talks about this when he talks about logic in PDC tapes.
So, E-meter’s instant read is only a relative indicator. It must agree with a pc’s own feeling of it being in the right area where the inconsistency lies.
The point is that e-meter is just an aid. It must agree with many other indicators. One cannot solely rely on the e-meter reaction no matter how “instant” it appears to be.
Saying that e-meter reacts just below the awareness of the pc, and so it should be followed even when it is not real to the pc, seems to be a wrong datum. If e-meter reacts to something just below the awareness of the pc, then bringing it to pc’s attention must bring an agreement from the pc that it is the right area.
Sec-checks make a dog’s breakfast out of the pc by not ensuring that pc’s reality corresponds to the meter read.
.
.
Valkov,
I have checked the overlap and the difference between “aware” and “conscious”. The overlap is: knowledge. The differences are: aware is ALERT and WATCHFUL. Conscious is: FULLY ALERT and WATCHFUL. Conscious also means: SHARING knowledge (the CO-part).
“Is one conscious of being conscious?”
In my experience the awareness of awareness “unit” can have an access to its “part” in “co-creating”, that is “co-creating”. Kind of “watch
ing it, seeing it as a “witness”. Deeper than that is a kind of “sharing
potential/the Creator/God – that is One-ness, one source and all that has ever been created is ME, YOU, HE, SHE….without any separation.
My answer to your question is: not “is one…” but CAN be and when it happens so, then one is fully alert in sharing knowledge, that can be
Consciousness Realized and lived.
What is oneness? How is oneness created? What is oneness created out of?
.
Marianne: “Is one conscious of being conscious?”
In my experience the awareness of awareness “unit” can have an access to its “part” in “co-creating”, …”
Very well said, Marianne.
Vin,
In my present reality: one-ness is potential, the source. It is not created, it is the creator. Example: “here” the creation of body, mind STOPS. It’s POTENTIAL (static). This Potential (static) PERCEIVES what the YOU, “there” as POTENTIAL at its core, are CREATING as YOUR “body” and “mind”. If the PERCEPTION is full, POTENTIAL “sees” “itself” as the ONE POTENTIAL. There is no sense of here-there, me-you, there is no-duality/dichotomy/separatedness when it is happening so. One can STOP-NOT DO anything and NOT-RESIST anything. One “starts” it with one’s body/mind. There can be a point, when one stops creating what is “here”, then one is pure Awareness (alert, watching and perceiving). No “unit”.There seems to be an accompanying “pure non-mest energy” flowing, which I call Love. This Flow “helps” Perception in perceiving “manifestations/creations on its “way”, seeing that they are eventually out of the same Potential. The POTENTIAL is the YOU (Geir’s earlier post). Very practically: ” I ” as static can “sense “you” as static.
And can also sense the considerations, emotions produced by “me”
or “you”. When the sense of “me” (the filter) is gone, awareness and with it beingness is expanding….and also the sense of Love. It
can be said the Potential as Love falls in Love with its own Creations.
(Geir’s Amazing people series).
2ndxmr
Thank you. Glad when you write. Sharing and I am also learning from you….and getting more conscious of it all….
Marianne, the ideas of “static”, “potential”, “source”, “one-ness” etc. are simply other ways of referring to the idea of FIRST CAUSE. This kind of idea simply leads to infinite causal series. Here are my thoughts from the PHILOSOPHY PROJECT once again.
.
FIRST CAUSE:
[“First Cause” is a misnomer. It has nothing to do with the notion of “cause and effect”. “Cause and effect” denote a certain association between two events where the second event is looked upon as the outcome of the first event. “First Cause,” on the other hand, is the property, which makes a manifestation simply appear without association with anything else. It is interesting to observe that the property of “first cause” may be applied to all manifestations before applying the association of “cause and effect.”]
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.
.
Yes, Vin, very similar, First Cause that is. In the “territory” called “mind”. There seem to be other “realities” too. I just “feel” it at the moment, little glimpses of it.
In Scientology, sec-check are a way to condition the pc and to free the pc.
[Correction…] In Scientology, sec-check are a way to condition the pc and NOT to free the pc.
Vinaire: “(2) The bank can be as-ised only by the pc’s looking. The auditor cannot look for the pc and as-is pc’s bank. So how does auditing occur under this scenario?”
Marildi: “(2) Auditing has everything to do with looking. As explained by 2ndxmr, a step toward the ability, to look is auditing that bypasses a pc’s circuits, which is done in order to demonstrate to the pc that his bank can be handled. When the pc realizes that, he is able to look and take over the control of handling his bank.”
I do not see how auditor applying TR-8 improves the pc’s ability to look. I can see pc’s ability to look improving with his training on MINDFULNESS. TR-8 would seem to intimidate the pc into blurting whatever comes to his mind. It is like ordering the pc around instead of helping him look.
When I had my auditing on Dianetics in 1969, my understanding was that I was supposed to apply TR0 in auditing, and that is what I did. It was pretty much what I have now documented under mindfulness above. It worked wonders. It got me through my birth engram, and several “past life” incidents in the first 25 hours of auditing. I was walking on clouds then. I bet I went clear in those first 25 hours.
Is the auditor demonstrating to pc how bank his handled by handling his bank for him? There is something very inconsistent here.
.
I do in fact think that one person can as-is another person’s “bank”, but the theory (based apparently on observation) is that the person will feel s/he has lost something s/he values if this is done to him (a loss of havingness), and will re-create it. This is one reason “remedies of havingness” procedures were developed
I do find that the concept of as-is-ness needs better explanation. At this moment it seems to be something like two considerations annihilating each other similar to electron and positron. Or, It could be like a question disappearing when one has an answer. Or, it may be like a confusion disappearing with a stable datum appearing on the scene.
It is the last scenario that seems to be most likely. but is it the opposite of this that happens at as-is create?
This area needs closer looking.
.
In my reality now, everything that has ever been created is accessible at a level of consciousness by anyone capable to be at that level. So
as-ising is not the disappearance of the creation but the “awakening”
of Life from an unconscious continual creation of an “item”. This awakening happens at Tone 40=static. Act One is of most importance
as by the auditor being at Tone 40, the pc can realize Tone 40 even if
just for a fraction of a second. Tone 40 is potential, the source of creation and it seems that this is from where the ever created things are
fast accessible from. And also the real “let it be” level.
As-is-ing another’s “bank” is rather being there at Tone 40 for the pc
to confront Tone 40. If the pc can confront it and can be it, then the attachment to any creation is gone. One then can create from
potential in present time. And see what there is, that is create in the present. Without any “need”, just for the joy of creation itself.
How is something created?
Sent from my iPhone
Addition: the above, what I have written is a rough explanation, in plain English, lacking e.g. “alteration” of the original creation etc.
I find Axiom 11. true from the “state” I am “in” now and looking back
at life examples and also scio studies and auditing experiences. So
I advise a complete understanding of this axiom.
I don’t see a “how” in it. An example: 2 days ago I helped someone who is going to a country competition with a poem. She told me the poem, I listened to her telling it. Me, “being” at a kind of “Tone 40”
felt the original intention, creation of the poet and the alteration
by the girl telling the poem. In that space I started to tell the poem. Then she started to tell it and noticed step my step her alteration, which was almost gone in the end. Seems that potential/static/Tone 40 simply has the ability to create, that is “put” there
something. I see the whole thing much like the fireworks. In my present reality I sill see some kind of “ability” in potential to “produce” some “tension” in itself, out of which a creation arises. Don’t
rely on me now, as I asked here Geir about it and his answer was
potential is pure potential (fine energy, no tension). He can be right,
my present experience is different.
Marianne, by “pure potential” Geir may mean “static”. Do you think “static” is the same as “Tone 40”?
Also, LRH says that energy consists of “postulated particles in space”. To me, any creation is a creation of energy – by postulate.
How does a postulate come about?
.
Vin, if my understanding of what Marianne was saying is correct, in the last couple comments above I think she gave a plausible description of how a postulate comes about, Do you think it could be aligned with the phenomena in quantum physics, doesn’t it? (Higgs field, wave function collapse…)
The bottom line is that a manifestation simply appears, isn’t it?
It is something from nothing scenario.
.
.
Yes, I agree that the ultimate scenario is “something from nothing” – i.e. “manifestation simply appears”. However, the frame of reference is sometimes other than what is “ultimately” true.
Not sure of your point but could you first answer my question to you: Do you think Marianne’s experience and explanation of how a postulate comes about could be aligned with the phenomena in quantum physics?
It seems strange to think that even a thetan is a manifestation at some level, but I think Buddha is right. There is nothing that is absolutely permanent.
My understanding doesn’t go very far into Quantum Mechanics yet. I am still wooing the muses.
.
Aw, come on, Vinnie, you know more than enough about quantum physics to answer the question. Maybe you just don’t want to change your considerations? 😉 But I like your phrase, “wooing the muses”.
If by “thetan is a manifestation”, you mean a physical one, with substance. that isn’t the definition. That wouldn’t even be LRH’s definition of “self”, which is “thetan, plus machines plus body, plus reactive bank (in Dianetics)” (8ACC-13,5410C19) The thetan is the non-physical part, a static, the rest is MEST,
Thetan is thought. It has the substance of thought.
.
Which definition of “thought” are you using?
Plain consideration…
That’s not the definition LRH is using in connection with thetan. The last few definitions in the Tech Dict indicate that. Your definition may be one of the earlier ones.
THOUGHT, 5 .thought is not motion in space and time. Thought is a static containing an image of motion. (HFP, p. 25) 6 . the subject matter of Scn. It is considered as a kind of “energy” which is not part of the physical universe. It controls energy, but has no wave-length. It uses matter but it has no mass. It is found in space, but it has no position. It records time but it is not subject to time. In Scn the Greek word (and letter), theta, is used as a symbol for thought. (Abil 14A) 7 . the causal agent in an organism. It is thought which causes everything both structural and functional that happens in an organism. An organism without
thought is already dead. (Abil 114A )
Marildi, Scientology is built around the old ideas of God and creation, or Cause-effect. These ideas work only within the universe. They do not work at the boundary of this universe or outside of it as you can see from the First cause argument. So, no matter what Hubbard says, thetan is part of this universe. At this level of understanding I side with Buddha and not with Hubbard.
As I have said so many times before, thetan is the “center of consideration” analogous to “center of mass”. THETAN is a convenient construct. If there are no considerations, there is no thetan. Thetan is like self. It gets its individuality from the considerations that make it up.
As considerations are removed, the thetan reduces to a fluid perception-point with no individuality. At this point we have knowledge that goes beyond thetan, self or individuality. And when that knowledge is removed there is no perception-point either because there is no manifestation.
This all is a conjecture on my part, but this is what makes sense to me as I look and dissolve inconsistencies for myself.
.
For me “static” “Tone 40” “potential” are different concepts, aspects
of the same THAT (in the East this word is used for the undefinable).
Marildi: “to me any creation is a creation of energy -by postulate”.
Never looked at it this way. Now looking at it: I can postulate energy, agree with Ron. But creation can happen without postulating energy too. Seems it can be so by that non-mest !!! fine/pure energy that
I see a tiny “tension” in (it’s not a good word for it, as this is not! that mest tension). I am not writing now more about it, as I can’t see further now. Thanks for your question and help! This time difference! Again I am going as it is late. Talk to you tomorrow!
Thank you, Marianne. I get that your knowledge/knowingness is from direct “perception”, which is what makes it so interesting!
In the previous comment you said: “In my present reality I still see some kind of ‘ability’ in potential to ‘produce’ some ‘tension’ in itself, out of which a creation arises”. And in the comment above you described Potential as: “…fine/pure energy that I see a tiny ‘tension’ in…”
So where you describe Potential as “fine/pure energy”, am I right that you mean “energy” figuratively (since Potential is actually not MEST but Static)? And would you agree that the “tension” that is produced by and in Potential could also be described as an intention (both words, “tension” and “intention”, have “stretch” in their derivations, btw)? Then, as for the creation that “arises” from the tension, wouldn’t that be a postulate, which is an energy pattern in the mind?
p.s.One definition of “consideration” is “a continuing postulate”. So I guess a consideration would be a continuous production of the tension/intention, keeping the postulate created in the mind. And to quote you again: “So as-ising is not the disappearance of the creation but the ‘awakening’ of Life from an unconscious continual creation of an ‘item’.” That actually aligns with the Axioms too.
Marildi,
In my present reality (difficult to use words for that):
yes, I use that “pure energy” figuratively…I see Potential as capable of “producing” different “realities” – one of them is MEST through
the MIND. One “line” of the “tension that Potential is capable of producing” is “intention(strecthing out)” as you write and it is true for the
Mest Universe. It doesn’t seem to have its own existence other than a continuous postulate from Potential through different manifestations. There seem to be “different from Mest realities” that “come out of” the “tension” in the Potential. That is other types of “stretching out” (than the intention). One-ness at this point to me includes all types
of “realities” (which I can’t see clearly, much less “live” them) that are
“beyond” the Mind. You can ask me: why does it all matter? My answer is: because I am adamant, relentless, sincere and honest in
finding the “non-existent” answer to “What is this all about?” In the midst of it I feel like a kid, playing! There are no “answers”. It’s shifts of perceptions and change. When “one” changes the “One” changes. I see it every day. To me it’s responsibility. No idea, where it will “lead” to….but it’s true living for me, with lots of love…..
experience, that is the key……
Thanks for asking….I see things more clearly now….love the way you
care…..what is your “drive”, Marildi?
My dear Marianne, you ask what my “drive” is? That’s a personal question!
🙂 I was laughing as I wrote that but actually it does feel deeply “personal” simply because as a general question it asks one’s deepest impulse or desire. Thanks for telling me your own! As a matter of fact, I already got (a while back) your “adamant, relentless, sincere and honest” efforts to find answers – and also your great desire to share what you’ve found with others.
Well, since I happen to be able and willing to express my innermost “feelings” when asked so sincerely, I would say that the answer to your question about my “drive” is “to achieve high ARC”. For me that simply means playing a creative, high-toned game with high-toned others. Now, doesn’t that seem like the thing to do? 🙂
Taking it a bit further, ARC is obviously concerned with understanding, so I (like you) have been working on getting answers. You also mentioned responsibility, which I agree with too. It brings KRC into the picture with the ARC, the two triangles always depending on each other, as I view it. It also seems right to me where you say that “when ‘one’ changes, the ‘One’ changes”, bringing everybody up.
I’m glad my asking a question helped you see more clearly! (Btw, a friend of mine, through a question, got me to appreciate the fundamental importance of ARC+KRC even better than I already had – a great example of the use of A, R and C! )
So now let me ask if you can say any more about this: “There seem to be ‘different from Mest realities’ that ‘come out of’ the ‘tension’ in the Potential. That is other types of ‘stretching out’ (than the intention).”
Vin,
“My understanding doesn’t go very far into Quantum Mechanics yet.
I am still wooing the muses.”
The muse: are you in for a game? If yes, follow these steps!
1. Recall when you earlier said to me jokingly: “You are as-ising me.
I am scared.”
2. Watch the movie Kill Bill or Titanic. Your choice. While watching, BE
all the characters!
3. Finishing the film get off all the characters. STOP.
4. Answer Geir’s question: Who/What considers?
5. Come to me to Hungary for a short practice seminar!
6 ………………………………………………………………………………..
With utmost love from ………………..write here a name.
Thanks Marildi for your answer! Getting personal can be fun and inspiring! I moved with my answer to the Bunch of…..thread. Please find it there. Regarding “diifferent realities”, later…..
One more thing: energy has different definitions. Can you write here all – if you like, others may find it useful too. Thanks!
Vin,
Fluid….but not a point… if you agree….and also…why conjecture?…Eliz told you that most of them were “correct”….me too saying that from experience….can you just “drop” it all and write about how your observations present themselves in life….the ones which can be put into words…like me doing that in some examples….
Vinaire: ” (3) Why doesn’t the auditor handle those factors first that are blocking the execution of the command? Doessn’t this by-pass amount to forcing the pc?”
Marildi: “(3) As indicated above, the factor that is blocking the execution of the command is the pc’s own considerations, which Tone 40 auditing (the bypassing of circuits) handles. The reason this doesn’t amount to enforcing is that the pc is basically there to get his case handled and that is the agreement on which auditing proceeds. And, just to repeat, this bypassing is only a short-termed gradient.”
Bypassing a situation is not handling the situation. It is bypassing the situation.
Conditioning occurs by agreement. Agreement is the key ingredient in any deep conditioning.
.
Vin: “Conditioning occurs by agreement. Agreement is the key ingredient in any deep conditioning”.
So are you saying that all agreement is conditioning?
Then I disagree! 🙂
It is good to disagree then to agree blindly.
One should look for oneself and see what is really there.
.
“Tone 40” is simply a quality of the comm line being put across to the pc. It has to “resonate” with the pc, which means the Tone 40 of the auditor is duplicated to whatever degree by the pc, ie, the Tone 40 of the pc is brought out in response to the Tone 40 of the auditor, thus “pc + auditor are greater than the bank”.
Yes. The point that Tone-40 has to “resonate” with the pc is very important. It must supply something that restrains the confusion of the pc. The pc may not know the significance of what he is being told to do, but it seems right to him.
The only thing is that Tone-40 can then be used to condition a person too.
.
2ndxmr: https://isene.me/2012/12/30/happy-new-year/#comment-27291
“A thought is dimensionless so it neither creates nor ceases the creation of space. It is located by the intention and ability of the thetan placing it. It is a zeo point associated with a 3-space point.”
.
(1) Thought has quality. Quality provides a dimension as it serves to differentiate one thing from another.
(2) Since thought has quality and it can be created, space is part of the structure of thought.
(3) What is this ability of a thetan? it seems that this ability is being considered arbitrarily. what is the law here?
(4) The above statement from 2ndxmr is simply full of inconsistencies..
.
Vin: “(1) Thought has quality. Quality provides a dimension as it serves to differentiate one thing from another.”
You can consider quality as a dimension if you like, but it has no business being associated with the dimensions we’re talking about (3-space, dimension zero).
Vin: “What is this ability of a thetan? it seems that this ability is being considered arbitrarily. what is the law here?”
The premise is that the potential of a thetan is a greater or lesser part of the potentials of the 1st being. That can be proven or disproven with research but cannot be dismissed by your armchair logic.
2ndxmr, your comment about “armchair logic” violates the Discussion Policy.
.
Vin, you are not speaking from a point of observation or experience. That is why I call it armchair logic. It may be deductive reasoning at your best, but if the conclusions do not match observation, then the logic must be faulty. The alternative is that the observers are delusional and insane. That would be another conclusion that would fail inspection.
No justifications please. You can discuss the inconsistencies in the ideas expressed without getting personal about the logic of the participant.
.
The root meaning of DIMENSION is “to measure out.” Mathematical definition is a specialized case. Broadly, anything that can be assessed in any way has dimensions. Thus, awareness itself is a dimension because there can be less or more awareness. Color provides a visual dimension. Tones provide an auditory dimension.
Considerations have all kinds of dimensions. I believe that considerations condense into space, and that there are different type of spaces in quality. Physics deals with quantitative dimensions only, but, I believe that space has many qualitative dimensions. Dark matter and energy have their origin in the qualitative dimensions of space.
.
Vin ” ….there are different types of spaces….” true in my reality.
First Being is just another version of First Cause. I have dealt with that in the PHILOSOPHY PROJECT.
.
KHTK has gotten many people looking more and more without filters. Our Chris Thompson is one of them. He makes me proud.
I still remember how recalcitrant Chris was when he first arrived on my blog and the Discussion Policy was enforced on him. He complained on Geir’s Blog how I was editing his posts on my blog.
But I was simply editing out those portions that had nothing to do with the discussion, but were simply distractions of putting attention on the participants. That was done to really make my point.
Chris gets the credit for persisting through that brief period and getting right into participating in discussions without attention on participants. I have never had to edit a single post since that brief initial period.
Chris has been the most valuable discussion partner for me. He has helped me in many ways. I have learned a lot from his looking.
My only hope is that more people will join me in looking at ideas without getting embroiled in the distractions as pointed out in the Discussion Policy.
That is when the fur will really start to fly. 🙂
Here is the Discussion Policy that I am referring to:
Discussions and what needs to be avoided
.
2ndxmr says in https://isene.me/2012/12/30/happy-new-year/#comment-27349:
”Thanks for the background on your Scientology training. I take it that you never did Upper Indoc TRs though, correct? Or delivered Objectives? That is where TR8, embodied in TR9 is used to get the PC to confront present time and get relocated in present time and out of the effects that drugs typically have on the mind.”
The first course I did at Scientology Cambridge Mission in 1969 was the old HAS Course. It included TRs 1-5 and the Upper Indocs. One had to go through all these drills twice… the first time to get familiar with them; and the second time it was business, rough and tough.
I did receive and deliver plenty of Objectives on Flagship Apollo. I was there when the RPF was created and launched. I was part of the very first RPF. But RPF was very different then. I was probably in it for a month or so. We got plenty of time to learn and co-audit. It was a rough and tumble world but not in a mean way as it is today.
.
”Did you ever try delivering Idenics on a person who had a heavy drug history? Just wondering how they did.”
I delivered Idenics totally free to whoever asked me for it. I never cared to ask for anyone’s drug history, but I am sure I got all types. The common factor was that they all wanted to handle their unwanted condition, and were willing to look per Idenics.
I had many good results, some no results, but none in terms of bad results.
.
I would just like to say that KHTK is a superset of Idenics, because it allows
(1) The idenics procedure itself,
(2) A self-application of mindfulness using Buddha’s exercises. It is like a superset of TR0.
(3) A discussion, using discussion policy, where the KHTK practitioner helps the other person follow a trail of inconsistencies. This can be done without violating the privacy of the other person where personal problems are concerned.
(4) Here I would be exploring the application of Scientology type processes with mindfulness alone on a self-application basis, or with the help of another person. It would be in a form that is very simple and with least amount of effort involved.
.
If I may ask, who did you do your Idenics training with?
Valkov, here are some Tone 40 drills. The second one is the higher gradient, where the student uses an e-meter.
TR 8-Q
Name: Tone 40 Assessment.
[…]
Purpose: To deliver the thought of a question into an exact position with or without words.
[…]
End Result: The ability to land a question with full intention into an exact target area, broad or narrow, at will and effectively, whether verbally or silently.
[…]
TR 4/8-Q1
Name: Tone 40 Assessment Prepared List Session Drill.
The number, TR 4/8-Q1, means: TR 4 for Pc Origin; TR 8 Intention and Q for Question; 1 for first part.
Position: Student and coach sitting at a table; A Meter is used, session admin, using prepared lists.
Purpose: To train a student to do all the actions necessary to deliver a full session smoothly, using prepared lists done with Tone 40 Assessment.
http://www.suppressiveperson.org/sp/archives/1836
Sorry, this was meant to go under your question to me. (Time for lme to hit the hay!)
Mike Goldstein.
By the way my short answer above is subject to misinterpretation. A more complete answer is here:
“4. KHTK includes a procedure for helping others in Addressing Unwanted Condition. This procedure was inspired by Galusha’s research in Idenics. However, in no way does this KHTK procedure contains all of what Idenics has to offer. KHTK stands on its own.”
From What is KHTK?
.
KHTK Looking includes IDENICS definition of looking and more.
KHTK goes beyond Scientology definition of looking as well.
.
.
I always had wonderful results when i word cleared people. But there i did not go so much by the e-meter, as I encouraged my students to use mindfulness, while applying mindfulness myself.
I understood TR0 the way I understand mindfulness. So, my reference was always to TR0 (being there and confronting) and I did not use the term mindfulness. I also used the Tech Dictionary definition of ATTENTION to great advantage.
.
I believe that Tone 40 has to do with the delivery of a command. It can be delivered only when a person has no confusions about his intention. He is focused like a laser what he wants to achieve.
But this doesn’t mean he should not follow the correct tech in bringing the improvements in the other person.
A terrorist can have Tone 40 in creating destruction.
.
Can it be said that I had Tone 40 in getting the Discussion Policy applied on this blog? 🙂
.
Sure.
LOL! Thanks. I think that was a great accomplishment. We started to have some real discussions for a change.
I think that thread has run out of steam. It has too many posts and it has become very slow.
It may be beneficial to have specific topics on the tech of Scientology to discuss. We have been conditioned not to discuss.tech in the past. All attempts to discuss tech have been derailed by targeting individuals who wanted to discuss. Hopefully, that distraction could be curtailed now with the implementation of the Discussion Policy.
This may help separate real gems in Scientology from total rubbish.
.
Where is this datum of “bypassing pc’s circuits with Tone 40” in auditing coming from?
.
Reading the references on TR 8 (Tone 40) posted by Maridi, it appears that the purpose is to deliver a command vey clearly with no confusions at the delivery end.
A clear delivery has a much better chance of getting the pc’s attention despite the confusions at his end.
.
Tone 40 is “I am what you are”. There is no time, no intention, no
separation in it. The conceptual separation of auditor, pc, command is
gone. The “touching of the wall” just happens, not as a “command”
that “has to be executed” but because the division between the “doer”
and the “doing” is gone. The doer and the doing is the same.
Ultimately the auditor can “be at Tone 40” all along. Can ask a question or give a command. The purpose of it is that the PC can confront
Tone 40 and hear/see the question/command as it is. That is the NOW, the present time.
It is not a matter of pc confronting Tone 40. It is a matter of pc not getting confused by the auditor, and feeling comfortable with the auditor.
If the pc is not feeling comfortable and less confused then auditor’s “Tone 40” is useless.
Sent from my iPad
Got it Vin, I still see it as I have written above.
No problem. I am just practicing normal English.
Sent from my iPad
Apparently, an element of mystery is attached to Tone 40 in Scientology. This may be because of the use of Scientology terminology.
Information about Tone 40 becomes much clearer when plain English is used.
.
I don’t know why you are saying that “mystery”. It was clear to me on the Upper Indoc many years ago using scio term. which, me by going beyond just conceptual (still mind) understanding of it, gave me then a first hand experience of Life’s ‘ability’ to ‘operate’ at Tone 40. The problematic/critical point is NOT in the terminology of ANY kind, but when one goes ONLY as far as CONCEPTUAL understanding, one will apply it only conceptually. That’s only one “operational level” of Life and the result will be at that level too.
This is a matter of opinion.
Sent from my iPad
Valkov (and everybody), this is to finish answering the question about Tone 40 per my understanding. First, I’ll add the definition of an instant read to the references I gave on TR 8 and Tone 40 :
“The correct definition of INSTANT READ is THAT REACTION OF THE NEEDLE WHICH OCCURS AT THE PRECISE END OF ANY MAJOR THOUGHT VOICED BY THE AUDITOR… Additionally, when looking for reads while clearing commands or when the preclear is originating items, the auditor must note only those reads which occur at the exact moment the pc ends his statement of the item or command.”
(HCOB 5 August 1978, INSTANT READS)
The exchange above about TR 8 and Tone 40 was first about objective processes, which are done off the meter but do involve TR8/Tone 40 in that the auditor is putting a thought/intention over to the pc and controlling the pc’s body (e.g. “Walk over to that wall”). The end result is that the pc is willing to control his own body in spite of the bank.
We then got into subjective processes, in which a pc runs items in the bank. These are first checked on the meter to see if there is an instant read and only then is the process run. In checking for the read, Tone 40 is used to ensure that the question/command – i.e. a thought/concept – does arrive at the pc. If there is an item in the pc’s bank which contains that thought and the item is available to the pc, the command (thought) will read IF the item is charged. The mechanism for why a charged item reads is that the command/thought is contained in the item itself (matches it) and thus restimulates the charge in the item. This is simply a matter of stimulus-response.
Val, did the references I posted in the comment above and the other two answer your question? You haven’t replied to any of them. 😦 🙂
Here’s one other Tone 40 reference I remembered. From HCOB 13 Nov 81 “What Tone 40 Is”:
“…Tone 40 is positive postulating….
“For one to achieve a Tone 40 intention, he must have a reality on space; otherwise he has no place in which to create an intention. Actually at Tone 40 one has unlimited space at will. That doesn’t mean “the greatest space” (which would happen at about Tone 20 or 22). It means space at will.”
Scientology doesn’t seem to have a good definition for SELF.or THETAN.
What is this “living unit” that is “source of life”? What is this “awareness of awareness: unit? Where does it come from? What is its make-up? How does it function? There is no explanation. It seems to be just a made up concept.
Looking at it as “center of considerations,” and ultimately as a “perception-point”, even which can dissolve, makes much more sense to me.
.
Thanks marildi. Yes, the refs did help clarify things. My computer is bogging a lot lately on loading these threads as well as not scrolling well,,so I haven’t been posting much.
Okay, good to know, Val. Btw, I wanted to ack you too for that Russian song you posted – and translated. I’ve always liked it!
I shall start writing my response to comments here on another thread.
.
Vin, LRH has over 3,000 hours of lectures going into detail on what is a thetan and all that. Have you listened to the PDC, for example? I’ve heard those go into a tremendous amount of detail on this.
It seems that the instant read is pointing toward the inconsistency that is at the top of the mental stack of the preclear.
.
Thanks Marildi,
You always do a good job, caring and sharing!
I love your comm too, Marianne. 🙂
I am wondering what the others are doing, there’s a silence. Possibly having a good time! May I ask you a personal question? What things are you enjoying most in life? Just if you want to answer it.
Nothing very out of the ordinary. The common denominator of most of it is direct communication with others. Besides the blog exchanges I have a few people I’m in regular email comm with, and even some in real time / real life! (LOL) I like to read too, especially LRH. For work, I do copy-editing. (Don’t go by my comments though – I should do more proofreading and editing of those before I post them! :))
Thank you! I am also for the simple, ordinary activities too! It comes through that you are enjoying whatever you do! It’s great to feel it! I like your coms, the way that you can contribute to the moment! Talk to you tomorrow, it is getting late here! Joyful blogging and have a beautiful day!
Thanks! Sending joy back to you. I know you will feel it! 🙂
Hi Maria,
Here’s a Russian song that emerged in the mid 1940s during WWII, and became perhaps THE Russian folk anthem although it was composed in 1938.
Now, 70 years later everyone knows this song and it is sung annually all over the country at the Day of Victory celebratory commemorative events. Russians have never forgotten the stand they made against the Nazi invaders, and the tremendous cost in lives it took to stop the Nazis, during what is called the Battle of Stalingrad, which was actually a protracted struggle over nearly 2 years. Some historians estimate it took 1.5 million or more Axis (German, Romanian,Hungarian), and Russian lives.
This song is all over Youtube. This isn’t the best audio, but I’m posting it because of the great audience shots.
I have rendered the song into English trying to keep the cadence and the spirit of the original. There are other translations,probably better than mine.
The song sums up why they fought so hard and so many gave up their lives.
Katyusha ( a diminutive of the name Katherine)
Bursting into bloom were
the apple and the pear trees
over the river the fogs began to flow
out upon the riverbank
daily stepped Katyusha
up on the river bank
rising steep and high
then she’d sing
her longing heartfelt love song
it was about
her steppe-born grey-eyed eagle
it was about
the one
she loved with all her being
and whose letters she
held
more dear than gold.
Oh you song, you maiden’s simple singing
May you fly in track
of
clearly shining sun
and to the warrior out on our farthest border
Pass on from Katyusha her greetings full of love.
Let him remember this ordinary maiden
Let him hear just how and what she sings
Let him guard
preserve our homeland
While Katyusha shall save
preserve their love.
Bursting into bloom were
the apple and the pear trees
Over the river the fogs began to flow……
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stalingrad
Here’s a nice version of the song in English.
Apple trees and pear trees were a-flower,
River mist was rising all around.
Young Katusha went strolling by the hour
On the steep banks,
O’er the rocky ground.
By the river’s bank she sang a love song
Of her hero in a distant land.
Of the one she’d dearly loved for so long,
Holding tight his letters in her hand.
Oh, my song, song of a maiden’s true love,
To my dear one travel with the sun.
To the one whom Katusha loved so,
Bring my greetings to him, one by one.
Let him know that I am true and faithful,
Let him hear the love song that I send.
Tell him as he defends our home that grateful,
True Katusha our love will defend.
Thanks, Valkov. Makes me want to get up and dance! Love those Russian dances too. (I’m giving away my heritage – my mother was Russian. :))
I didn’t know you’re half Russian, marildi! Which part of Russia was your mother from? Far-east or continental?
I meant to say that she was Russian-American. As a kid, I remember her saying she was “white Russian” so I guess the answer to your question is Continental. But I never asked her more about it then or later when I still had the chance to. I’m sure you know more about the subject than I do! And who knows, Dragos – that’s a relatively small part of the world and if you and I had DNA tests we might find out that we’re related. 🙂
A “white Russian” is anyone who was not a Bolshevik/Communist, not a “revolutionary”. Those were the “reds”. White Russians are the people who were not for the Bolshevik Revolution and fought against the “Reds” during the civil war which ran from 1917-1922. The Whites lost and that’s why they left Russia and emigrated to other countries.
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Civil_War
Many if not most of the white Russians in California and the West coast were actually from the Far East, as my family was. The “continental” Russians tended to settle in Europe or entered the USA through New York and settled on the East coast.
“Continental” would be west of the Ural mountains which are like the Rockies of Russia – Russia is kinda like a mirror image of the USA, geographically speaking, except that most of Russia is east of the Urals, just as most of the USA is east of the Rockies, so it’s not exactly a “mirror” image. But Moscow, which is the center of power, is in the western part of Russia, which does “mirror” the USA, where the center of power (D.C.) is in the east.
Russians from the Far East ended up spread all over the world – Australia, South America (principally Chile, where my cousin grew up), and the west coast of the USA, many in northern California, if they were lucky enough to get into the USA. Some also ended up in
Vancouver. Continental Russians tended to live in France if they could, or the USA if they could.
For more about me and my extended family, here’s an old site I haven’t updated in awhile which has some basic information: http://www.gulagsurvivor.com.
Wow, Valkov, you are a man of many interests and areas of knowledge, with your blog posts adding to the various subjects of your posts here and elsewhere. Very interesting roots you have, too. A nice pedigree for the Feral White Russian! Now I know which definition you mean for “White”. So which name do you mostly go by, Valkov or Elliott? Of course, we’ll always know you and think of you as Valkov, in any case.
Well, maybe my mother did mean “white” as opposed to “red”! But the idea I got was that she was referring to nationality or the region of “Russia” (the U.S.S.R. at the time) that her family was originally from. Here’s something from the “White Russian” disambiguation page in Wikipedia: “A person from Belarus, which translates as ‘White Russia’”. That would have made my ancestors Continental Russians. Our family has a different look from Russians of the Far East, unless that’s a misconception on my part. Actually, I read that some of those who fled “White Russia” went to the Far East.
Russia-USA
Political dichotomies
Geographical opposites, copied
Time zones exchanged
Alphabetical reversals
Damn good thing they can agree on hockey, eh?
Now if I just had the other kind of White Russian in front of me I would drink to that pithy post! 🙂
Pithy potht? Were it not for time I’d throw down the gauntlet for a real pithing match! 🙂
This thread has seen enough pothts of pithing matches as it is! 🙂
From wize Chinee guy: Better to be pithed off than pithed on.
You are just full of pith and vinegar tonight, 🙂
I bow. You have indeed pithed farther and longer than I. And with upright bearing, your aim never faltering from the comic line! Kudoth.
Here’s a great philosophical quote of Will Rogers – American entertainer, famous for his PITHY and homespun humor:
“There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.”
“There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.”
Well that’s a stream of thought that can just make one zip it. Look and learn; pith and burn.
“Look and learn; pith and burn”.
Perfect! We Amarecans have nothin’ on you Canajuns. 🙂
Hey, 2x, this is comment #999 on the thread. Post something pithy for #1,000!
Oh one of a thousand plus wonders, how you count!
“…how you count!”
Aw, you say that to all the girls. But wait…two ways of taking that. If you mean you think I miscounted and you didn’t get #1000 (you did!). then I might get pithed off!
So I’ll take it the positive way. 🙂
Smart observation, 2ndxmr 🙂
It’s impossible. I’m 100% Romanian, I know Russia just by history, literature and, unfortuntately, by 50 years of communism. But anyway, you’re “white russian”, so you’re with the “good guys” 🙂 So I like you anyway, no problem about it 🙂
Dragos, I’m starting to think my mother did mean “white Russian” as opposed to “red”! I was a small child but I got that the discussion was intense.
But if I were in fact White Russian, a descendent of Belarusians, and Belarus had been for the Reds, you would still like me anyway. Wouldn’t you, Dragos? 🙂
Yes marildi, your mom could very well have meant she was from Belarus or Biela Rus’ (White Russia). Do you know much about her, like names, places etc? Belarus is north of Ukraine and east of Poland, Latvia, and Lithuania, and west of Russia. I believe it did not achieve any independence until the 1990s, being right smack in between various warring states for hundreds of years. Mainly between Russia on one side, and Poland/Lithuania on the other.
I don’t know about “looking different” – the Yankovskys for instance, were descended from a Polish exile. The Russian tsars were fond of exiling “troublemakers” to Siberia, whether they were from Poland, Lithuania, Ukraine or wherever. Siberia was a kind of a melting pot that way. Russian surnames run the gamut of Polish, Ukrainian, Belarusian, and Russian derivation. Belarusians had an ethnic identity but no independent government. I have no idea what role that region played in the Russian Revolution. It is the last remaining Stalinist regime left in what used to be the various states of the Soviet Union.
I generally post online as Valkov because at bottom that’s who I am. My English name has always felt like an alias and still does, even after 60 years of it.
Val, my mother herself was American born and I don’t have data about her forebears. I wish I did but it’s one of those long family stories as to why I never had much chance to ask her about it when I got older. Now I would! Especially since you seem to be a scholar of Russia. Btw, it indicates that you still think of yourself as Valkov. You’ll have to tell us the story some time of how and why you got the American name too.
You said, Belarus IS “the last remaining Stalinist regime left in what used to be the various states of the Soviet Union.” In what sense is it still a “Stalinist regime”??
Dear Marildi, it’s not fair children to be judged by parents opinion or political trends. Only communists have this horrible attitude: if one was against them, they arrested the whole family, even children. So, doesn’t matter your mother was Red or White, if you are not Red, I like you, of course 🙂 Remember the American boys who went in Vietnam: “Better dead than red”.
Dragos, somehow I knew you would say something about “the sins of the mother NOT being visited upon the daughter…” 🙂
As for “Better dead than red”, the best interpretation I can think of for that is a line in the Scn Code of Honor that you might like:
“9. Your self-determinism and your honor are more important than your immediate life.”
marildi, I can answer you what you’ve asked Valkov. Why is Belarus the last Stalinist regime in the former USSR? It’s very simple: the head of the state is a cruel leader, there is no democracy, secret police is present everywhere, government is opressing all forms of freedom (free speach, political opposition, NGO’s, trade unions). And the most visible thing…they still preserve Stalin’s statues all over the country.
Wow, it’s hard to believe that there would even be the statues. I guess it’s literally true and not just a metaphor to call it a Stalinist regime. But I’m sure their days are numbered in these modern times of demands for freedom by the people. It’s just a matter of time. Thanks for the data, Dragos.
“The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.”
Would these be Scientologists from MIssouri? (Apologies in advance to anyone I offend)
Val: “Would these be Scientologists from MIssouri?”
Show me someone from Missouri and I’ll show you someone with a learn-burn.
Ew…!
LOL 😀
It’s a wonderful song Valkov! Thank you! I think it sounds best in Russian, but thanks for posting the English version as well. Wow. Those are some HUGE crowds, such a show of love of country and its people!
Marianne, you asked me to post the definitions of energy. I’m glad you brought up the subject of energy as I just recently came across some things in Scientology 8-80 (chapter titled “The Manifestations of Energy”) that I thought were really interesting:
“The characteristic of any vibration is that it contains the manifestations of a static and a kinetic.…The interplay between the static and one or more kinetics causes energy interchanges.
… the static is furnished by the individual, and the mathematical symbol for this near-ultimate is theta.”
And here are all the definitions of energy from the Tech Dict:
ENERGY, 1. energy would simply mean a potential of motion or power. It’s potential or actual motion or force. (SH Spec 84, 6612C13) 2. energy derives from imposition of space between terminals and a reduction and expansion of that space. (COHA, p. 256) 3 . there are three kinds of energy. There’s a flow, and then there’s a dispersal, and then there’s a ridge. (PDC 18) 4 . a mass of particles which is a mass of motion. (5203CM04B) 5 . postulated particles in space. (PXL, p. 150) 6. energy is subdivisible into a large motion, such as a flow, a dispersal, or a ridge, and a small motion which is itself commonly called a “particle” in nuclear physics. Agitation within agitation is the basic formation of particles of energy, such as electrons, protons and others. (Scn 8-80, p. 43)
Thanks Marildi! Def. 1 and 2 explain a lot. I find them true and perceivable in life. Def. 2 and 1 together gives an interesting phenomenon.When there is a complete reduction of space between two terminals (e.g.bodies and minds),
you get a “common, one” potential of motion and power. It’s a spirit to spirit experience, or can even happen that is a “one” spirit experience.Out of this a kind of “co-creation” can happen. One knows that it happened so only after it has taken place in mest. Very beautiful.
Marianne: “When there is a complete reduction of space between two terminals (e.g.bodies and minds), you get a “common, one” potential of motion and power.”
Good observation, Marianne. A lot more needs to be said and developed around that concept of sharing space (affinity) and enlarging space. The bit that we tend to exteriorize around our bodies now is likely just a weak echo of the previous ability we had to exteriorize across vast distances. Vast distance, vast energy. A way to create a reality. (Another concept that has some intriguing implications. More later…)
2ndxmr
Thank you. “A way to create a reality” – yes…..more later…yes…
I related to a friend that we live in the “ctrl-Z age”, the age where that wonderful computer combination that lets us undo a mistake in the virtual world just about perfectly, and where, yet, in the real world we sometimes just can’t get “undo” to operate.
So is real-world ctrl-Z just in “beta” (field testing stage) and suffering the trials, or is it a non-starter, an idea more doomed than Sony beta (or betamax as it was officially introduced)?
What is it about reality that makes it so hard to undo?
That question may be the answer.
If theta had the ability to “undo”, to take a current undesired state – a consequence of a miscalculated action or desire – and undo it; turn time backwards; take the knife out of the wound and see mortality reversed; make whole a sundered relationship… what would the universe be like? Would it be bettered by the corrected wrong? What about all the “rights” (correct actions) in progress at the time of a correction? Could a correction be localized so as not to influence the entire universe?; to not influence the lives, the “universes” of all other beings?
Unless that last question could be answered with a resounding “yes” (and any cursory examination would say it can’t) then the only plausible solution would be to make an initial agreement that the ability to modify the universe on an individual basis would need to be rescinded; removed; hacked out of the “abilities” repetoire.
LRH said reality was agreement:
REALITY, 1. is, here on earth, agreement as to what is. This does not prevent barriers or time from being formidably real. It does not mean either that space, energy or time are illusions. It is as one knows it is. (COHA, p. 249)
But IF…
IF the ability of the thetan HAD included the ability to condense the wave function to create the REALITY the thetan desired, to have the means to “undo” as much as the means to “do”, then the amount of “undo(s)” that we would likely see would mean that the universe would be in a complete state of confusion as no linear progress could ever be made: everyone would be trying to make a change that would be at the same time unmocking all other changes. Impossibility.
So that is my cognition about reality: that this agreed upon reality is really due to the individual abdication of the right to reverse reality on an instantaneous basis; to agree to disagree, but move forward to correction, not backwards; to let a certain amount of randomity be mixed in with postulated future realities to make sure the playing field was evened between beings.
The agreement between beings, or the enforced agreement on entering this universe would then be that “Once the toothpaste is outa the tube, ain’t no puttin’ it back in, baby. Deal with it.”; the agreement is that reality is not a consequence of group agreement, it is a consequence of individual and random action.
And so the universe unfolds.
But, is that the end of it?
More later…
“Un-do” is “as-is”. It is resolving inconsistencies layer by layer. One cannot un-do what one is attached to. If you are attached to “thetan” you cannot un-do “thetan”.
That is what KHTK is all about. Look at attachments and dissolve them.
.
“the agreement is that reality is not a consequence of group agreement, it is a consequence of individual and random action”.
So what I’m getting from this is that Theta in the form of INDIVIDUALS, i.e. acting through individuals, is continuously evolving reality as we then come to know it. That would put individuals – as such – majorly at cause point rather than at the effect point of a universe that unfolds the way it does because of GROUP agreement. This is a whole different perspective (assuming I got it right).
I’m not sure where “random action” comes into the picture, though, unless you’re referring there to the chance occurrences, or the laws of probability, of the physical universe…
Anyway, do carry on with the “more later” when you can!
2ndxmr
I find it a possibility that two beings without filters go through the consensus mest in a way that when they both get to Tone 40, as I said
earlier, something appears in the universe that is the “symbol” of their
“going through mest”. It can be anything, from a song, poem to as profound as food, a travel or a place for future business (the last also
happened to me). What is even more interesting,if these two beings don’t make any considerations at Tone 40 (which is not easy as the mind automatically labels the “symbol” as a “miracle”, not noticing that this is the actual operation of the One-Potential through the interrelated (by theta lines) individual “forms” and carry on being at Tone 40, they then can transcend Mest and from then on can create as if parallelly without any “agreement”-kind of spirit to spirit art/game “way”. It seems that all of us are capable of that, more precisely we are still doing that but most are not yet conscious of this “operational level”. It seems to me now, that those who have become and willing to go even “further” than this “reality level” can/will “live and create” “there”, leaving Mest “dimension” behind….because of the big difference of realities, “communication” may not be possible between the different “dimensions”…..may not be- I hope it will be…
Geir used a “concept”, that is Potential of an Is-ness…to me at this point the beyond the mind reality levels are Potentials of Is-nesses,
different levels of possible “experiences” for the One Potential to
play with its abilities….
A being is a filter.
.
A being is not a filter.
.
A being is a construct and a filter.
.
A being is not a construct and not a filter.
.
I have my opinion, you have yours.
.
You have your opinion. I have truth.
.
Aha! How do you know you have the truth? Is it the absolute truth?
.
It is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God.
.
–
.
“It is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God.”
ROTFLMAO 🙂
Damn, you busted me. I was pulling Vin’s leg and he was biting. Then you blow the whole joke. I was prepared to run this for a few hours. Or maybe not.
.
.
.
(etc.)
Let’s start again… A being is a filter. 🙂
.
OK.
A being is not a filter.
,
You have your opinion, I have mine. 🙂
.
“A being is not a filter.” I agree Isene.
Now I have filters on my cigarettes and in my sink faucet where the smoke and water flow through. I have a body that my spirit animates and flows through, but I am not that filter.
A filter is an object and an object is just a mest symbol . A being is a creative point of outflow and not just a filter. There is not a being similar to someone else. To prove it here we have some latinAmerican filters having fun:
With my regards and apreciation to all the contributors of this blog 😉
You stated it right, I made error, probably too much wine with dinner, forget my spirit, I am that spirit who has filters. Nite!
Rafael I met your brother today, Roberto, you have very nice family but I must have scared the hell out of him because i have addressed him as ”darling man”’ hehehe….how are you my dear? I wish you a wonderful future! Love ya… Elizabeth.
Hi, my dear Elizabeth Hamre, I have been missing you, how are you, are you fine? . You know I love you too, my brother is fine but he is a little shameful, but a good boy. My best wishes to you too.
Dear Rafael. I am very-very well I am minding my own universe…and do what I do: explore those unexplored considerations…. Here in the Lower Mainlad is winter: same as any other place and I am quieter because of that..but I still write in my blog and I comment in the Italian blog…May joy fill every moment of your day!.. And tell your Roberto no matter what is my reputation I have not eaten any one lately… I have given up meat long time back..! Love you!!
I have forgotten to mention Vinay visits here time to time and we battle.. we do love to irritate each other while doing that we have rip-roaring marvelous time.!
On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 12:08 AM, elizabeth hamre wrote:
> Dear Rafael. I am very-very well I am minding my own universe…and do > what I do: explore those unexplored considerations…. > Here in the Lower Mainlad is winter: same as any other place and I am > quieter because of that..but I still write in my blog and I comment in the > Italian blog…May joy fill every moment of your day!.. > And tell your Roberto no matter what is my reputation I have not eaten any > one lately… I have given up meat long time back..! Love you!! > >
Dear Elizabeth Hamre, I would like to visit your blog too, it is inspiring !!!
deElizabethan, you are a smart girl and I like that 🙂
deElizabethan, it is nite indeed !
Isene, Best long laugh of the whole day! Still LOL:-)
Dee, Best long laugh of the whole day! Still LOL:-)
.
ROTFLMAO 🙂
.
Like
You have to live with what you believe. God can do nothing about it. 🙂
.
I agree with you again Isene “A being is not a construct and not a filter.”
Vinaire – you do provide some humor, thanks.
Agreement is mostly conditioning.
.
Vinaire – “Agreement is mostly conditioning.”
If one conditions oneself if that something to be afraid of or to be made wrong? And so what? 🙂
Nothing like that. It is what it is.
Lot of people agreeing that the earth is flat will live fearing falling off the edge of the earth. That is all… Nothing much.
.
Vin,
You can call it, label it whatever in the “mind”, ” I ” love being and
“expanding”. Potential can actually be no-thing, “one” being or “all”
beings. The “experience” comes about when one doesn’t have any
concept about it in the mind.
You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
Unwanted conditions are a side effect of being and expanding as a being.
.
well indeed you only have your cake if you “eat” it
When you eat the cake it gets digested and it is gone. It is not there anymore.
.
Dear Rafael,
Re: Pájaro Campana video, dedicated to all the contributors of this blog.
My filter has filtered the videos’ filters, and rendered me a filtered input signal. (Notice that when I say “my”, I mean I own the filter, I don’t mean I am the filter).
From Wikipedia: “In signal processing, a filter is a device or process that removes from a signal some unwanted component or feature”.
My filter also has an information-entropic optimization function, resulting in ¡Está buena la muchacha en bikini! Lástima, ella tenía mucha ropa.
On a more philosophical note, it looks like some people are so identified with their filter, that they cannot believe they are not the filter.
Ferenc Francisco, it is a very good observation.
I, frankly, don’t understand this scientology aim for exteriorization from space if what is in the final end is just entropy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_Universe
hehe, who knew the basic mechanic of the universe was a Ponzi scheme? But seriously, the arrow of entropy and the order of time move in the same direction – yes, and the arrow of Ponzi move only in one irreversible direction . . . I think that goal of “exteriorization” is misguided and the arrow points to a dead space. Rafael, I think your observation is an astute one. Happy New Year old friend.
It seems to me that Brahma inhaling and exhaling could be a good description of reality which dovetails with modern cosmological ideas.
At the center of our galaxy is a large black hole which is sucking up matter at a furious rate. I can imagine it will eventually swallow all the stars in the galaxy, and will eventually coalesce with all the other black holes which likely exist across the universe at the centers of other galaxies. In the meantime as entropy progresses,more and more matter will be swallowed by these black holes which coalescing will eventually contain all the matter in the universe in one gigantic black hole.
This singularity might then reach a critical mass which results in a “big bang”.
This kind of cycle could occur repeatedly thus destroying and re-creating the universe over and over again on a purely mechanical basis without the creation of any new matter/energy. A kind of endless recycling.
Brahma’s exhalation being a big bang, and his inhalation being the collapse of all the matter/energy in the universe into a gigantic
singularity, which then again “big bangs” out into another universe.
The time spans involved would by our puny standards would be
almost inconceivably enormous.
The possible implications for thetans are interesting.
Valkov: The time spans involved would by our puny standards would be
almost inconceivably enormous.
Chris: Not almost, are.
Valkov: The possible implications for thetans are interesting.
Chris: The implication for the Laws of Physics are interesting because that model as you describe it and which I have considered seems to fly in the face of the laws of thermodynamics which counter the “perpetual motion machine” that your model describes. Tremendously interesting to consider.
Valkov: It seems to me that Brahma inhaling and exhaling could be a good description of reality which dovetails with modern cosmological ideas.
Chris: Mysticism is not totally out of place when discussing these orders of magnitude. No harm done so long as we keep the perspective.
Valkov: At the center of our galaxy is a large black hole which is sucking up matter at a furious rate. I can imagine it will eventually swallow all the stars in the galaxy, and will eventually coalesce with all the other black holes which likely exist across the universe at the centers of other galaxies. In the meantime as entropy progresses,more and more matter will be swallowed by these black holes which coalescing will eventually contain all the matter in the universe in one gigantic black hole. This singularity might then reach a critical mass which results in a “big bang”.
Chris: Lots of conjectures to this one. We can let our imaginations go wild and it’s fun! Another would be that the mass is “pouring straight through.”
Another thing to keep in mind is that not only matter is going into the black holes but also space as well.
Black holes will provide *loads* of fun for everyone for a long time to come as they are kind of hard to study! The subject just seems to draw us in!
Chris, you say ” I think that goal of “exteriorization” is misguided and the arrow points to a dead space. ” . Very well put , that´s why I think that exteriorization is not enough for redemption. In my opinion, dignity points out to the missing factor. Have a very happy and prosperous new year my friend.
I don’t think too many would opt for absolute entropy, but the abilities native to the thetan allow for a lot of options when it comes to “experience” .
” the abilities native to the thetan ” sounds to me like the matter covered in the ACCs, it would be good to gather an investigation team to find out about this stuff. Forget the original OT levels and the new ones, lets create in the freezone a better version. I wonder what Mr. Pierre Ethier would do on this.
Here are my latest comments on exteriorization.
An Experience
.
vinay, your observations in this article are very interesting.
Rafael, do you know that you can also comment on Vinaire’s blog?
.
Ho, thanks Vinay, I will try to land some considerations there just for fun.
V… how can you comment on something which you even if and when experienced by you…. you have no reality that you have experienced something? your comments do blow me away!!
What inconsistency you are looking at?
.
Valkov,
The universe as we “see” it is a construct of the human mind. It’s not
solid. It has no forms and shapes. Impossible to describe it with words.
Yes, we postulate it into “reality” but quite differently from how a human expects it. And there is some “fresh, new energy” coming. What is going to happen I have no idea.
Dear Marianne Toth, your statement reminds me of my beloved friend Elizabeth Hamre. It is really interesting your perception of “fresh, new energy” coming, could you elaborate a little more on this.
Rafael,
I am just sensing it…can’t write more about it…it is coming.
Love the video of your Latin-American filters!!! Preventing any “thinkingness”, I love having/being a female body and character “this life-time” having thus fun in that part of the game when I feel like so.
The cycle seems to be: one is not human, one is fully human, one is not human but can act and play so any time….so thanks!
Marianne Toth, yes I guess it is coming too.
Rafael,
What is your definition of exteriorization?
Marianne Toth, it is the very same that LRH used, to occupy the same space of an object.
Rafael, where did you get that definition?? This is LRH’s definition of exteriorization:
“the state of the thetan, the individual himself,being outside his body. When this is done, the person achieves a certainty that he is himself and not his body.”
Hi marildi, I understand this definition. Unfortunately it is also accompanied by descriptions about the instability of such state and the need to take an object as the havingnes. So for me the deduction is, exteriorization with the result of interiorization again.
Hi Rafael. I believe this is a mis-duplication on your part. But do you have the reference you are basing that on?
Dear marildi, the real life is outside the LRH references.
My dear Rafael. YOU were the one who started out saying, “I, frankly, don’t understand this scientology aim for exteriorization…”, thus putting the subject in the context of Scientology. Then you gave a definition and your ideas about exteriorization that I felt was a misconstruing of what the references state, as I understand them. If you now can’t give a reference for your statement, why not just say so? 😉
marildi, I could give a reference about the instability of the exterior state as described by LRH in his technical references and tapes but unfortunately this digging work amidst the LRH´s work looks to me not interesting, sorry.
Things can be discussed without LRH references by relying on what one actually sees.
.
Marildi LRH’s references not necessarily correct what the person sees, since LRH had a totally different universe-reality from others and no matter how brilliant was the man what he has written about that was his reality… and that reality not necessarily fits into every ones universe. In fact his views… considerations have cased equal amount of MU’s confusion disagreement as agreements. I am happy to say that the universe do not revolve around what he has written and believed in. In fact the Universe is doing really well without 99% of his believes since only 1% has the valuable .. the rest should have been shredded, but not to worry over that because it will be forgotten.. only the ”truth” will survive the rest will melt way because it is learned material. and that melts away after the being parts from the body… good example: who remembers who they were just one life before this and what was their name?? no one… so the learned stuff. tooooop will vanish..
Vinay, that’s truth.
you have my agreement on that… and I prefer that because if one uses LRh’s references they act or are filters… not ones own viewpoints or considerations but his.. because after all his view are referred to.
You are right Rafael … even if the concept of going exterior would be explained here clearly what is in fact happening that explanation would not give the ”reality” the experience so the explanation would be no use what so ever.
There is a huge MU an Exteriorisation and that was caused by LRH he was wrong with his definition because more likely he was guessing what it was and not experiencing..
Since the Spiritual being DO NOT MOVE.. CANT MOVE, only particles move.. therefore the being is not going any place but VIEWS- EXPERIENCES… the condition situation location position what one is experience is labeled : considered ” here, there, inside, outside, distance, close far, etc etc..
Dear Elizabeth Hamre, so a good motto here could be ” experience it ” and then to talk about that.
My dear… now that would be a very good exercise… comparing realities-experiences… and what one has learned benefited from those experiences… now that is fun..
Dear Elizabeth Hamre, yes, it could cause out and loud laughs. As a matter of fact I can think of a couple of subjects.
Lets here them!! would love to read something from the track.!!
Dear Elizabeth Hamre, the track looks to me a boring topic, why not touch the maitreya-matteya one we touched once in your blog. here is an interesting link on this from Advance! magazine issue 26:
http://mikemcclaughry.wordpress.com/2011/10/18/a-collection-of-l-ron-hubbard-quotes-buddhism-and-christianity/
thank you!
I think Hubbard just read some Cliff Notes about Buddhism written by a Christian.
.
Vinay, it could very well be so. In the Hymn of Asia poem, LRH asks the reader ” Am I metteyya “. This longly awaited avatar of the new age movement seems to me more like a promotional tool for the church than anything based on the truth. Lets remember that in such time period the Theosophical society had in England the Indian born speaker Jiddu Krishnamurti like a kind of world teacher. Jiddu Krishnamurti died in ojai California in February 17, 1986 ( aged 90 ) having given his last conference a few days before.
Rafael, I have studied some of Jiddu Krishnamurti long time ago. I may get back to him. However, I find Hubbard to be the only person who made philosophy systematic for me. The systematic thinking provided by Dianetics and Scientology helped me overcome my physical ailment and depression.
It is that part of Scientology (systematic thinking), which I very much respect and which i am still carrying forward with me. That is the same thing that inspired John Galusha to come up with Idenics. That is also the inspiration behind KHTK. The part of the Scientology that stinks to high heaven is its claim to be the “only workable way.’ and its “business comes first” approach. Hubbard was no saint and no Buddha.
.
Vinay, but certainly a scientific on the human mind, not only an enabler of philosophy systems.
Rafael I been waiting to hear- read those experiences ever since I started to blog 2 and half years back… but not sub stories: experiences I am waiting for to read but wins… recalls from any part of the track… wild wonderful experiences… anything at all. long as the story do not start : what they have done to me!! hehehe… here is one. In 76 my sister Ava and I we were at ST Hill, we, both of us were on the OT levels at the same time. We had lots of fun because both of us could recall incidents from the track with no problem and she and I in secrets swapped stories since we were not allowed than to talk of out cases.. my life since no matter what ever happened it was my life once! So one day Ava busted into the lounge after having her session where I was sitting and yelled at me ” you have poisoned me again and this was not a first time you did that to me if I were you I would handled that in session why you use poison! ” Than she realized what she said did not matter any more… we laughed and happily went to the village for a nice cup of tea and sconces with clotted cream…… it seems time has disappeared for both of us, we were suspended in action in different location -experiences, and that is what happens in session… but we had tea together and that was on the same location for both of us…
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 8:42 PM, elizabeth hamre wrote:
> My dear… now that would be a very good exercise… comparing > realities-experiences… and what one has learned benefited from those > experiences… now that is fun.. > >
Dear Elizabeth Hamre, reading your wins have always been a delightful experience for me.
Rafael.. After the first cognition in 73 I was hocked… and after my first session experiencing past life.. I become addicted.. All I ever wanted is to know more and more I have learned that made me realize how little I knew… But the really fun started when I no longer had the session about me- self. but the universe… To give a session to a tornado, a volcano… a crow, cloud or a iceberg, distant star, or the sun, a dark corner of the house or a three, flower or give sessions to ghost in the cemetery… just naming few items here, those session are the something I have difficulty writing about. but my dear there are being there… and they communicate beautifully have cognition’s… it is a blast to get to know the universe.. The grates adventure I ever had, I am having…
Dear Elizabeth Hamre, to give a session to a tornado sounds like you did it really fast, before the next one ! 🙂
Elizabeth, you say:
“Since the Spiritual being DO NOT MOVE.. CANT MOVE, only particles move.. therefore the being is not going any place but VIEWS- EXPERIENCES… the condition situation location position what one is experience is labeled : considered ” here, there, inside, outside, distance, close far, etc etc..”
In the Factors, LRH says:
“12. The dimension point [particle] can be moved by the viewpoint [spiritual being], for [because] the viewpoint [spiritual being], in addition to creative ability and consideration, possesses volition and potential independence of action; and the viewpoint [spiritual being], viewing dimension points [particles], can change in relation to its own or other dimension points or viewpoints. Thus comes about all the fundamentals there are to motion.”
The two of you may be saying the same thing.
M… only you would know IF WE MIGHT BE SAYING THE SAME… but the ” might be” is not necessarily the same ”’ perhaps.. maybe might be.. well that could be: but is it the same? Yes or no… do let me know on that.. but an the other hand you don’t need to.. unless you want to.. of course do we care or we don’t care… hehehe.. By now I only have viewpoint consideration because if I have doubt i know there is inconsistency as Vinay would say. well if there is one or more than one than one is wrong… love getting lost among the concepts… 🙂 It boils down on the end the is one truth. the basic. Let me know..
Eliz, since you asked, yes, I do think you and LRH are saying the same thing. And there are many references on this point, but the reason I quoted the one I did was because I thought it was stated in a very similar way to the way you had stated it. Here is another quote and a few definitions from the Tech Dictionary:
“…a Life Static has no mass, no motion, no wavelength, no location in space or in time.” (from Axiom 1 of the Scientology Axioms)
STATIC, 1. a static is something without mass, without wavelength, without time, and actually without position…4…Theta has no motion. Even when the MEST it controls is moving in space and time, theta is not moving, since theta is not in space or time. (Abil 114A) 5. has no motion, it has no width, length, breadth, depth…(Scn 8-8008, p. 13)
THETAN…2 . the awareness of awareness unit which has all potentialities but no mass, no wave-length and no location. (HCOB 3 Jul 59) …4 . (spirit) is described in Scn as having no mass, no wave-length, no energy and no time or location in space except by consideration or postulate…(FOT, p. 55)
M.. Static 1.. that is my reality-experience … I think we should have that written in stone… hehehe.. and than somebody could eat his heart out of jealousy because my words ached in stone would be read for thousands years 🙂
Thanks, Rafael. it seems you recognize now that you were the one who, to start with, was making statements about what LRH said and I was only asking what LRH reference you got that from. So for you to then answer, as you did at first, and basically tell me that LRH references don’t matter made no sense in the context of the discussion – and in fact was the logical fallacy called red herring (where an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue).
Your answer now that it would mean a lot of work digging the references up is much more acceptable. (Unfortunately, others still haven’t grasped the point that your first “pithy” answer was a red herring logical fallacy – but I am like you and find it to be too much work to keep trying to get it——————- through to them.)
Nevertheless, I would like to now point out that in this last comment of yours where you refer to the subject matter as “the instability of the exterior state”, you have substantially changed what you said earlier, which was that LRH’s definition of exteriorizaton was “to occupy the space of an object” (an idea that conflicts with all the definitions of exteriorization in the Tech Dictionary). I believe this is the logical fallacy of Changing the Goal Posts.
The red herring is the accusatory use of “you.”… “You did this,” “You said that.”
The effort to use “you” as a constant is a red herring.
.
Vin, a personal remark is defined as “relating to an individual or his character, conduct, motives or private affairs often in an offensive way”. (Merriam Webster Dictionary)
The phrases “You said that” or “You did this” are references to the person’s comment and not directed at the person as a personal remark. It is an attempt to take up the comment itself. If, for example, the comment is illogical or it changes the subject, any common sense discussion procedure would require such to be pointed out. That’s just part of discussion and an attempt to keep it rational.
Perhaps saying that what the person said was illogical, when phrased as “What ‘you’ said was illogical”, seems personal to you, but it isn’t – because it isn’t stating that the person himself is always illogical. In other words, the use of the word “you” in “You said that” or “You did this in your reply…” shouldn’t be construed as personal remarks. So we should keep the actual meaning in mind.
We differ.
.
marildi, the subject touching the instability of the exterior state and the consequence resulting in occupying the space of an object goes beyond a play of words for PR purposes. It has to do with the real reason why the original OT levels were withdrawn and never reprogrammed in the bridge, the end product could not be delivered.
Rafael you got my interest, care to tell more? if it is confidental you can write to me endlesstringofpearls@gmail.com
Dear Elizabeth Hamre, there is nothing confidential on this. The issues on NOTs are coincident with the withdrawn of the original OT levels and the materials of these levels ( the original and the new ones ) are easilly avalaible in the web.
Rafael: “the end product could not be delivered.”
How do you know that? The anecdotes that used to print in the Advance mags were all about that product.
An anecdote that I received only second hand (from the observer) was a phenomenon that dealt with the very depths of QM. The validity of the observer (a person with no reason to and no previous inclination to prevaricate) led me to consider the observation seriously. (Too mysterious? Simply put, an early NOTs PC had encounters with mest where, well, her hand passed (observed) right through it. Her offhand reply?: “That just keeps happening.”) (And then it was back to business at usual, that business being waiting for the next NOTs session.)
My continued consideration of that observation and other anecdotes (as well as my own recalls of events disembodied) have led me to concepts which, upon investigation, I see align with other searchers throughout the ages.
The whole concept of the nature of the being and the abilities of the being are too widespread to be immediately discounted as delusional. Although the evidence is largely anecdotal (due to the FACT that science has no means of measuring the frequencies and dimensions occupied by the being), the anecdotal evidence is so corroborative that the phenomena cannot be dismissed in an intelligent way: in order to dismiss it you must stop thought, must use preconceived ideas or biases to guide judgement, must dismiss some of the wonders you might have observed.
I can certainly see how a mistrust of corporate Scientology could trigger a mistrust of all things Scientological, but remember that Scientology was built on the knowledge of thousands of years of thinkers. You will have a hard time to dismiss all Scientology when its background is uncovered. To do so you will need your own fixed ideas, and my guess is that you CAN, actually, move away from fixed ideas.
So, when you make a comment like “the end product could not be delivered” I would ask you to inspect that against anecdotal evidence, at least. At least that as there is little good in the way of providing concrete evidence at this time. That is a goal I personally have: to make scientific measurements that validate some of the claims of Scientology. I have that goal as I have experienced things too wonderous to fit into normal explanation and I’ve experienced them thanks wholly to my auditing and training backgorund in Scientology. My background in the sciences certainly help me create a reference framework for what I’ve experienced, but I see no reason to assume I would have arrived at my current state of ability without Scientology. Certainly, that provides an amount of filter to how I see things, but how I see things is largely due to simple ability to observe and analyze. We all have that ability. Speaking from my own perspective, it can be enhanced remarkably by auditor training and many hours in the chair.
Scientology training may not be the only way to assess observations, but Scientology is an incredibly comprehensive study of the spirit and provides a much stronger base from which to analyze and correlate data of a spiritual nature than any other science that I’ve come across. It provides a unique crossroads of science and philosophy, a big step towards bringing metaphysics into the realm of physics. It cannot be dismissed.
2ndxmr, thank you for posting that informed and yet respectful reply to Rafael. I was pondering how to do so without it coming across as simply critical, as was my last reply to him, with no constructive data or references to offer. Not being very familiar with the materials on exteriorization/interiorization I was going to try to research it but may not have been very successful. You really did a great job and I literally breathed a sigh of relief. 🙂
Btw, Dennis has posted experiences he had when on NOTs that were very similar to what you related. Maybe he’s reading these posts and will join in on the discussion. Or maybe Rafael remembers some of those…
marildi, you are right, magic happens but how to achieve it with stability is the real quest for me. It is my opinion that new processes and practices should be developed to achieve it.
Rafael, I am in full agreement with you that (while not discarding the tried and true tech that already exists) new processes and practices should continuously be be evolved and developed. Btw, 2ndxmr has originated some interesting ideas he has had which relate to ultimate principles of the physical universe and theta, from which an advanced tech might be developed. Those posts may have been in one of the periods of time when you weren’t participating much here, but I think you might be interested as you have studied quantum physics, for example. This subject reminds me of that long thread of Geir’s on a Theory of Everything, and I know you were involved in that one too.
marildi, yes, that thread of Geir’s on a Theory of Everything was very interesting too, I am still chewing a tree of life theory of my own as the basic-basic.
Rafael, you say it’s a tree of life theory? Any connection to the intriguing Tree of Knowledge that Ken Ogger (The Pilot) claims to have discovered in his research? Either way, tell me a bit about yours, if you don’t mind.
marildi, I know little of Ken Ogger´s work. such intriguing Tree of Knowledge that Ken Ogger (The Pilot) claims to have discovered in his research is an unknown item for me. What I see is not a tree of knowledge ( Geir´s hyperlists could be such thing ) but a tree of the recursive life, the David star describes it pretty fine as a mathematical formula on the creation and evolution of life, have you seen this ?.
No, I haven’t seen anything like that. Briefly, what is meant by “tree of recursive knowledge” (in layman’s terms! :))?
marildi, I do not know what a ” tree of recursive knowledge ” could be, may be Geir´s hyperlist work like that. What I mentioned was a tree of recursive life, and it is used in the informatics sense but applied to the living matter itself .
Hi Rafael SN, No, but what you describe sounds like how I would begin to tell what I see.
Chris, I’ll ask if Rafael doesn’t. How would you describe what you see?
Hi Chris, this stuff is just a funny game for me. Not too much significance on it . A tree of recursive life is the iterative tendency of life in their patterns of behavior based on experience and learning.
Maybe more than a tendency? Everything in this Universe eats and in due time is eaten. Being mindful of that, take a look at the fractal equations and how they might relate at least as a metaphor for a mechanism for our perception.
Chris, and not only for our perception but for the computation of considerations based on the background of considerations that each person and group has. So in my view, life itself, has personality depending upon the cultural and experimental background. So personality can not be erased without killing the living matter itself as it is proposed by doctrines as the buddhism. It is better , in my view , the coaching aproach by finding the goals of the person, aiding him to achieve them and always keep him on the rail of ” thinking in positive “. I have personally seen great practical end results doing these tree steps.
Excellent! It is gratifying to feel that one has got a handle.
2ndxmr, you say ” Scientology training may not be the only way to assess observations ” just as my Dear Marianne Toth have just told to marildi:
” I know you like LRH. Me too. As all the “masters” I have met…some enlightened ones too. Well before scio I “got it all”. Saw its simplicity.
I was not mature for it. As well as not mature when I got another exterior on the Objectives by pure will. I thought I did something big. A couple of hours later I cognited that it was not her will. Lots of lessons. ”
now, The anecdotes that used to print in the Advance mags are of two kinds: the ones from the original OT levels before 1979 and the latter from the band of NOTs, very diferent are them imo.
The FACT that you have a background in the sciences could show that you CAN relate the reported wins from OTs to the very depths of QM and may very well be so. the problem I see is not of the non existence of such OT phenomena but more on the line of ” it should be a constant ability and not just an occasional phenomena out of control ”
This is what I mean when I say : “the end product could not be delivered.”
ROTFL! That observation is so pithy and succinct.
.
Vinay, thanks, it is the way I like to comment.
Vinay has problem with every one who do not talk the way as he do… he believes that than is not correct, inconsistent… of course it is: everything is inconsistent outside of ones own universe when those realities are compared to our own. Vinay has huge hang up on my behavior and he never met me…. so I find that interesting.
My last response was to Rafael’s “Dear marildi, the real life is outside the LRH references.”
.
What Rafael said is so true. I have been looking at the same situation here.
http://vinaire.wordpress.com/2012/07/16/discussions-and-what-needs-to-be-avoided/#comment-7399
.
I believe there are extended definitions of “exteriorization”. One can “interiorize” into anything; likewise, one can “exteriorize” from whatever he is interiorized into. This can be anything at all – a body part, a piece of furniture, a cloud, a game, a universe, anything.
Valkov, I have no problem with those “extended” definitions, but the general definition Rafael gave (“to occupy the same space of an object”) doesn’t fit any basic concept of “exteriorization” – which says nothing about occupying the space of an object. It seems like he may be mixing up exteriorization with the definition of affinity (the ultimate of which is “coincidence of location and beingness). Or he may be thinking of the method of gaining direct knowledge of an object, which is to simply be in the same space as the object (my understanding) .
Valkov, your extended definition of exteriorization makes more sense to me as useful.
I hear ya marildi. I think he simply reversed the definitions of “exterior” and “interior”.
Outside : beyond the limits of. (in my reality, in-out are concepts).
Do you find it a workable definition?
Dear Marianne Toth, ” Outside : beyond the limits of. ” seems to me like a workable definition.
Rafael,
If outside is “beyond the limits of”, then exteriorization is simply removing any limit. It means that being outside the body is removing
the “body” as a limit – one can do it by observing the “anatomy” of
the body, that is how one is postulating it into reality. There are several ways to do that and experience that “me” has never been “inside”
or “outside” of anything. I can postulate a limit, in which case the limit
is “real” to me – that is my “postulate” is the limit….no postulates, no
limits….do you see it?
Dear Marianne Toth, exteriorization by postulate is a good topic to study and practice, I will try it.
MT… PS: any one who ever had any auditing knows that auditing is a personal matter and each level takes long as it takes to achieve: that end phenomenon… auditing is not like a horse race: bunch of horses starting out at the same time and the one who gets to the finish line first takes the purse.. one only gets reality what is: when one experiences that action.
“The spiritual being does not move, can’t move, only views” things –
AND perceives through a viewpoint OR without a “point” of view (fluid
perception). That’s my reality. I have an unshakable “reality” that there are different levels of perception. At one “level” I AM ME:
At a deeper level, just AM expanding into BEING(nesses)-“occupying”
different space-objects-emotions-thoughts…I do not consider it a “win”
to be able to see it….what I consider a win is that at one point I said to
myself…Stop! Enough of “ignorance”, yours and “others” also…I knew
that the only way “others” will change if ” I ” change – that is not
that “core-no-thing-not-moving” but the rest, that is energy forms of
emotions and thoughts…not grasped/resisted any more by me there
is an automatic change in “mest” and also in how “others” handle “mest”….example – just by being present (really present) e.g. a meeting without talking much, the speed of exchanges can be faster…that
is an ability of beingness in handling “mest”…
All motion or no motion is relative.
There are no absolutes.
.
the concept of NO is one of the most insidious “barriers”….can lock
one into a universe….
Really? Maybe it depends on how you are interpreting it. Do you really understand Raman Maharishi? This is what Buddha said:
“The Absolute Truth is that there is nothing absolute in the world, that everything is relative, conditioned and impermanent, and that there is no unchanging, everlasting, absolute substance like Self, Soul, or Ātman within or without.” ~ Buddha
.
“The Absolute Truth is that there is nothing absolute in the world, that everything is relative, conditioned and impermanent, and that there is no unchanging, everlasting, absolute substance like Self, Soul, or Ātman within or without.” ~ Buddha
That is inconsistent with what I know to be true from experience and recall. I consider it an absolute falsehood.
V.. You have quoted Buddha… 🙂 but I happen to agree 100000% with that quote. When one has enough session in which one as-is the MEST universe [ all of it,] that one can see the truth the reality what is there.
For me NO is 1. a Stop 2. the absence of something (still having the
opposite of this something in the mind as it only makes sense in this way).
“There are no absolutes” – here the “no” carries a “stop” energy for
me. That is stops the possibility of motion.
“….there is nothing absolute in this world” – IN this WORLD – true
for me too.
I don’t “understand” Ramana Maharshi. I have direct perception, experience of what he “says”. But not important to mention it, just because you asked. Vin, you helped me to see something I had never
seen…look forward to any inconsistency….or other ways…the same goes from here….
MT.. we all have direct perception of what we read… unless somebody reads something to us… than we have direct hearing of sound… Your ability to read and understand is not miracle.
For me the truth is that if all beings STOPPED putting the “world” here, there would be no world…..this! world….but there seem to be other “realities, layers of experience”.
MT… your reality what you write about is from experience or learned concepts? [ i often see you quote what you read in my blog]
Illusion can also be part of experience.
.
A being is also impermanent like anything else.
.
Never had the consideration of it as a miracle…..exact opposite….each person here is directly communicating with each other person without via (words) continuously….we are in tune….vias can be differrent but the awareness of the nature of the vias can be different…my reality.
Your reality of being tune with every oner is your reality onlyand that is OK by me… ..telepathic communication is there all the time existing… but the MAJOR PART OF THE COMMUNICATION IS MISSING!!!!: and the understanding of that communication what is… and there are few thousand reason [more likely more than that] that the person will not understand what is in the “”THOUGHT”” communication. IF and WHEN that telepathic communication is picked up and understood, its true meaning than that happens by FLUKE only.
Elizabeth,
It matters only what and how you see…don’t bother about me. If you think that something is a quote, think that….
MT… Now that was a very easy to guess.. You should have given me a bigger challenge! You are very easy to understand because a Bank like yours contain nothing new but aberration and those of us who had auditing we know that.. Dear Marianne you never have received auditing because of that you have no reality on those beings who has and how their reality is. So your comments and statements related to the spiritual universe are your from learned- collected and very well compiled material..and that is your extant of experience on spiritual universe and nothing more…
Elizabeth, a person’s universe, such as yours, is just that. It is made up of that person’s considerations. It is not the absolute truth, to judge others with.
.
.
right you are… but you just did that.. you have judged me. I wonder what you call that in your reality because you never believe that you judge.
One may say that not all judgments are the same. Some are gross and full of inconsistencies. Others are very fine and free of inconsistencies.
.
Elizabeth, you said, “…Dear Marianne you never have received auditing because of that you have no reality on those beings who has and how their reality is. So your comments and statements related to the spiritual universe are yours from learned-collected and very well compiled material and that is your extent of experience on spiritual universe and nothing more…”
I suppose Marianne could just as easily say the same, that you have never experienced what she has experienced and (using your words) “because of that you have no reality on those beings who has and how their reality is.” Also, I don’t see how we can know for sure that her statements are only coming “from learned material and that is the extent of her experience in the spiritual universe and nothing more.” It seems to me that if she has no way of knowing your experience and reality, then you would have no way of knowing hers. Each of you might equally think the other one has not achieved anything like what you have achieved. See what I mean?
right you are..
M… there is difference between two universes: the one who had auditing and the one who had none..and we know that from experience..
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 11:28 PM, elizabeth hamre wrote:
> right you are.. > >
Marildi, I can see the inconsistency that you are pointing out. 🙂
.
We all are expressing our very own reality… and I am doing the same.. what other persons read into it, how they see it that too is their reality. Believing in something agree or not agree to that, that is personal choice again, like or not liking something too is personal and what I have writen to MT that is my reality.
Are you protesting anything?
.
No old pussy cat… you were doing that by pointing out what I was writing is wrong…if you care to re-read it again you can see I did not protest I pointed out that we are entitled to our reality. I believe that is called allow being-ness… but again if that would be the case here or in any other blog than there would be no debate, discussion -comments.
I don’t remember saying anything was right or wrong. I simply comment on inconsistencies.
If you don’t see that as an inconsistency then that is fine with me.
You need not defend anything because I am not attacking.
.
and I simply pointed out that we are allowed to have our own reality… That inconsistency which you pointed out existing in your own universe and not in mine… Since it is INCONSISTENCIES YOU ARE LOOKING FOR than you have found one and that gives you a opportunity to work it out in your own way so that concept will not cause disharmony in your universe and than you would no longer perceieve it as something wrong. As for my self, I dont have to work on that concept simply because in my reality what I have written is totally fine… no inconsistency here … So go for it, use your method and work it out… have fun…
I like verbalizing the inconsistencies that I see. That is how I work on them. 🙂
.
Good, than you are over the hump of that comment I made to MT…I am delighted… keep up the good work… I am pleased that I have supplied the material..
Please don’t worry about me. I am doing fine.
I shall keep on working on the inconsistencies that I see by verbalizing them. That is the process I use. You are welcome to discuss them per the discussion policy.
.
Dearest Vinay… I am a dire need of a copy since mine was eaten by the dragon that lives under my house, so urgently please send a copy of yours but to be sure have it written-ached into stone and for fast delivery use your fastest pigeon.
PS; You see by now I know that dragons dont it stones and this way I will have that agreement forever and the dayand I will treasure it,hold it to my bosom, I promise!
I have no idea what you are talking about. Are you OK?
.
It shows that I am an the right track because you dont understand me and finding my comments inconsistent. and you disagree to everything no matter what I say.. You see I went into Scientology because I wanted different, I wanted change, I wanted to know what is outside of the regular human behavior. You represent that normal person, who is predictable.. and that is fine with me, nothing wrong with you.. But by now every time I am told I am wrong, of the track, that I talk gibberish I take those evaluations, invalidation’s as a compliment.. Yes, that is simply terrific that we don’t see eye to eye…Thank you! I am not looking for agreement from the past… and you represent the past..
I sincerely don’t understand what you are talking about. There is certainly no invalidation or evaluation intended by me. There is only an intention to be of help.
I know that stuck attention on self or on one’s universe stops one’s progress.
Everyone have their personal universes. Those who are very creative turn those universe into stories and novels. I love the personal universes created in The Hobbit, The Dune, The Foundation Series, etc. They are very consistent in themselves. The creator’s of those universes documented it when it was complete, and then started with another universe.
There should be a continual flow and no stuckness. Stuckness is an inconsistency.
.
Thank you for the help offering, I do need that badly.. I am in a really bad shape, I am a heavy drinker, I drink like a fish,[6-8 glass of w. a day, I poisened one of my husband, and I have beaten my children daily. Also my pets.. I starved those nasty furry things to death… I throw stones at my naibors and I have 6 law suits going at the present time.. I hate every one including my self and daily I am thinking how should I end my life!!! Desperately need your help!! meawhile please read the article I am posting. since you are in it too..
Vinay… that is ONLY YOUR REALITY THAT I AM STUCK… and you have not insulted me in any way….
HERE IS AN ARTICLE you are in it to so is Geir, Marildi, Valkov and Chris.
Picnic with friends in the theta universe and we play… [the players are bloggers at Geir Isene’s Bolg.
Here we are, my friend Indigo [sabre tooted pussy cat] and I sitting nowhere in no space on a huge boulder dangling our invisible feet into the void overlooking the Universe.
We are playing a game, I mock-up a flower he blows it a way and he mock-up a terrain where gazelles bouncing running wild and after them this huge sabre tooth cat in full pursuit I am looking at this wild savannah and listening to Indigos chuckles beside me.
I ask: how come you here than who is chasing the gazelles?
I: My own muck up I been wondering if I seat here could I be there too chasing the gazelles, so I am doing this experiment.
E: But why are you blowing away my flowers?
I: Because I want you to share my experiment.
E: Well OK.
We look on as the wild chase continues and finally the dust settles and the gazelles vanish in the shrubbery than the picture of the savannah slowly melts away only a panting cat with huge grin on his face remains in a distance, tongue lolling.
E: Now what, how did the experiment go within your reality??
I: Well, I rather do nothing. It is fun to mock-up put out the fear, hunger, the need, but after all, it has been done too many times I need to invent something different, totally different, I got it! I am brilliant, from now on the gazelles going to chase me.
With that though settled, Indigo moved into contentment, purred in silence and with invisible paws washed his invisible face only his tongue could be seen.
Whatever, after all, have body or don’t have one don’t make much difference we can play with or without the same way.
We continued observe in silence as the universe evolved front of us. Suddenly a hissing chuckle and tickling sensations’ was where I should have had my ears. Tanaja has oozed in, covered with stardust, a glutton of a Boa.
E: Tanaja, you been into food again, look at yourself you are huge you are bigger than that Milky Way.
T: I know,[ he sighed] I just can’t resist stardust, by the way that remark about my size was it invalidation, evaluation by any chance? Indigo stopped licking his fur and there were a twinkle in his eyes,.
E: Oh, read the content as you like wear the shoe if fits.”
T: A shoe, shoes, I don’t have feet how can I wear shoes?
El: Well mock some up.
In one instance, Tanaja had thousands of feet and on each foot a different shoe. There were runners, sandals from roman times, spiked shoes, blunt toed, moccasins, loafers, booths of every kind I even seen lumber jack unlaced booths, hundreds and hundreds of them made for different occasion to be worn in different lifetimes.. There were baby knitted booties, and bronzed baby shoes, booth for space walking, fur lined etc.. I even noticed he had duck feet and flippers for underwater among the many. And the ruby sleepers, I wondered how he got those!
What a sight, we role with laughter we were covered by stardust from head to toe.
Suddenly Peter appeared. His presence turned us into a question mark.
I T E: What’s new, we asked in union.
P: Not much, but I had to escape from Fairy Land, after all the fairies don’t have much variation in their games and that music and party in the garden every night, well I need a little variety in my life.
We look at him and ask again as one, you have a life?
We burst out in laughter and madly scrambled to dodge from his beautifully expressed “anger”, he was zapping us with huge blue sizzling thunder bolts. What a fun to catch those and throw them back till he cried out asked for forgiveness.
We, three of us settled back on our boulder and Peter in front of us in the empty space mocked up a beautiful camp fire including the snapping sounds of sparks and the breeze stirring the smoke about us. Oh memories! And we all stared into the firelight.
P: I have been wandering about and I went back to the old dig.
E I T: In echo: you went again back to Earth?
P: Yes,[he yawned invisibly of course] I was just curious how things were there, but everything is still the same same. I was looking over somebodies shoulder reading a blog and I seen that Marty and DM is still at it.
We nodded our invisible head. Yap, nothing has changed on Earth everything is still the same.
P: Where is Chris and rest of the gang?
El: Oh, Chris is gone to the Black Hole and doing on experiment how many times he could go through and if it is possible to burn off the “I” if is possible to erase that energy too. I believe he will set a record going through that Hole.
And Marildi and Valkov found a huge mock-up of on ancient library and they are rooting through, shifting the information to see if anything new can be found. We believe that they have because we have seen from that direction two pairs of boxing gloves bouncing about and some sparkles flying. Also sounds like thunder rumbled, they must be having wonderful time figthing over who is right or who is wron.
Vanier is back at Earth giving another go, hitting every being on the head with his invisible bat to knock the old beliefs out, that useless eastern philosophy and he is bent on spreading new reality, he has a new motto, “meditation get you nowhere so don’t bother with the om”.
And Geir went with friends on a holiday cruise.
You have to go see his new sail boat, first of course he needed the ocean, mocked up from dust of sapphire I helped with that part.
The white caps on the water formed by crystalline diamonds, it looks real real, for the deep water part he used space with all sort of critters swimming in the depth even has flocks of flamingos under water. Do birds swim?
Listen to this, while visiting, Indigo and I went for a dip and we seen down there a Road Runner being chased by a shark, a parrot standing on the whales head and giving direction which way to swim.
A school of fish reciting the abc and dolphins taking singing lessons from the canary. as you can see Geir real got his ocean scene sorted out.
But his sail boat is a beauty. He used a huge mock up of on old tree a giant. Now imagine half of the roots are sheared off and the rest is under water you know, becomes that think which keeps the boat stable. For sail the half of the branches he left on with leafs that is the front part of the boat. I think the branches are the masts, the leafs, act as the canvas for catching the wind to propel the boat forward.
The trunk of course is hallowed out, but some places the bark left intact and those parts are the cabin walls with port holes even. There is a mammoth swimming behind this boat and he blows the air from his trunk. The problem Geir has when the mammoth dissolves time to time the boat no longer moves than Geir has to blow the air at the sails himself.
We cut our visit sort since he does not serve peach nectar.
P: Fire looks great, let’s roast some marshmallows,
Ta: Well, I don’t eat marshmallows.
P: Ok, you can lick some sparkles from the fire, by the way: in one of my past life’s I was a fire eater in the circus.
Ta: What a fire eater do and how the earthly fire tastes?
P: Tanaja you have been eating stars for eons and you ask me about fire eaters?
El: PETER, demonstration please? You are fooling, Tanaja don’t believe him, and fire-eaters did not have fire coming out of their ears, he just joshing!
In: Well I don’t like sparkles; I rather sniff roasted whatever, with some tangy barbeque souse on it.
El: Ok, you sniff to your heart delight while you doing that I have glass of peach nectar, look out Tanaja, Tanaja you are slurping away too much sparkles from the fire , I smell fur, Indigo your coat is singed.
El: Peter, that is your second bag of marshmallows, and I am saturated through, overdosed on sugar too much peach nectar, I think I will solo more on peach nectar since I am addicted! And here comes Chris, Chris we are having a picnic are you going to have something?
Ch: No, I have had too much “nothing” already, I am up to my gills with nothing but I will have bourbon and branch water without bourbon and water and hold the ice too, here comes Marildi and Valkov just look at them they are soaked and dripping from ancient knowledge! Good thing we have fire going they can dry off. Tanaja don’t lick the flames and I smell singed fur.
I: What are they going to dry off I don’t see anything, they are invisible and what are they smelling? I don’t smell anything.
T: Oh, don’t mind them Indigo they are into human talk they all used to belong some blogging group waaaaaay back, except Peter he used to walk about way under on some patch of land called Australia and the rumours has it that once in one of his life he was very famous pirate Drake but I just don’t get it, how could he be a duck and a pirate at the same time.
I: ask Valkov I am sure he could do a research on ducks.
Ma: we have found a book about GODS. Is anyone wanted to know more about Gods? I smell burned fur, Indigo how come cats love heat? Why all these shoes are scattered here I never seen so many, are we planning universal garage sale and how odd they are not in pairs all singular and why one duck feet, where is the rest of the duck?
In: Marildi you ask too many questions I don’t know why cats love heat and I am not wearing my fur today, and we have not invited duck today that is the very logical answer to your question so that is the reason you don’t see duck here!
Va: Oh, I see a bat; Vanier is here, Vinnie I have few question for you, can invisible bats burn? If so, how long it will burn and what is the magnitude of the heat they give out? While you thinking about it, here have some popcorn. And I have my boxing gloves on, so look out.
Vin: I am ready when you are, on my way here I have heard a very philosophical question which could bring in great amount of new knowledge but we must have our filters to handle this. Do fish fly? Why is Tanaja slurping sparkles I thought he only eats stardust, I never understood boas, is something roasting with fur on?
Ch: Valkov take a good look at Vinnie’s bat, do you know that bat can hit one thousand head a day? Nothing but common sense pours forward from that thing, now that is one magic bat. Whose turn is mocking food up, and where is Geir I am starving!
M: I will call Geir, Geeeeeeiiiiiiiirrrrrrrrrr !
Everybody: good think we don’t have ear drums!
I: What drums have to do with Marildi’s voice?
Va: give me your head Indigo but keep your eyes, thanks, now do you see all this different bone pieces here, let me explain how they work………………….
G: Hi you guys good to be here, have I missed something? We sailed by Earth on the way here let me tell you, nothing have changed there and Marty and DM still at it.
What are we having for the main course; I smell burned fur, Tanaja you dripping stardust on everything you are the messiest eater I have ever seen and why are we waist deep in shoes?
I see popcorn and boxing gloves are we going to have a debate? But first I must have a theta shower; ah, that Earth is such a dusty place……
“Picnic with friends” A classic! That was very creative and fun, thanks love. Good to read you again.
V… I know you trough this blog nearly 2 years and not once and we have exchanged thousands of comments here and in my blog, in your and in Chrise’s, and not once you have agreed with what I have written.. If you would agree once I am sure to drop this body from the heavy shock…
On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 11:35 AM, elizabeth hamre wrote:
> > and I simply pointed out that we are allowed to have our own reality… > That inconsistency which you pointed out existing in your own universe and > not in mine… > Since it is INCONSISTENCIES YOU ARE LOOKING FOR than you have found one > and that gives you a opportunity to work it out in your own way so that > concept will not cause disharmony in your universe and than you would no > longer perceieve it as something wrong. > As for my self, I dont have to work on that concept simply because in my > reality what I have written is totally fine… no inconsistency here … > So go for it, use your method and work it out… have fun… >
Why are you looking for agreement? I don’t look for agreement from you.
I don’t deal with agreement. I deal with inconsistencies to dissolve them.
Agreement doesn’t as-is anything. It keeps things in place.
.
Thank you Elizabeth
……………………………………………………………………………………..
……………………………………………………………………………………..
……………………………………………………………………………………..
……………………………………………………………………………………..
and a tiny, little flow underneath it……………………………………….
Welcome…. any time…. what ever happens to one.. that can be counted as a learning experience. We had talked on the phone and we have discussed that knowing the words is just that and they will not take one an the spiritual journey. Example: Knowing and quoting Buddha will not make one Buddha. Since his parting from the body many millions have studied his teaching in hope that they to become like him… But steadying his words, knowing them never ever taken that person to that stage what he has attained and they never ever become Buddha. They have become what ever they have learned how they have seen Buddha… because knowing the words will not give that original experience from where those words born out of. Millions of people talk the language of spirituality, and that still not give the experience what is. You said you want to go up on the Bridge, that is never to late.. there are many good auditors out on the field who audit on Skype. David ST Lawrence is one of them..you will love the sessions..
Learning experience comes from interacting with other people’s universe. and not just chewing over one’s own universe again and again and thinking that one is sane and others are aberrated.
Nobody’s studies Buddha to become like Buddha. One studies Buddhism to learn how to attain Nirvana (extinguishing of self).
Just doing auditing using a meter is simply chewing on one’s own bank. The end result is what happened to Hubbard.
.
Vinay you are chewing on your own inconsistencies and not mine.. you cant chew an any one elses but your own.. I am not LRH and he is not me so to compare two very different universes and to come to conclusion that they are the same what ever you implied with your above comment in my reality only a very ignorant person would do.. who has absolutely no reality what is auditing, what is do.. and on that topic with your coments an it you have demostrated over and over your total lack of knowledge.
One who extolls oneself and invalidates others is not very high in my books.
When I am myself doing that I don’t consider that as high of myself either.
.
Marildi,
I know you like LRH. Me too. As all the “masters” I have met…some enlightened ones too. Well before scio I “got it all”. Saw its simplicity.
I was not mature for it. As well as not mature when I got another exterior on the Objectives by pure will. I thought I did something big. A couple of hours later I cognited that it was not her will. Lots of lessons.
All pure fun. LRH. Very early I saw that he did his best to “get a person off it” (Alan Watts). With each little booklet. In the PTS/SP lectures
he says (other places too) that there is no reason why a person couldn’t say he is Clear, or even Cleared Theta Clear. And you know there is the Prime Postulate datum. Find it. I am writing it down because I would like to dissolve the false concept that “it takes thousands of hours” to “attain, there are levels, grades, becoming Clear,
Buddha etc.” One cannot attain, become one’s own nature. True, there are levels of experiencing, abilities, perception shifts. True, when awakening happens, that is the sense of the I is gone, there can be some remaining energy, considerations called the “mind”. But
they “dissolve or simply go away”. I am writing it down because I just see another falsity, that is words and telepathy are “vias”. They are
indeed like pebbles we can play with if we choose to play with them.
Words also. Geir’s word, “remove” to me now is very precise. Your answer to me about “filters” is just perfect in my reality. Read it over. There is a key in it. I invite here OT-s to give their true realities of the
opposite I am writing about – with examples why those tousands of hours are needed. As I find it, we are different. One needs a “get off it”, another some time and activities. So, how do you see that?
When you get there you will understand why the time is needed in session to confront.. till than no. you have no reality and therefore you see the time spent auditing is wasted.
Marianne: “One needs a “get off it”, another some time and activities. So, how do you see that?
I see it just the same as you. And I think LRH expressed the basic truth of that when he said, “What’s true for you is true for you.” People are highly individual and it stands to reason that different paths suit different people better than others. However, LRH’s purpose was to create a route that anyone and everyone could travel. It’s a kind of “average”, you could say, and highly structured and, to my mind, not everyone needs the amount of structure there is to Scn. And even within that step-by-step route it varies a lot as to the time needed by different individuals to go through it. Of course, as you probably know, LRH thought there was no other workable route that didn’t take years or lifetimes and only gave a small chance of achieving a Release state, not even a Clear state. Maybe that was true in his time, but I suspect it is not the case nowadays.
What was true for LRH was what was true for LRH.
.
p.s. Marianne, I found a reference for you on prime thought and prime postulate, from Advanced Procedure and Axioms:
“All thought is preceded by physical effort except prime thought, the decision
moving the original potential being from the state of not beingness to the state of beingness…
“A postulate may spring from past effort or prime thought. A prime postulate is the decision to change from a state of not beingness to a state of beingness.
“A prime postulate can occur at any time without regard to past or present effort since theta is always present in a non-facsimile condition.
“Except for a very strong prime postulate, early postulates are effective over later postulates.”
Mar: “prime thought, the decision moving the original potential being from the state of not beingness to the state of beingness… ”
An excellent reference. The wisdom gained from many hours of auditing cannot be discounted but neither can the power of prime thought. It is like the hot knife meeting butter: the path melts in front of it. At the end of the path is an ability gained. No matter how the path is traversed, if the ability is gained, it is gained.
One of the “hot knives” in the Scientology processing arsenal is the L’s processing. The special TRs of the L’s bypass the usual means a pc uses to access bank, blowing whole chains of wholetrack items (like overts) with the pc sometimes sitting like an amazed bystander as opposed to being a participant.
The fact that such speed of processing can occur does not diminish the end product. Similarly, there were a number of processes in the early 50’s that were intended as shortcuts to Clear or OT. They weren’t for everyone, but they did work on some.
The point is, it goes back to that quote from A & L and the power of prime thought, especially when prime thought is energized by knowledge. As the saying goes, “the proof is in the pudding”. In this case the pudding is “ability gained”. Multiple recipes, same pudding.
2ndxmr, here’s another good line in that AP&A reference that I should have quoted too:
“Prime thought can occur at any moment during any lifetime, moving the individual from the state of not beingness to the state of beingness. A common name for this phenomenon is NECESSITY LEVEL, although this term is incomplete.”
Many of us are less familiar with the term “prime thought” than we are with the idea of “necessity level”, defined in the Tech Dictionary as “a sudden heightened willingness which untaps a tremendous amount of ability”.
You said, “The wisdom gained from many hours of auditing cannot be discounted but neither can the power of prime thought… especially when prime thought is energized by knowledge. As the saying goes, ‘the proof is in the pudding’. In this case the pudding is ‘ability gained’. Multiple recipes, same pudding.”
Great comment. Thanks, puddin’ (couldn’t resist :)).
In my opinion. abilities are created instantly as required. It is part of native state.
There truly are no abilities gained through auditing. There are only constraints removed.
.
Vin: “There truly are no abilities gained through auditing. There are only constraints removed.”
That is correct. It is more like abilities re-gained, native ability restored.
In my reality one can never judge a person….only the considerations,
that is finding some inconsistency between “one’s own” and “another’s”.
Also, Vin….yes, there is direct perceiving….and also, when there is no
filter (sense of I), some considerations can appear…kind of universal ones….and perceiving then happens through them….but the flow of life can dissolve them…or you just “remove” them….
Yes, I can see that.
.
………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
I liked that Adyashanti talk, MT. It is much more enlightened then the claim, “auditing is the only way.”
.
2ndxmr
pudding, that is…
Vin,
Krishnamurti….asking a question, keep it there and the “fire of life”
burns it…alive flow and access to knowingness. That’s briefly, my experience. I like him very much. What you are saying about systemacity, for me it’s true, as well as I find it a game…one game. There are
many games one can play. That scio helped you is perfect – “it’s the systematic thinking….I am carrying forward with me”….isn’t it a kind
of attachment? Don’t you think that instead of “carrying with me” there is another option: get into it and play it, then off, and play it again when I feel like to…or when there is a situation in life and I apply it…
Marianne, how much what you are writing, or what Elizabeth is writing, helping anybody? To me, such writings are quite self-centered… for one’s own benefit only.
What I am carrying forward with me is the “engineering approach.” That is what Buddha, Hubbard, and Galusha did. That is what any scientist does. It takes one away from self-centered-ness.
So, I shall carry this systematic approach as long as it helps me write what can be broadly useful. When it is no longer useful I shall let it go.
.
“A being is not a filter.” Thank You!
“A being is a filter” Thank you. 🙂
.
And “the earth is round.” Thank you. 🙂
.
How do you know the earth is round?
That is the conclusion from resolving inconsistencies.
There is no absolute truth. Do you see any inconsistency with earth being round?
.
Vin,
Why go that far as whether the earth is round or not? Have you ever
made love to a woman? Are you sure it happened? Between whom?
Who is resolving it?
What inconsistency are you looking at?
.
They were just questions to you, I have no doubt about the experiences as answers. You probably don’t have either, so there is no
need to resolve anything. Is that right? Was just joking anyway….hope
you don’t mind it!
You are THE BEST at non-answering! What inconsistencies did you resolve, in order to come to that conclusion?
Of course I “see” an incosistency – it doesn’t LOOK round to me.
That is a violation of discussion policy.
.
Truth is defined by frame; by frame; by frame of reference. So is consistency.
Vin, I made 3 discrete statements in my post. One of them was a specific answer to a question you posted to me.
Then, do all 3 of my statements violate the Discussion Policy?
Please indicate which one(s) violate the Policy. If one or more do not violate the Policy, then please respond to that one or those two.
Valkov. a person cannot see the answer even when it is given to him if he is already committed to another answer. An indication of that is the violation of the discussion policy. Please look at the answer that you have already committed yourself to. Why is that answer not enough?
Then if you honestly find an inconsistency, then bring it to the table and we shall discuss it together. But as long as you are justifying an inconsistency with an existing answer, no discussion is possible.
.
.
A point #5 has been added to the discussion policy.
Discussions and what needs to be avoided
.
Vin,
Fortunately this is not your blog and therefore you do not determine the discussion policy for all posters here.
Since I’m not interested in abiding by your discussion policy, in deference to your sensitivities, I will not address any of my future posts to you.
I am interested in discussion and not in meaningless chit chat. I do not respond to comments that violate the discussion policy for the reasons given in that policy.
.
Vin: “I do not respond to comments that violate the discussion policy for the reasons given in that policy.”
I would suggest you say something more along the lines of “I prefer not to get into chit chat as that does not typically contribute to a discussion”, which would be less pompous than the absolute “I do not respond….” which, as will likely be pointed out by others, is exactly what you do do when you deem someone is getting personally offensive towards you (which I am no doubt doing in pointing out the fallacy in your comm).
So, at the risk of violating YOUR discussion policy – which policy I don’t mind as long as you also follow it (and don’t even begin to think it will be tolerated if you say you ALWAYS apply it), I will say simply that your comm is not sufficiently less imperfect than that of other people that you have a right to make such an authoritarian comment. So just be personally more aware of absolutes in your own comments that might cause unnecessary deviation from your Discussion Policy as those absolutes tend to engender replies like mine, totally off topic and completely offensive.
Vin: “I am interested in discussion and not in meaningless chit chat.”
Also, it would be appreciated if you kept your replies to one reply per posting as that would follow the comm formula. I could have posted this in my prior comment but wanted to point out that it is this sort of unnecessary dunnage that makes communicating with you arduous and unpleasant at times.
I know, I know…. personal attack…. my apologies in advance.
2ndxmr, I agree, it would be less confusing.
“appreciated if you kept your replies to one reply per posting as that would follow the comm formula”
Dee, it’s also a Logical Fallacy:
“Argument By Repetition (Argument Ad Nauseam):if you say something often enough, some people will begin to believe it. There are some net.kooks who keeping reposting the same articles to Usenet, presumably in hopes it will have that effect.”
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#repetition
Ah, yes Marildi “Argument By Repetition (Argument Ad Nauseam)”
I see 🙂
Vin, you just contradicted yourself by responding to my “meaningless chit-chat”, at the same time as stating you do not respond to posts violating the discussion policy.
Obviously if you “do not respond to posts violating the discussion policy”, to be consistent you would simply not respond to anypost you felt violated your policy.
So in the future how about you simply follow your own policy of “not responding”, by not responding?
That would be far superior to making a liar of yourself by responding in the first place, and on top of that ad homming posters by characterizing their posts as “meaningless chit-chat” or whatever invalidation it strikes your fancy to post.
Valkov over and out.
Valkov, re: not responding. Now that makes a lot of sense, it does!
OMG, that describes it perfectly! LOL!
I was going to chime in when you made the comment “You are THE BEST at non-answering!” But I’ve tried numerous times, not just on this thread, to get Vinaire to see that he hasn’t answered the question. So have you and so has Geir, to name just one other one.
It’s strange that we can’t get across to him the simple fact that not answering a question is not only a violation of the communication cycle but his own discussion rules! And yet, if someone points out a violation on HIS part, of tghis or any other rule, he characterizes it as a personal attack.
I can see how it would “feel” personal when someone says you’ve violated something, and you and I have both applied the word “sensitive” to him as a nice way of telling him his response is not applicable. But it seems that no matter how it is phrased he doesn’t get that it is a statement about a discussion outpoint and not about him personally.
The only other possibility I can see is that he doesn’t really get that he hasn’t answered the question – in which case he is still responsible for pointing out how he has done so. And this point is also in his own discussion rules!
I remember Geir saying one time that he would really like it if Vin would just “play ball” with him on some of these interesting subjects. That is the irony! We all have wanted to do so, but it gets stopped by the simple lack of a completed comm cycle..
It may be Vin believes he is answering the questions in some “Socratic” way with his metacomments. That is really part of my beef with him – he does not communicate to my reality, but steadfastly sticks to his own frame of reference come hell or high water.
Is this admirable? I don’t know. All I know is, he can’t, won’t or doesn’t communicate to me at my reality. He is not usually willing to meet me halfway.
I think he loses a lot of people this way because he gives the impression he does not understand others. No ARC.
The “zip it” cuts both ways. It surely feels better to be in the Dr. Evil valence telling Scott to “zip it!”, than to be on the receiving end as Scott.
Since Vin said he does not respond to posts violating his discussion policy, and then proceeded to do so anyway, I thought I smelled an inconsistency.
But of course to state he is inconsistent is a comment about him and therefore a violation of his discussion policy.
Catch 22 anyone?
I hear you, Valkov, on every point you made including “Catch 22”. And OMG, that video really captured the flow and the feeling of frustration and exasperation. Which is why it was so hilarious!
Vinnie, I hope you are reading these comments and you get a better idea of what the beef is, because if it got worked out we could all start having a lot more “fun and profit” with you.
deElizabethan,
Me ROTFLMAO too when the game started between Geir and Vin! I couldn’t see the end of it, as I went to bed. You know what happened?
I woke up during the night (which I rarely do as I sleep well) and burst
out laughing! Then I fell asleep again. In the morning I come to see
the end of the game. What do I see? The second round started at exactly the same time I woke up! Once again rolling on the floor….
Vin, if you are reading this and you try to explain Beingness expansion and find any inconsistency or any unwanted condition in it, I will
kill you! Dee, we would definitely like to have similar fun from the guys,
wouldn’t we?
Yes, why not have some fun, it’s fun! 🙂
“Dee, Best long laugh of the whole day! Still LOL:-)”
A very original consideration V.
I am glad you like it.
.
My definition of exteriorization”
EXTERIORIZATION = The de-condensation of “I”.
.
I wont agree with that.. that not what happens.. exteriorization is simply view something from different point, different way, have different experience as one had before.
Example: one is looking at experiencing the pot inside.. than one is looking at the pot outside while one is looking at that pot outside one note everything about that pot: with that one experiences that out side of that pot.
We do those things experience items around us continual in every different angle.. WE know what is inside the Earth and we know what is the outer crust is like.
One know how ones tooth look outside and one sure can feel the inside.
Nothing to something is quite a shift. One is then stuck in something forever. 🙂
It is funny to think that “something” could be an unwanted condition. Ha ha.
KHTK EXERCISE SET 2
.
Did I tell you that you are full of shit? If you dont like this comment.. complain to the owner of this blog and you can also right to your congress man… I am sure he will love to hear from you.. beside you being full of … you cant duplicate and it is not inconsistencies you are looking for but how to make others wrong because you sure love to point out what you think is wrong..
But if really you would be looking for incosistencies than if you would spot one, you would NOT NEED TO POINT IT OUT BUT HANDLE THAT FOR YOU SELF in SILENCE AND LEARN FROM THAT EXPERIENCE… I am not interested in your reality, it stinks…. You love to point out wrongness… that is wrong in your reality because that make you feel better, superior to that other person… Your game is boring… low tone, and so are you. feel insulted? good… I meant to do that..
I think every living being goes to potty. 🙂
.
and you are a very good example of that.
A person who thinks “auditing is the only way” seems to be missing out on many things in life.
He/she is like the person who thinks “Christianity is the only way”, or “drugs are the only way.”.
.