Feel free to ask


When the traffic gets high, when posts get more than 500 or even a 1000 comments, I am bound to miss questions from my readers.

I want to answer your questions, and to ensure you are not left without an answer, I propose you ask any questions you may have to me as comments to this blog post.

Just add your question as a comment here and I will get back to you with an answer. Ask anything – from my views on life, IT, Scientology, my favorite HP calculator, music, art, preferences in any part of life or whatever else you may have on your mind. Do not hold back. I am not shy.

This post is not an arena for long discussions – or I may again miss some questions buried in long threads. Interesting topics may instead earn separate blog posts.

545 thoughts on “Feel free to ask

      1. Could this be your own filter?

        To me a highly developed person would be very patient with such follies in others.


      2. vinaire: “What makes you most irritable?”
        isene: “Arrogance, intolerance and insistence that others are wrong.”
        Spyros: hihihihihihihihihihihihihihihihihi

        vinaire: “To me a highly developed person would be very patient with such follies in others.”
        Spyros: A highly undeveloped person (primary state is no development) can but doesn’t have to play all the games he is presented with.

  1. Geir, I am curious of how Scientology is perceived in other countries of the world, outside of the US. I have often said if you go to “Anytown USA”, and asked 100 people the following question…”Do you think Scientology is a good thing or a bad thing?”…that you would probably get 95 “bads”, 4 “I never heard of it” and 1 may think its good.

    What would that breakdown be in Norway or countries you have experience with?

    Thanks for your viewpoint on this, and for satisfying my curiousity….Tom

    1. In Norway, Scientology is a joke. In Scandinavia in general, it is a fringe cult. In France and Germany it is seen as a dangerous cult. Beyond that, I have no first hand data.

  2. Splain, Who does the artwork for this blog? It is nicely done and different. Very readable too.

    1. WordPress has a lot of ready to use artworks called themes. The blog’s owner (in this case Geir) can change the theme whenever he wishes. The current theme is called “Chalkboard” (emulating a classic school chalkboard) and was made by Edward R. Jenkins.

    1. I think there are no purpose for the past other than keeping it there for the purpose of the future. I believe purposes for the future are generated by the individual, but that there is a basic purpose of the creation of an effect (a definition of a cause).

        1. Didn’t Hubbard say, “Cause is motivated by future.”

          Doesn’t this mean, “No future = no cause.”

          To me this whole idea of Cause is a construct. This is not the basic truth. For a manifestation to come about it is not necessary that there be a cause.


          1. Vin; This is not a blog post where you are encouraged to discuss or promote your ideas or your own blog. I want to keep this one as a pure Q & A as possible, or else I will again miss the questions in long discussion threads.

            1. The limits would be self imposed. As LRH points out, one Knows – but to have a game, one needs to Not Know – and that sets one up for mistakes – and anything is possible from thereon out.

            2. Geir, I guess that LRH was wrong on this. If a person starts his existence in a condition of know , then , how undesirable should such state be as to lead the person to a state of mistakes and degradation instead like the better option. After all the person already knows what will happen. It is my opinion that the person starts from not know and then grows towards know. And LRH was not the smartest person to have as example, he was tricked by his teenage CMO boys.

            3. Rafael, a person does not start at Know, as I understand it. He starts at Not-Know, per the 4th London ACC lectures, which cover Native State and the first 4 postulates. Prior to Not-Know is Native State, which is a kind of “knows everything but does not know anything in particular”. Then comes “Not-know”, then “Know About” and the rest of the Know to Mystery scale. In order to know anything, he has to postulate he does not know it, that is the First Postulate, and then mock up what he wants to know about.

            4. Valkov, the ” Expanded Know to Mystery Scale ” is a ” mystery sandwich ” as unknowable as Vinayre´s unknowable. See the reference on this in your tech dictionary, this type of mystery sticks the person forever to the subject due to the willingness to know the mystery which of course is unknowable, so a spiritual prision is build for the person and then you have a hard die scientologist.

            5. Rafael,

              Unfortunately, the Tech Dictionaruy actually has no entry for the EXPANDED scale; it has only a very brief entry for the earlier scale and it does not define it at all. It is a big deficiency of that book.

              Scientology 0-8 The Book of Scales has it but does not give a definition or explanation of it.

              It is all explained in the 4th London ACC lecture series of Fall 1955, which LRH gave right after he did the Phoenix Lectures. These lectures were originally put out on cassette as “The First Postulate” series. If you like, I can send you a link to download them. I refer to them a lot and I think you would like them; they are all about what is the first postulate, the second postulate, third postulate, etc a guy makes that leads to all the trouble he, and we, are in!

            6. Valkov, may be the ” Expanded Know to Mystery Scale ” is not defined or explained in the scientology dictionary , nor in the book of basics scientology 0-8 ( both approved by LRH ) but you can find the very important definition and explanation about what is and how to use a ” mystery sandwich ” to be used on the scientology parish and aimed public in the related marketing segment .

            7. Sure, I know about “mystery sandwich”, but it has nothing to do with what I am talking about the EXPANDED Know to Mystery Scale, and the First and Second Postulates etc.

              I am talking about the lectures that REMOVE all the “Mystery” from the subject. No mystery, so no sandwich.

            8. Val, is this reference applicable? From 8-8008:

              “When one speaks of knowingness, one should realize that one is speaking of an embracive thing. Everything on the Know to Mystery Scale is simply a greater condensation or reduction of Knowingness. At first one simply knows. Then he makes some space and some energy, and so now he has knowingness in terms of looking.

              “By changing the position of the particles of energy thus created, and by exchanging particles with others, extant or self-created, the thetan cuts down his knowingness further, and gets time, and so gets emotion and sensation. When these become solid, he has effort particles and masses. Now, he could cut down his knowingness further by refusing to use emotion and effort, but by thinking about them, thus introducing new vias into his line of knowingness. And, when he no longer knows entirely by thinking, he ceases to create knowingness and begins to eat, and from eating he drops into the ready-made sensation of sex instead of knowing what happens in the future. And from here he drops down into postulated mystery as something one cannot possibly know about. In other words, one gets a continued reduction of knowingness in order to have games.” (Scn 8-8008)

            9. marildi, yes, that is on the topic. The genesis of the Know to Mystery Scale is described in detail in the 4th London ACC lectures. The scale as it is usually conceived is incomplete. The actual scale from the top down:

              Native State
              Know About

              Those are the First 4 Postulates that LRH describes, that go into the creation of any universe of experience. This Expanded Scale(1978 version) is in the book Scientology 0-8. But it derives from the first 4 postulates made by a thetan.

              To start the whole thing off, a thetan has to make the postulate that he “does not know” something.That is Not-know. Then he engages on the adventure of figuring out how he might find out (Know About) those things s/he “doesn’t know”. Then that gets into “forgetting” and “remembering”, the 3rd and 4th postulates as I recall it.

              To me it seems obvious that Not-know corresponds very closely to the Buddhist concept of ‘Ignorance’ as the genesis of all our troubles. “Ignore – ance”. “No-knowing”. Can’t get much closer in meaning than that, to my mind.

              I’m going to take a look and see if the rest of the sequence of steps as described by Buddhists, of getting wrapped up in ‘samsara’, doesn’t correspond to the Know to Mystery Scale. I’ll bet it does.

      1. Do you think that may be why people attack the basic philosophy and tech of Scientology, i.e.that “it comes from a deep-felt disharmony to what they hold as truth”?

        1. Of course – just like some people hold as true that the earth is a sphere and attack the notions of the Flat Earth Society that the Earth is flat.

          1. You read my mind in a way. I was thinking about how the Flat Earthers once attacked the theory that the Earth is a sphere, before it was proved, and thought of that as a good analogy of those who attack Scn. 😉

  3. I’m curious about how this OP relates to the following:

    Valkov 2013-02-15 at 22:43 @ My Scientology enigma
    “I don’t think Geir sees himself as being here running this blog in order to answer our questions.”

    isene 2013-02-15 at 23:02
    “Correct :-)”

    1. I’m also curious about how this OP (… “Do not hold back. I am not shy.” …) relates to the following:

      Valkov 2013-02-15 at 08:57 @ Scientology – does it work?
      …“I’d like to know what your thoughts on this are, because I don’t really know why YOU think this. Don’t be shy now.”

      isene 2013-02-15 at 10:10
      “ ’Don’t be shy now’? What kind of a stupid comment is that?” …

      1. I was pointing out that Valkov was being an ass when he was needling. He was also alluding to my past – when I was a kid, I used to be very shy – until I did communications training in Scientology. In the OP here, I alluded to the same.

        1. Like your answer! Also, not a question but a comment. Marildi pointed at your answers/comments as being contradictory and incongruous sometimes. What a blessing! As I see it, Life is inconsistent when there is no attention on past. It RESPONDS to what is there. Great masters in history gave e.g.different answers to the students questions….
          Also, inconsistency can happen in the analytical way of thinking….so what? Here is where
          Vin (and each of us) comes into play! Also, speaking of myself, I can play being shy (can create it when a situation asks for that). Any concept, emotion can be acted out …free use
          of a tool.

    2. My main purpose in running this blog is not answering questions. But I do want to answer them. My main purpose is to have a place to vent my thoughts.

      There are lots of small questions popping up in the threads that may or may not be directed at me. I easily miss those. Thus I decided to put up this blog post.

      1. Isene
        If I was in scio now and experienced that which I put at the end of the Love post and asked about what it was, the answer would be: you will know it on the OT levels. So,
        my request to you now is: please go to the Love post where almost at the end of it you will find a “problem” and a question. Question to you: going up the OT levels and based on your present perception and knowledge, what is that phenomenon I describe there? Read also Marildi’s answer too, if you like. Thanks.

  4. I bet I won’t get a straight answer on this question (it’s not about your – plural – sexual preferences) :-).

    What will happen on June 23rd, 2014 – 16 months to go?

      1. Don’t like your answer. It’s an issue of trusting other parts of yourSELF to help you con-front YOURself. I would rather go for full responsibility, after you wrote the Triangles. You CAN.

          1. I just feel something about this “party” thing which is not right. Just a perception, no speculation on it. May be wrong in it, sorry. Just leave my comment like that.

      1. I liked what Bernard Haisch told in the preface of his book ” the God theory: Universes, Zero-point fields and what´s behind it all “.

        ” The purpose is for God to experience his potential. God´s ideas and abilities become God´s experience in the life of every sentient being. What greater purpose could there be for each of us humans than that of creating God´s experience ? . God experiences the richness of his potential through us because we are the incarnations of him in the physical realm.

        That´s what it´s all about . “

    1. Lots of questions, all the time. Some; Can Category Theory be applicable in understanding the mapping between beliefs? What is the fastest way to help a child stop crying? How to be able to go exterior with full perception at will? How to ensure I retain all memories I now have next lifetime? Is the Higgs a bridge between consciousness and the ensuing creations? How does precognitions relate to the notion of cause and effect? Under what conditions can effects precede the cause? Why is gravity so different from the other three fundamental forces?

      1. Like all your questions!!! I Do you do what your genius friend (in the Amazing series, forgot his name does), that is “keep the problem/question there” and the “solution/answer will be there” ? Also, as you said, presence and live com. You help a lot of people with that. Who “helps” you (of course everyone in each instance), but who challenges You? I mean an alive “master”. Did you think of visiting / inviting one ?

        1. The people challenging me are: My sons, Anette, Brendan, Bjørn, Håkon, Silje and several other people close to me. And you guys posting your comments on my blog.

  5. I had the idea once, that as you go up the bridge you audit on the dynamics ascending, and on OT8 then on the 8th Dyn or universes/multiverses – something like that (like Clear is clear on the first Dyn and it goes up then the dynamics and the awareness thereof/ and being more the dynamics).
    Is there any auditing or level (OT level) which has to do specifically with different universes /multivereses – Theta and/or MEST? Is there anything about multiverses?

  6. Where would you put Route 1 and 2 of the book Creation of Human Ability on The Bridge?

  7. Geir, have you ever gone exterior with full perception; if so what was it like?

    Do you ever doubt that you are a spiritual being?


    1. Yes – I have gone exterior with full perception a few times. Two times when I was asleep, woke up and my body wouldn’t move. So I tried desperately to move the body, but to no avail. Suddenly I found myself rise up. At first I thought I finally got the body moving until I realized that my body was still in bed under me. I floated around in the room, thought “hey, I should go and check out the back side of the moon” and “what if I cannot find my way back to my body again” – whereupon I promptly smacked into the body. Another time I simply slided sideways out of my head and into the wall beside me and further into the closet of my neighbor. The third time when I was doing OT TR 0, I drifted out back of my head and saw the people sitting in the room behind me filling out OCA tests. Full perceptions all three times. A couple of other times with dimmer perceptions.

      No, I never doubt I am a spiritual being.

  8. I got another couple lol..

    Which three people, living or dead, would you choose to have dinner with?

    What do you think about the UFO phenomenon?

    1. Beside my three boys, Anette and Brendan…

      Kurt Gõdel

      On UFOs: “We are such an overadvanced civilization that have managed to travel hundreds of light years to this remote solar system where some 7 billion somewhat intelligent creatures are living on the third planet… let’s make some crop circles to show off and then leave, shall we?”

      1. Agreed on the crop circles and related stuff. However when you look at the best cases there seems to be a core of hard to dismiss evidence that ‘something’ is occurring or has occurred. What it is though would be a separate question.

        A book by an investigative journalist from the outside:


        Interesting little film:

        Thanks for your answers!

            1. Ha yeah it definitely has an image problem Rafael. Michio Kaku recommends the Kean book though and It seems to me a compelling case that science ought to take UFO’s seriously.

            2. aotc, an image problem could be understood but symmetrical movement, colour, brightness, lack of sound and speed are not. I don´t know if this unidentified objects are just machines or are being piloted, In my opinion these are just machines.

  9. Do you subscribe to the view that the individuals that incarnate here belong to the graveyard of the long gone, destined for oblivion without the intervention of auditing? That the GE is a decayed theta being? That the dwindling spiral consisting of hundreds of trillions of years is a true representation of the descent of theta beings?

  10. It seems to me that one of the problems with Scientology as a spiritual way is the fact that it actually increases the EGO.
    One of the good tricks for that are acknowledgements. It goes beyond reasonable limits when you (over)praise people for doing good, of course usually in the course of getting Scientology stronger. And as an exchange the Church gets loyalty from the Scientologist.
    So what are your thoughts on this, Geir? Is it good on the spiritual way if you give strength to the EGO? And do you think Scientology does that?

    1. I believe acknowledgements are really good and really healthy. I see this with my own kids all the time. The problem in society is not from lack of acknowledgements or appreciation or praise but rather the opposite. People are rarely seen and rarely praised or acknowledged.

      But I do see the CoS USING praise to strengthen its own causes. And then it moves into the category of false flattery. It is intention behind the praise that shines through. It strongly aligns with LRH’s focus on PR as something Very important.

      1. OK. I think the same. Healthy acknowledgements are good. When you begin to acknowledge people first it is good as you liberate them from oppression. But when there is no balance they will eventually get their EGO boosted. If you know a bit of eastern philosophy, you understand what I mean. Like with money and power. It is good to have money. In the absence of it you get suffering and violent acts are getting more numerous. But when people get very rich and get power above their fellows they begin to loose their compassion towards others and begin to act as an oppressor.

        It is not so easy for me to express these thoughts of mine in English but I hope you understand what I mean. But this is just a side thought.

        You said above that you would have dinner with Buddha. LRH stated that Scientology is the culmination of Buddhism and is itself a work of Buddha as he called himself Maitreya. But Buddhism regards the ego as an illusion. Not permanent. The EGO is already “separation”, “dualism”, Samsara. Is it good for us to roam in Samsara? This idea does not corresponds Buddhism at all. Would you convince Buddha that he made a mistake? Of course it counts how you define Buddha:)

        But most of all, my main question: is it wise to strengthen the EGO?


          1. Thanks for your opinion but I think this is a universe with two poles. Where there is fun for one, there is suffering on the other side. Where is fun now, there is suffering later. Simply because this is the nature of this universe.

            1. Of course if we can have a balance where there is no price of extreme suffering for extreme fun, that is good. But one can easily see that this state can’t be upheld forever. That’s why people of all ages wanted to get enlightened, realized, “know” the final truth, etc…
              All the best Geir and have a nice day!

      1. This answer seems too short for me to regard it as an answer. I do not think the beef or the orphans love that too or that you would take the suffering from those. I see people from other faith or spirituality all speaking about these questions with respect and responsibility what I does not feel in your answer. This usual approach to similar matters is one of the reasons I feel not connected with Scientology.
        Answering like this is no problem but I feel this would need more explanation. Getting no more explanation again is no problem. Than I just have my own conclusions.
        Thanks again for the communication.

  11. The ability itself is knowingness – to create again in present “time” what you have “trained” into, what you “know”, without relying on memory, on mind. If you see what I mean, would you rather say that you wouldn’t like to not lose the “ability”, instead of using the word “memory”?

    1. Sure. But the memory is easier to retain than the general ability to recreate anything. It’s a step, a gradient.

      1. Hm. For me it goes right into the core of the need for the mind’s existence. Also, “attaining” the level of “awareness” where all the parts in your Triangles can be created by the ability of Life/Consciousness itself can be a purpose.That is the no-mind, beyond Tone 40 is advisable to “reach”.
        Do you think it is possible to “reach” beyond the mind awareness “levels”?

      1. Have you thought of using the Triangles in handling your “weeknesses”? Especially the one on Purpose (e.g too much focus on certain values can cause imbalance, which can also affect confidence..).

      1. Ohhh, right, when you put it as such I remembered it was called that. Somehow thought different when Isene said it and forgot about the OT part. Great use in meditation.

  12. Thanks. Also, you say “get back the key to own emotions”. Do you see the possibility that emotions are “noone’s”, that is they arise in a life situation and if you “get the key back”, it can mean that you are not showing a true mirror to the other? Also, it’s a kind of using effort in the “getting back”, until one is Clear, in which case one will not experience any misemotion and can operate like space to the other person. So, how do you see this?

    1. I see all my emotions I experience as created by me. I see all my experience created by me. When I assign my creations to others (a road to blame), I give my key to others.

  13. Isene
    What was your purpose when you joined scientology? What did you want to improve? Also,
    what Hidden Standards did you have or still have if there are any?

          1. Thanks. As I have known you so far – you will! Sooner than later! Joining Marildi, I’d like you to write about quantum physics. In simple words. Also, whatever you find in any other part of science relevant here on the blog. Also, how the God Theory shaped your views and perceptions. Also, any “results” in your life.

      1. Me too. So how about we have a blog post and discuss it? That was what I meant in a previous comment when I asked you for a heavy-duty, juicy subject. 🙂

  14. Geir, I thought of your theory of “BT’s” as being one’s own creations when I read the following paragraph of a lecture excerpt:

    “A person is totally capable of doing this. A man can get himself thoroughly haunted by living beings – living, breathing beings – simply because he can duplicate himself. This is not machinery, and it is not part of the thetan, by definition. But it is the thetan moving outward through the second dynamic of creation into a third dynamic of becoming a group.”

    Here’s the link for the rest of the excerpt: http://workabletechnology.com/?p=424

    From your personal experience, do you think this could be the explanation for the “BTs”? It would then be both – thetans as well as one’s own creations.

    1. My experience is parallel to that of dreaming. One creates viewpoints that one interact with. So no – they are not living beings.

    1. I have seen quite a few people crash mentally and physically on their way up the Bridge. There may be many reasons for that – from the church’s misapplication of Scientology to other external factors, but I cannot discount the tech itself as a possible source of crashes.

      1. Fully get it. A “strange-sounding” question. In your present state, do you feel the “gravity” of thought? Also, the “electromagnetic” pull part of it?

            1. Isene
              Let me ask it in a different way. As I see it, thought has an electromagnetic component. Is the ability to sense and then discharge by pure inspection any thought that comes to your space gained back on the Bridge? Do you find it an issue to have to be dealt with at all?

      2. There are first-person accounts on Marty’s blog by people who experienced some very severe “crash” after completing OTVIII. As LRH said, “Thetans have different responses” (each one from another, because we are individuals). Apparently in some cases whatever it is that is as-ised or erased on OTVIII the way it was delivered by CoS, was contrasurvival to possibly many individuals.

        There are also statements to the effect that there have been several different versions of OTVIII delivered because Miscavige kept fiddling with the level or rundown or whatever it is supposed to be. I have heard there have been as many as 5 different versions, and that more than one ‘truncated’ the original version by half; I wonder if the undelivered half was the half that was drills that were supposed to rehab a person’s ability to function in the absence of the erased automaticities and valences.

        A person builds an awful lot of these in the course of growing up from infancy, and suddenly having your mind “shattered” as one poster described it, could return one to the mental condition of a 3 month old could cause that person a few difficulties in adapting and proceeding in life thereafter!

        In fact this kind of thing happens naturally in the course of living sometimes, but the aggressive “handling” given such people in Western culture tends to be harmful instead of helpful.

      3. Yes, the “tech” itself cannot be dismissed as a possible source of ‘crashes’.

        It is actually well-known “in the business” that ‘crashes’ can and do happen during psychotherapy and psychoanalysis. A person in long-term therapy, especially of the kind undertaken by the individual for the purpose of gaining insight and personal development can experience more than one.

        So in fact, the more effective any tech is in producing ‘change’ the more likely it is to ‘destabilize’ one’s personality in some way that could cause a ‘crash’.

        Of course this has been used in the past to create the general consideration that one should not know or do anything with or about the mind, because it is ‘dangerous’ to do so. This allows some group to develop a monopoly on the subject, as Psychiatry has and still is attempting to do.

        It is a variation on “creating and selling the dangerous environment” – don’t learn anything about your own mind, that’s dangerous, leave it to us experts.”

  15. Isene
    You “want” to “go” “exterior” with full “perception” at “will” . You mentioned that it happened to you but not at will. Is there a possibility that it never happens “at will” ? That it does is a belief/assumption?

    Theta can postulate and perceive…..postulates/counter postulates off, there is only perceiving…..” I ” ” AM ” “ME”…..can it be a postulate too? Can it be that when “one” perceives with full perception (like you did in the other room, me had an experience like that too) there is no ” I “, just perceiving? Just asking….if something “happens” once, the ABILITY is there….all it takes is to look at WHAT preceded the abilty and also WHAT shut it off….
    How do you see the answers to my first two questions?

  16. Geir…
    I surely don’t want to play a smartass….you said earlier ” I AM ME” . I asked you what the “nature” of it was for you. So I ask it again:
    “What is the “nature”, “feel of” “structure” of that ” I am me” ?

  17. Geir
    What’s your favourite colour, number, sport, music (now !, also, you can post it here), food, drink, part of the day, story, book, art, country, city, activity, type of house, best travel, perfume, topic of conversation, film, car, game, quote. I will go on with it, if you answer them. Will you?

      1. I traveled through Egypt, Israel, Greece and Morroco with a backpack. If you come to my house, you must be wearing a backpack.


        1. Coffee (espresso with variations of milk), tea (I’m a tea maniac), juices (grapefruit, cranberry, lemon). positron lemonade, proton tea, liquid nitrogen…

  18. Have you had a day or two in your life when you didn’t think about scientology at all? Have you ever experienced the silent mind for minutes, hours when you didn’t have thoughts?

  19. You said earlier in your help post that you’d rather not bother others with your problems if you had some and didn’t really like asking for help. How is it now? I am asking this because what I observed in scientology was that one was always left alone to solve one’s problems. Like e.g. you will create the time, handle a business situation etc. This, accumulated, can result in the symptom of a single-handed ED ( I don’t know the good word for that) as far as one’s problems are concerned. So, how is this issue now?

  20. Geir
    When you come to the blog, will you answer the above two questions, please? May they sound stupid ones but nevertheless I am asking them honestly.

  21. Do you have any “negative” considerations about your own personality? E.g. I am easily hurt….etc. If yes, what are they? (personality is a social construct, not you, as a person)

  22. Geir
    There are two questions above which you didn’t answer. I see now that they are irrelevant.
    No problem that you didn’t answer them.

  23. After being in the Church for about 25 years on 2009-08-07 you had put down your observations and evaluations in a Doubt write-up.
    Then you left the Church.

    You wrote: ‘It boils down to personal integrity. I could no longer be part of an organization where the management is lying, harassing and suppressing the free will of its members.’

    1 -> How did you manage to be a silent watcher to these suppressions (including forced disconnection, arbitrary, no freedom of information, speech and thought) during the precedent 25 years?

    2 -> For how many years did you believe that the ‘Church of Scientology’ was the proper and able group to save our planet?

    I am sure that today most of Scientology staff, up to the highest ranks of the SO are in a similare state of mind as you had been for 25 years, as far as dealing with doubts is concerned.
    (I suppose it is like this: Although actually having doubts – not allowing yourself to REALLY start a doubting process – as the inevitable consequences might not be in accordance with personal aims and future plans)

    2 -> What might have been a successful way in addressing you in year 5, 10 or 20 of your membership in order to encourage you to really CONFRONT what you had observed so far, then to apply the doubt formular and consequentially leave the Church?

    (I am interested in finding out: How can I today address a parishioner who still resists against confronting his observations and drawing his proper conclusions from that?
    How can I help him coming to the point when he decides: I can no longer be a silent watcher to these suppressions!)

    1. Daniel – Very relevant and good questions. Answers:

      1. I saw issues early on, but never really grave ones until toward the end of the 25 years. It only really tipped for me when I met David Miscavige.
      The gains would always outweigh the shit that happened, and I was notorious at not bending for pressure reges habitually gave me up.

      2. The Doubt came after 22 years when I met DM.

      3. What would have gotten to me early on as well as later was to show that management is lying – first and foremost the inflated membership numbers, then that the strategy is failing (ideal orgs empty) and then discrepancies in the tech (as friendsoflrh.org has done). These are the main attack angles.

    1. Pain is an unwanted, or resisted, input or sensation. Pleasure is somewhat the opposite. Both are really raw input’s or perceptions and the living unit must categorize it. What is categorize as pain, what your body does, and what Geir or I do can all be different. It is the word or label you put on the input you considered undesireable. Without the labeling you have no pain. A rock, whether super hot or severely frozen has no concept of pain.

      1. SA: A rock, whether super hot or severely frozen has no concept of pain.

        Chris: Good post. This is an opportunity to look at our attitudes toward other’s realities. Is it really true that we know what the environment around us is aware of? — Not being a smartass. Why is the Vegan so self righteous about smashing, pounding, slicing, dicing, blending, cooking, boiling, skewering, burning, chewing and swallowing plant-life? Not a slap at Vegans either. Just askin’.

        1. Chris – We make judgments of the environment based upon what we can perceive, surmise, or merely dub in. I have asked many times – to Vegan’s I know or meet – why are you an insistent vegan. Usual answer something akin to “I don’t want things to die”, or kill things or etc. I then tell them that they are assuming animals are alive and plants aren’t. Both are alive, it is the vegan who assumes they have different levels of life or the ability to communicate or have feelings.

          Plants are quite intelligent, just different that our meat bodies by a degree of difference that many have lost the ability to assume the viewpoint of the plant being eaten. I am not against eating plants or animals. We happen to operate a body that requires something else to cease to exist for it to continue existence. Presently most are freaked out by disembodied spiritual beings so we keep the body to have a ticket to the playing field.

  24. Sapere Aude
    Wow! Thanks! You have just helped to see how it works – in practice. Your ‘rock’ example is perfect. “It is the word or label you put on the input you considered undesirable”. Wow, yes!
    As by doing so, the word didn’t allow to directly perceive the input….the word got removed, I could directly perceive the input without any resistance, also the willingness and ability to create (or not) the input has returned! It applies to bigger and bigger ‘inputs’.
    Also, the first three axioms are in operation under any and all phenomena….I just see it again. Thank you…..
    HuH. If somebody says ‘ I don’t want (any word here) ‘ , it can even cause an ‘illness’…is that right?

    1. I believe you can perceive an input even if you have no word to describe it. You might have a bit of a problem thinking with what you just perceived – but that does not negate the perception. I think any input that overwhelms – mentally, physically, energetically, etc – has the ability to create illness (easy to think of if you start from the definition of “dis” – ease.

  25. Thanks! I guarantee I am going to push you to put here your favourites from
    time to time….like all three! I wonder what we will be listening to from 30-40 years from now?

  26. Geir
    ‘I so love personal contact. You will find having a coffee with me quite different than
    discussing with me on the Net.’
    It would be so nice for us all to meet in person! When will you organize a party? Or a trip? As it will be summer soon, it could be in another country than Norway…a warm place by a sea perhaps where we could talk a lot and have lots of fun. What do you think?

        1. Just in alphabetical order some: awesome! brilliant! fabulous! fantastic! gorgeous!
          marvellous! phenomenal! I mean that when one has no clue! HaHa….it really feels terrific! Geir, hilarious! You made my day with it!

    1. I am blissfully empty of inspiration to write a blog post right now. This may change in a minute, an hour, a day or even a few days. Who knows 🙂

      1. I get it! Yeah!!! What a bliss and grace when the mind is ’empty’! Inspiration – you might post some videos: art, music, humour, science, sport, business or pictures, quotes… that have tickled your fancy recently. As you see, I do that too. For me this week is the ‘drums’ week, I have never been so interested in them before than now….You see, you can also post things that kind of ‘find’ you….of course only if you like. Sharing is always fun!

  27. Geir
    What is the reason for the disappearance of the recent comments? Are you planning to put it back? Much easier to be in communication with that.

  28. Thanks, Geir, no disappearing comments. I meant what Marildi, the ‘recent comments’ on the right. I got what you answered to her. Glad it is back.

  29. Hello Geir, are Nic. You’ve done more research on
    Your” bomb” points of view?
    I’m on that line of research.
    Let me know, thank you.

    1. I don’t quite get your question – but here’s my view:

      The OT 3 story is pure fiction.
      There are no BTs.
      What you handle on OT 3 – 7 is your own creations that you no longer are aware of or take responsibility for. Attention units and awareness is brought back under your control by addressing these unconscious creations.

      1. What if what you call ‘ your own creations’ are creations of the One-Source- Creator and part of these creations (the unconscious ones) are what we call the ‘Bank’?

        This Source is Attentive and Aware but by AGREEING to ITS own creation (e.g. a body) there is a ‘loss’ of attention and awareness to that degree. The personal=your own creation is an illusion and ceases to be as such when the separate sense of a ‘you’ (agreeing to body, emotion,thought…) is gone. What one IS then is an infinite, forever present ONE-YOU.

        Taking responsibility is being aware of what is being created, which means that one has stopped agreeing and is basically Attention-Listening-Awareness itself which has no time. Interestingly, it can give ‘renewed aliveness’ to what has manifested in ‘reality’ (basically as an energy form) by continuous attention.
        (So this ‘YOU’ is creating ‘Geir’ – Life partly ‘FLOWing’ from ‘your’ awareness, partly from ‘our’ awareness…which is ONE source….for our common enjoyment in this creation….the same applies to ‘each of us’ being created).

        So when you write ‘attention units and awareness is brought back under YOUR CONTROL’, does it mean that this YOUR CONTROL is the source-control-infinite-life itself and that is why you say there are no BTs….that is you ‘operate/live’ like that undivided YOU-Source?
        (sorry for being lengthy….wish to get your experience-reality which would worth a post)

  30. Thank you, I understand. You’ve done some research?
    I have others that you know have done research in session?

          1. Marty hasn’t said that he’s done research, or I would.

            How long is “due time,” approximately?

            1. I have asked him, and got his viewpoint about BT’s. But you were talking about research and he hasn’t that I know of.

              Anyway, got it on due time. But your math is lousy. 😛

            2. He had written a blog post about focusing on ability rather than disability and I had asked him which he thought the OT levels focuson on. Here’s the last part of the exchange:

              Me: “…With the OT levels (I’m thinking specifically of the NOTs levels), instead of handling all of the particular phenomena addressed, the goal might be for the pc to gain an ability to be able to handle those phenomena, or to be cause over them rather than effect of them.

              martyrathbun09 | August 12, 2013 at 3:08 pm | Reply
              Yes, and the path, taken literally as it insists it must be, decidedly prohibits you from achieving just that.

            3. It’s not a subject he has currently brought up like you did at the beginning of this exchange, or I would do that. And anyway, what difference does it make right now what Marty says? I was asking you for your own ideas. If you’re trying to get at something, please just say what it is.

            4. I believe I have told you felt what I think. You told about others that believed in BTs. You have indicated that you look to May for answers. I suggested you asked him what he thinks of BTs. That’s all.

            5. I’m interested in what you have to say too. Maybe you feel like I wasn’t accepting your answers when I wanted to know more. I thought I did accept your final answers on the subject of BT’s, but I never got a response to the questions I had about OT 2. It’s on the other thread where I last posted a reply to you.

            6. I think most people would read on most any dichotomy simply because they touch on conflicting ideas, and that’s hot areas in life. Simple as that.

            7. Okay, I get that idea. Is there some reason why you prefer that theory over the one I had come up with (which excluded the idea of implants) – it was the idea that LRH had worked out all the different “types” of dichotomies. It would be similar to how he worked out the handling of upsets in terms of looking at all three aspects of A,R and C, and then (as needed) taking up the reading one in terms of the CDEI scale. In other words, I don’t think those things are just arbitraries, or that taking up any old arbitraries off the top of one’s head would be workable. The factors of an ARC break are universally workable to get a pc to F/N VGI’s – except for the occasional need for a correction list which picks up that something more basic is going on in the case, and that something is then “fortuitously” found. In essence, he figured out some laws or patterns in the universe, so I think it might be the same with the dichotomies on OT II.

            8. Marildi: In essence, he figured out some laws or patterns in the universe, so I think it might be the same with the dichotomies on OT II.

              Chris: Good! Got it! Now pick up the cans and audit! You know you want to. (These rocks are pretty but the way out doesn’t lead that way.)

            9. I am not saying that LRH just threw any odd dichotomy into the pile, but I am saying that it is naive to think that OT2 is a “closely taped path”. I have done the level and I can day that I am pretty damn sure that if somebody stuck another dichotomy in there or would read just the same.

            10. Thanks, Geir, but I can’t see the difference between throwing in “any old dichotomy” and sticking “another dichotomy” in.

              I haven’t done OT II, but it makes a lot more sense to me that LRH found a pattern – as he did with so many other auditing procedures, including ruds and correction lists. I understand, for example, that a C/S 53 covers whatever may be going on with a case.

              When you were on OT II, if you read on all or almost all of the dichotomies, logic tells me that it probably wasn’t because any dichotomy will run – extrapolating from the things we know about the mind and about auditing, which are not random or haphazard constructs. It makes much more sense that this is a derived list of dichotomies.

            11. I reiterate: I believe almost any dichotomy will run on OT2 – simply because dichotomies is a highly charged subject. That doesn’t mean that Hubbard didn’t have a system to the ones he populated OT2 with.

            12. “I reiterate: I believe almost any dichotomy will run on OT2 – simply because dichotomies is a highly charged subject. That doesn’t mean that Hubbard didn’t have a system to the ones he populated OT2 with.”

              Okay, that’s conceivable. But then, what would have been the advantage or purpose in having a system?

            13. Just to find those that most likely would die that charged subject. Just like a correction list – which is neither a “closely taped path” but rather a collection of what he or others thought an expedienced stygge most likely stumbling blocks in a given subject.

            14. What he or others “thought”? The point is, what was their thinking based on? It still seems like you consider it to be rather arbitrary.

              I may not have got exactly what you were saying because I think there were two typos – “die” and “stygge.”

            15. Mobile phone, autocorrection 😉
              The thinking involved would be sound judgement based on a basic understanding of the mind and spirit but also on experience from auditing.

            16. Aha. I sort of thought you were reverting to some Norwegian words. 🙂

              Then we are pretty much in agreement – that Hubbard did have an understanding of the mind, although you add the modifier, “basic” understanding. I’d still go with relatively closely-taped path, since the vast majority of pcs get handled on correction lists and other standard tools. Didn’t you find that to be your own personal experience?

            17. There is surely room for improvement regarding the correction lists. They cover what they should cover which is a great thing, but they should, almost all of them, be split into two; items that usually read and with the item “is there anything else wrong?” at the end and that would lead to the list containing the less usual items. As they stand now, many of the list represent speed bumps.

            18. Could be.But I don’t have enough experience as an auditor to have reality on what you’re saying, and thus really couldn’t agree or disagree. Can you tell me what it’s based on? Maybe this is getting into the research you mentioned, and if so did you follow scientific protocol or use some other method?

              I have the idea the lists are already arranged in a systematic way, based on what would need to be handled first, such as out-int and then various ruds, etc. before attempting to take up the things that come later in the list. And I thought there was a question like “Is there something else wrong?”

              Again, I really have the idea that LRH was very methodical and systematic.

            19. After having used hundreds of correction lists, it becomes obvious that most of them should be a two-stage list, like the Solo NOTs correction list. It is just to damn big and cumbersome.

            20. “That’s not what I mean. Cut the list down to only those 5-10 items that usually read. Then put the rest on a second-level list.”

              How did you determine which 5-10 items usually read? I would assume that you aren’t just going by your own personal experience but have data from auditors who’ve audited many pcs.

              Also, I’m not sure what you mean by a “second-level” list. Are you talking about assessing and handling only part of the list and then, depending on the indicators in the pc and meter, the auditor may or may not assess and handle the rest of it?

              Btw, I think we are doing a better job of discussing Scientology tech than we have in the past and I’m happy about that. I get that you are approaching the tech in a pragmatic way, rather than from some preconceived viewpoint, and I hope you got from my side that I’m not at all against improvement of it. I’m simply curious about what you have come up with. However, there may be more to the whole thing than you can (or want to) get into in a blog exchange, and you would rather not do so until “due time.” If that’s the case, just let me know. You know how easy I am. 🙂

            21. One primary list of the 5-10 items that statistically tags the most (to be determined) with the last question being “is there anything else wrong?” If that reads, pull out the secondary list with the remaining items.

            22. I still come back to the idea I have that each correction list has been worked out to cover all the things that could be out in a specific area (such as on an int rundown, NED auditing, etc.); and if you don’t assess the whole list and handle all reading items, the last question “Is something else wrong?” may very well not get a read even though there is still some area(s) of charge. That’s because the general concept of “something wrong” may not be specific enough and real enough to the pc for it to read, at least not until all areas of charge specified on the list have been handled. If that general question were all that was needed, theoretically you could even ask nothing but: “Is there something wrong?” right at the start.

            23. There are different types of correction lists. I am referring to those that you don’t assess M5. Your resistance to change is evident.

            24. Wow. Why did you suddenly have to resort to an Ad Hom? If you had simply explained to me that you aren’t talking about the kind of assessment I thought you were – and just left it at that – it would have continued to be a real discussion. At least that’s what I thought it was. Maybe you really didn’t want your ideas explored.

            25. It was quite obvious from the getgo that I was talking about correction lists like the one I mentioned, the Solo NOTs correction list.

            26. It should be obvious that I wouldn’t necessarily know what correction lists “like” the Solo NOTs correction list are.

              I even indicated in different ways that I’m not that highly trained in the tech and might be missing something. Anyway, it’s fine, Geir. I probably should never have tried to discuss something like that. I just thought it would be fun to have a discussion with you. G’night.

            27. Marildi: (Ask) “Is there something wrong?” right at the start.

              Chris: Exactly so. Any version of this. Without any eval it becomes straight up TR4. I like this Marildi.

            28. Discussing anything with someone that already KNOWS that no change is possible or needed isn’t much fun, really.

            29. I don’t feel that way at all. It was in good faith and with good intention that I was trying to understand and explore with you your ideas. And you had nothing negative to say about the comment I made indicating that I was having a win on THE TWO OF US doing a better job at discussion – until Chris misrepresented it as referring only to you. Here are my exact words (with added caps):

              “I think WE are doing a better job of discussing Scientology tech than we have in the past and I’m happy about that. I get that YOU ARE APPROACHING THE TECH IN A PRAGMATIC WAY, rather than from some preconceived viewpoint, and I hope you got from my side that I’M NOT AT ALL AGAINST IMPROVEMENT of it.”

            30. This discussion brings to mind the issue of – Should one be expecting others to change? In psychotherapy circles, one person trying to change another, or expecting another to change, is often considered to be the problem, not the solution. It is often a problem in the relationships of couples, that one expects the other to change and THEN “everything will be fine”.

              I personally am very resistent to others “trying to change me” and consider it an overt act against me. In the USA it’s often expressed as “I’m not here in this world to meet YOUR expectations!” It is felt by some people to be a non-acceptance of their beingness, which of course precludes any communication or “auditing” from taking place.

            31. A discussion that doesn’t bring about any change is fruitless. I have happily been reaping the fruits of change for myself in the last 4 years through discussions. I am afraid Marildi is struggling with such benefits from discussions. And hence I am not very excited to try to help her in that regard. And also thusly, I prefer to discuss areas where I see my own potential for change the greatest. This discussion here is not one of them.

            32. Geir believes that since I still think basic Scientology is valid, I am incapable of change. That’s because he personally believes it is not valid and thus anyone who hasn’t changed their mind about it must be incapable of change. It amounts to an opinion based on one’s own bias.

            33. You have expressed different opinions which are contradictory, as I’ve pointed out a number of times.

              In any case, if you did believe in the tenets of Scientology, you wouldn’t be invalidating me in your attempts to try to get me to see the light – it doesn’t work that way per those tenets. And you do claim that you want to help people.

            34. I am not interested to make you “see the light”. You are in my and many other’s view a hard core Scientologist and determined to remain one. That’s OK. It simply makes it uninspiring to discuss with you.

            35. I simply continue to see a lot of truth in Scientology, and since I do I am willing to say so .

              I saw our discussion this way. You stated some ideas you had; I then asked some questions or said what I saw to be in conflict with the understandings I have. What I would have liked you to do if you thought those understandings were unfounded would have been to say so and to say why. I think you were doing that at first, but for whatever reason you suddenly decided I was just being resistant to change.

              At one point, I even gave you an opening to end the discussion if you didn’t think I was being sincere, as I thought might be the case, but you continued – and I continued doing the same as I had been, so I don’t know why you changed. It would have been nice if you had just stuck to the topic and pointed out to me specifically what you felt was incorrect or just a fixed opinion, or whatever.

              The discussion on BT’s was another example on my part to try to understand better how you see it. I wish you wouldn’t assume I’m just trying to make Scientology right, because I’m not.

            36. Your inability to entertain the idea that there might actually be something fundamentally wrong or even destructive in Scientology (no, not just the CoS) will lead you to defend it tooth and claw. It’s the nature of preconceived ideas. As such it breaks the rationally for a discussion. Both should be willing and open for change.

            37. You assume that because I have not yet seen anything fundamentally wrong or destructive in Scientology that it must be because of my “inability entertain the idea” that there is .That’s an example of YOUR preconceived idea based on your consideration that such exists. If you were to make a good case for it, I might be able to see it. Yes – both should be willing and open.

            38. I think you are experiencing what I have called before, the “Tower of Babel phenomenon”. Basically, each and every person has his/her own idiosyncratic understanding of terms like “basic Scientology” and are not actually on the same page when using them. Thus communication fails.

            39. I agree with you but I haven’t just left it at “basic Scientology” – I’ve described what I meant by that term.

              I had hoped that posters on this blog could finally come around to having a rational discussion based on the principles of TRs. But I’m no longer very confident that it is possible. At times, I do see that type of comm cycle occur over on Marty’s blog – you being one example.

            40. You fail to realize that there cannot be a rational discussion on a subject where one participant has already made up her mind that she is not going to change her position No Matter What. While others are exploring, you are on a mission. I will be happy to leave your opinion intact just as you should be happy to see others explore and change and evolve.

            41. Neither can there be a rational discussion when a participant has made up his mind that “she is not going to change her position No Matter What.” Otherwise, you might have finally seen that I was actually trying to explore with you. And that I have already evolved – but you can’t see that because you expect the evolution to be in terms of what you consider evolving.

            42. “Let the reader be the judge of your rate of change. As they are the judge of mine.”

              Right there you have demonstrated your fixed idea. You are assuming that the more and the faster one changes with respect to Scientology, the more it shows his willingness to change – which obviously is based on the assumption that if one were willing, then of course s/he would change his/her mind about Scientology.

            43. Marildi: “Geir believes that since I still think basic Scientology is valid, I am incapable of change.”

              Chris: Hardly. It is what you do — debate rather than discuss — which gets you the reactions that you seem not to enjoy. Your point of view is well known and you have a right to it. What is tiresome is to be preached to about not showing up for church when we are the ones who showed up. Hubbard’s points of view are well known in this crowd and I think it would be difficult to assemble a more knowledgeable group on the study of Scientology. It is actually you who complains that people who do not agree with your Scientology party line to be ignorant, untrained, inexperienced, or worse — intentionally evil. You beg question after question but when you do not receive the answers that you desire complain. For instance, this week the firestorm over Elizabeth’s prowess as a solo auditor was brought up not by me but by you to prove Scientology. Elizabeth’s fringe points of view are well known here and on here blog — she has made herself quite well known. So on a public forum I mention her many and varied realities on life and the meaning of existence and because they differ from your bias, butts are hurt. This is disingenuous on your part to cherry pick in order to gather backup for your information bias. It really smacks of an agenda which is not discussion of the pros and cons of Scientology but of a debate angled to reinforce the pros of Scientology, whether they are truly pro or not.

              This is what is missing from your contribution — any reality whatsoever that you understand anything about the destructiveness of Scientology. No personal history, no stories, nothing to give a sense of who, what, or where you are coming from. Marriages, family, and children . . . everyday things the rest of us and especially Geir has laid bare to be scrutinized. Brief notes about time spent word clearing — at Flag — that’s pretty much it. Well you are more than that but your secrecy on the matter smells rotten to me and I simply admit that I don’t know what you are up to.

            44. With Geir, I don’t doubt his good intentions towards me, whether his opinions about me are true or not. With you, I don’t get good intentions.

              You say things you know aren’t true, and you purposely stretch the truth. A blatant example is right here on this thread, which you now twist into something entirely different. What actually occurred was that I brought up Elizabeth simply as an example of what I was talking about, and you then had to try to make it wrong by out-and-out fabricating things she said – which you know for a fact are false.

              In this last post, you wrote: “It is actually you who complains that people who do not agree with your Scientology party line to be ignorant, untrained, inexperienced, or worse — intentionally evil.”

              Specifically what I’ve said is that MOST critics aren’t trained and do not have A LOT of experience auditing pcs – which, per my observation, still appears to me to be true. Furthermore, I’ve never said anything resembling “intentionally evil” – which you stuck in the same sentence where there is only a fraction of truth to start with.

              As for your statement that I don’t understand the destructiveness of Scientology, I have repeatedly said that I’m in NO disagreement about the criticism of the CoS and that I’m only in favor of core Scientology. So you now saying otherwise is just more BS.

              Then you come up again with the same old innuendo that I give “No personal history, no stories, nothing to give a sense of who, what, or where you are coming from. Marriages, family, and children.” The last time you made such a remark was even weirder because I had just posted a couple stories about me and my sister. I’ve also posted a video of my son a couple times.

              You then have the nerve to end with “your secrecy on the matter smells rotten to me and I simply admit that I don’t know what you are up to.” Bald-faced innuendo. What are YOU up to that you feel the need to constantly try to discredit me?

            45. My point was that the destructiveness is entirely involved with the organizational aspect of Scientology – not the philosophical or technical.

            46. I know. But you strong that you really do understand what Chris is talking about when he referes to the destructiveness of Scientology is incorrect.

            47. I just looked at a Green Form and it first takes up physical things like food and rest, then goes into out-int, then out-list, then rudiments, and then the more unusual things. The last question is exactly what I remembered:

              39. IS THERE SOMETHING ELSE WRONG? _________
              Find out what and handle or return to C/S.

            48. That’s not what I mean. Cut the list down to only those 5-10 items that usually read. Then put the rest on a second-level list.

            49. “That’s not what I mean. Cut the list down to only those 5-10 items that usually read. Then put the rest on a second-level list.”

              Looks like I got the reply in the wrong place. It’s just above this comment of yours.

            50. Marildi: I’d still go with relatively closely-taped path, since the vast majority of pcs get handled on correction lists and other standard tools. Didn’t you find that to be your own personal experience?

              Chris: It seems that no matter what Geir writes about his Scientology experiences, you respond with that he is basically in agreement with you about Scientology. That the Bridge to Total Freedom is marked as to steps is not in question. “Do those steps lead to Total Freedom?” is in question and on many levels from what is meant by total freedom to do those closely taped steps result in the purported results and end phenomena.

              That you say, “the vast majority of PCs get handled on correction lists” is patently false since fewer than 1/10 of 1% of Scientology PCs remain connected to Scientology. This is the vast majority. I think that begging the questions won’t get Geir to say what you want him to nor turn him home from his wayward path.

            51. Evidently it is quite important what Marty thinks as you bring up and quote his opinions routinely. Please ask him what he thinks of BTs and post it here for us to read.

      1. Ok, some sales pitch is neccessary to get one ‘hooked up’ by what one is already creating…. to get one to be aware of it, isn’t it? That one is doing that by one’s free will? That one is already free?
        Who would want to face that one is free, of ‘no-thing’ in the first place?

          1. Thanks. 1. Do you feel yourself ‘trapped’ in any way after OT8? If yes, what is/are the trap(s)?
            2. Do you feel that you cannot exercise your free will after OT8? If yes, in what ‘part’ of life?

            1. 1. Interiorized into Scientology for 25 years.
              2. Not able to exteriorize at will with full perceptions. And no total recall /retention of abilities.

            2. 2. There can be some who can. The ‘sales pitch’ in this issue can indeed kick back.
              Can also work later as a hidden standard. It does not mean, however, that some tech cannot handle it. It also does not mean that although you wish it, it is the best ‘non-result’ in your present state. Now. You are a work in progress?

            3. What I also see from your CV that you created lots of things and worked with lots of people. Can imagine that your ‘field’ of activity was ‘shaped by’ scientology (for me life) tools and you did not live parts of life as ‘humans’…also understand what you mean by not living emotions fully..or so, not the best words. From many of your posts no ‘interiorization’ is coming through…rather clear reasoning.
              You got/achieved what you achieved. Being ‘me’ as you wrote is not a ‘non-awareness-proof’ condition. Using the body, the senses can get one ‘restimulated’ into different ‘energy-frequency’ phenomena when in com with others (my reality). Also the agreements with others’ thoughts.

      2. What it is and how it promotes itself are 2 different things. LRH’s own basic statements about scientology encourage all and sundry to make that discrimination.

        1. Part of the very premise of Scientology is that it IS TRUTH and provides a certain path to TOTAL FREEDOM. That is LRH’s own penis and basis for the subject. It tests on it BEING TRUE and COMPLETE.

          1. I don’t buy it for he simple reason that he most recent grade charts are titled “The bridge to total freedom” and refers to something like an additional 7 or more OT levels above OTVIII, which obviously have not been developed, or were not developed by LRH at the time of his passing. It is obviously an unfulfilled postulate on his part, one he did not live long enough to put into reality.

            So what am I to think of people who believe the hype? The hype is largely equivalent to “verbal data”, to my mind.

            Of course I am speaking from an outside view, never having done the “Bridge” never having read all those upper level confidential issues etc etc.

            I’m just saying how it looks to me from a ground-view perspective. I still go with what I recall LRH having written, that he is 100% responsible for the theory, others are 100% responsible for the application.

            That dos not address the question of how much did he himself lead others astray, of course.

            1. LRH days in many publications that he had “nailed it”, that Scientology is the only path out of “the trap”, the ONLY hope for Mankind etc etc etc. It is the very premise for pushing the subject. IT SOLVES EVERYTHING. NO NEED TO LOOK ELSEWHERE.

            2. As has been pointed out on other blogs and probably here as well, we can cherry-pick from the volumnious LRH written and spoken materials endlessly to no certain effect.

              Surely you don’t believe your conclusions as stated here “SOLVE EVERYTHING and there is NO NEED TO LOOK at any other viewpoints?

              If anything, to me, viewing your blog posts over, say, the past 3-4 years, validates LRH’s truism that “Time states the untruth of consecutive considerations”. And I am aware that sentence can be interpreted to mean different things. in a way that just proves my point.

            3. Which in turn proves another point I have made a few times – that Scientology is complicated, messy and loaded with inconsistencies.

            4. Val: Surely you don’t believe your conclusions as stated here “SOLVE EVERYTHING and there is NO NEED TO LOOK at any other viewpoints?

              Chris: I understood Geir to write that is the standard tech and KSW viewpoint and not his own opinion. Or did I misunderstood your question?

            5. It is his take on the standard tech and KSW viewpoints. I have seen many “takes” by different people on these 2 terms, “standard tech” and “KSW”. Many of them have some truth to them. None of them are “the truth, the whole truth so help me Friday”. I have concluded that any understanding of just about anything in the universe tends to be more or less idiosyncratic and rarely worth discussing beyond a certain point. One likes them more or likes them less. That’s about it, and why I have pretty much stopped discussing them. Also, I’m not that experienced with Scientology as many other posters, so I really don’t have that much to contribute on the subject. I have seen only a few aspects of it. I believe that is true of yourself, too, that you post what you have to say about it and move on You seem to state your view of something and move on. That’s pretty much what I do
              nowadays. I see some really ignorant and misinformed posts in various places but I have a life and don’t bother to comment on them.

            6. I have perhaps a very narrow interpretation of what is “standard tech”. I am sticking with that. My take on KSW is no doubt based on this strict or narrow construction. How I construe “standard tech” is based on LRH’s statements about the difference between “scientology” and “para-scientology”.

            7. I understand your comments. I think the salient point of Geir’s comment is that Scientology defines itself as consistent and complete while Geir does not. To the degree that one is a true believer, they maintain this rigid definition and when asked for their opinion solidly and loudly slam back, “WHAT DO THE MATERIALS STATE?”

              The double speak is generated by Hubbard who while charmingly lecturing on importance of freedom, personal rights, etc., yet does not allow any for his adherents on pain of excommunication, fair gaming, etc.,.

            8. My question, as always, is “WHO is scientology?” in the sense Geir is referring to it. Anyway, who cares what he means, if he does not wish to acknowledge what anyone else means by the word?

              I have “always”, since before I ever heard of scientology, known the difference between ideals and practice, theory and reality, words and the things they point towards.. It amazes me that so many people apparently don’t.

              End of rant.

            9. I think that the meanings extracted from whatever “the materials state” tends to be idiosyncratic for each individual. Thus what Geir thinks the materials state, what you think the materials state, what I think the materials state, may all be different. This may be especialy true in my case, because I was not around the CoS enough to ever be asked this question that I can recall. My understanding of “what the materials state” is derived largely from my own looking at them, without external influence, and from hearing others talk about them, back in the day when it was OK to talk about them.

              The big erroneous assumption I think I am perceiving in that question the way you guys have prsented it, is that anyone who answers that question after taking another look at the materials in question, will all have the same understanding of the materials and wil be in agreement about what they say and what they mean.

              I think that is largely a false assumption. Each person will actually have his/her own “take” or “slant” on them.

            10. Well, it is the goal of standard tech to have one way to do things. The only subjectivity allowed would be at the highest levels of administration — interpretations to questions about the standardness of the tech would be solidified and made standard at that level but not at yours or my level of authority. It is a strict interpretation and intended to be so to preserve the purity of the tech. This is why the inconsistencies in the tech are so disconcerting — it’s not like there is any provision to allow for leeway.

            11. I question whether it is the “goal of standard tech to have one way to do things”. It is more like th egoal of standard tech is to learn how to identify or correctly diagnose the pc’s situation, and then be able to choose the correct tool (process, procedure, method, question, etc) from the myriad possibilities in the toolbox, which will remedy his particular problem or need.

            12. I like your approach. It just is not a Scientology approach. In Scientology, your challenge to the standard approach willl be meet with derision and worse — much worse.

            13. Well, keep in mind that I got my Scientology mostly from people who were trained in the 1950s and early 1960s. It was perhaps a different “scientology: than you were exposed to.

              Saying that Scientology is “consistent” does not to my mind “define” WHAT it is.

            14. True. In my context consistent means “in agreement with itself.” And in Scientology it works like this: 1. Scientology is consistent. 2. If any apparent inconsistency appears, refer to 1.

              I don’t remember any particular writing of yours that was unreasonable in your understanding or predicted use of what you read of scientology. It just didn’t my match 15 years experience with the subject from 1977-1992.

            15. For the most part, I’m talking lectures and written materials of theory from the early to mid 1950s.

            16. Yes, well we are still missing addressing one another’s point. As I’ve written, I like your approach, however it is not Scientology. You have failed to acknowledge both the text and the context of “Keeping Scientology Working.” KSW is Scientology and possibly the single most blatant damning evidence of the charlatanism of L. Ron Hubbard. You are a good guy with good ideas about pulling tools together to help understand the mind. You do not get to do this and call yourself more than a Squirrel Scientologist no matter the decade since Hubbard’s drug trips he called OT3.

            17. If KSW IS SCientology, then what is al the stuff he said before KSW was published. I guess that was not “Scientology, according to you? BY the way, my take on KSW is he was simply saying “IF it ain’t broken, don’t try to fix it. Use it exactly as given.” So I take what he put out in 1955 and use it exactly as given! Therefore I am entirely KSW. “-)

            18. The idea of “Don’t fix it if it ain’t broken” is a very limited, no… it’s a really bad idea in this area. Because, since the inputs are largely unknown (Man), then the method must always be in flux, always accommodating for the learning experience provided by new input. To stop that improvement process, that everlasting enhancement is damn suppressive, IMO.

            19. Your comment assumes you know what it is I consider that “is not broken”, when maybe you don’t know because we have never discussed it. I am saying you have no idea what I mean by “standard tech” in the first place. I read KSW from my viewpoint, not necessarily from LRH’s.

              To me it is as simple as saying “Don’t piss in your auto’s petrol tank.” Any automotive manual will tell you “Use only _____ type of fuel” That is KSW.

              I think you folks are presenting a viewpoint that equates areas that are not the same. Kinda like saying “Ford Motor Company IS Automotive Engineering.” Well they are not the same. The subject of Engineering is not the same as the Ford corporation. The fact that LRH conflated (A=A) the set of ideas he and we called scientology with the corporations of scientology does not change the fact that they are not the same. It is like confusing the idea or principle of a chair with an actual chair and then authoritatively declaring all chairs must forever be exactly like that, no deviation. To me, KSW refers to the principles of the subject, not any particular concrete objectivization of the principle. I don’t know how to make it any plainer than that. What LRH did with it al is a rarther tangled web and he had his reasons I suppose, but they were his reasons. It must have seemed like a good idea at the time(s), as he “remodeled” the chair he was building more than once over time.

              That is why I think these kind of discussions are pointless. It is the “Tower of Babel”. Or perhaps I have reached a point of ultimate cynicism.

              So to shift the discussion a little, here is a song that to me reflects very accurately one aspect of LRH’s character and view of life:

            20. I think the confusion (or lack of listening) lies with you, my dear Val.

              My point, succinctly; No certain method can create a certain result if the input is (in part) uncertain. Thus, to approach a more certain result, the method needs to be forever improved. KSW flies straight in the face of that.

            21. I think you are confusing the “methods” with the “principles”. You see SCientology as a certain fixed method; I do not. The problem is not having a fixed method in any case, it is expecting a fixed result. A fixed method will always produce some kind of result, but the result will be idiosyncratic to each particular individual to whom it is applied. What needs to be done, among other things, is the results need to be noticed and the data compiled as to what any method actually results in.

              So I may be saying the same thing you are saying, in different words. The point is, you have a “monitoring consideration” about subjects like Scientology. These considerations have to do with YOUR “ideal scene” for this type of subject. That is what matters.

              LRH’s reasons for putting out KSW and what he meant by it, may or may not be the same as my understanding of it. Who cares?

              Because we have the Internet, I think this is actually happening, (the actual results are seeing the light of day) as we are each and every one of us able to post our multitudinous viewpoints. At bottom is the idea that Scientology is for those who
              are looking for it, not for those who are not looking for it. I guess that is Chris’
              “tautological” view. But that’s life.

            22. Except LRH does indeed talk about The Methods in KSW, not merely The Principles. You may want to re-read the policy.

            23. Th point is, I don’t much care what LRH said in 1965 or whenever he wrote KSW. The valid basic principles by which I understand what “Scientology” is, he stated much earlier. Do you think KSW negates those? I don’t. KSW is about the particular chair he was building. It is not clear to me what his reasons for introducing KSW were; part of KSW seems like rants addressing specific outnesses he saw at the time, part seems like some valid basic principles, but even so, it sounds rather “Class VIII”-ish. Not having dome that course I cannot evaluate some of th e things he claims about “standard tech” as he saw it at the

              So the only way I can accept or evaluate KSW is on the basis of what I have seen work myself. That is actually one of LRH’s own “basic principles” he stated in his early work. So to violate or ignore that principle would be “out-KSW”, wouldn’t it?

              This discussion reminds of a recent post about Krishnamurti ranting on and on about the uselessness of gurus, the whole while talking and acting like an authoritative guru himself.

            24. So, you would like to disregard what LRH wrote in the KSW policy and rather reconstruct another meaning for what you think KSW should mean?

            25. Absolutely, in that I think that is what every person does anyway. Each person’s understanding of things tends to be idiosyncratic. There is not as much exact duplication as people think there is. That’s the “Tower of Babel” principle. What makes it worse is that people inevitably “cherry-pick”, especially in the “soft” fields such as psychology, religion, philosophy, ideology etc, but also in the more fuzzy fields of science like anthropology, archeology, physics etc. There is always “confirmation bias”. As Ren Hoek says at the end of this clip:

            26. AND . . . the outputs though touted as achievable, standard, and routine have never been other than momentary, subjective, and sporadic.

              Extremely suggestible people like myself who made “gains” despite what was run or done to them, or studied seem to have comprised the core of SO who have kept Scientology Working for decades.

            27. LOL! Nope. Report to qual! It’s not our call to make. It’s Ron’s. He said it. You get to decide whether to believe it or not. We don’t get to cherry pick, we get to clear our mis-u’s, retrain, then report to the RPF when we can’t make it come together in accordance with KSW. Sometimes until we live it, the truth of cult think is too outrageous to believe. I don’t blame you for doubting me, but what of the hundreds of other accounts like mine that you’ve read? I’m left not understanding your position on Scientology.

            28. See my subsequent posts. If it is KSW to follow Ron, then it is KSW to follow Ron’s statements about verifying things for yourself. He said quite explicitly that nothing in Scientolopgy ought to be taken on faith, or just because he said it was so. Therefore, it would be out-KSW not to question what you are told and just take things on faith without testing them out for yourself.

              I conclude you were fed a bunch of buulshit while you were in the “church”. Yes, buulshit.

            29. Nope! Same Scientology you been fed. The difference is having not lived it you haven’t had to put your life on the line for this ideology.

              You think you’ve permission to use your reason to buffer the inconsistencies in the tech and think what you want. Sign a billion year contract, live the cult life for a few years of 100 hour work weeks, then let’s have this conversation again.

              Again, not arguing with your approach, it is just not the way the cult is.

            30. Yes, I know that’s not the way the cult is. Especially the Sea Org. Never had any doubt about that. I have a clay demo for you. Clay demo the opposite of “scientology”.

            31. You’ve piqued my curiosity and I’m wondering where you are going with this. Demonstrate the opposite of Scientology? The opposite of “study of knowledge?” Opposite of study of knowledge which is double speak for conditioning into an ideology? Help me out here.

            32. so, let’s play “antonyms”. What is the opposite of “scientology”? Be real, now. Don’t give me some canned line you learned in the Sea Org! 🙂

            33. This is long, but worth spending some time with. These are the collected posts of Alan Walter, from ESMB. Alan was one of the top researchers and co-creators of scientology “tech” before there was a Grade Chart. He was actually one of many whom LRH never acknowledged and eventually purged and Declared. Alan went off and continued to do “scientology” as he understood it. Of course he had to call it something else. He had to create a different nomenclature also.

              These are fascinating glimpses into the early days and what Scientology was like when it was being birthed, and then how LRH twisted it.

            34. Thanks for that link Valkov. Alan Walter’s beginning story could have any of ours even mine with the exception that I was not motivated by the attainment of wealth and power. I have never needed nor yearned for these.

            35. On my first course in a mission (the Comm Course) when I asked a particular Supervisor a question, she would always say “What do your materials state?” Another Supervisor in the course room, who happened to be an interned Class VIII, I don’t remember ever responding that way. She would apply the Sup Code point of directing the student to the reference that would answer the question. In other words, she had conceptual understanding of the tech of supervising and knew what to apply when.

              One time I got up and started walking around the course room, looking at different things on shelves, etc . The Class VIII came over and with ARC asked me how I was doing. I said “Fine.” I’m sure my indicators were good and she got that I just needed some mass but had no study tech to know to use a demo kit or to clay demo. I think she said something like “It’s good to look around at things sometimes,” validating me for instinctively handling the lack of mass phenomena by getting away from the significance for a bit and getting some mass. Another Sup might have considered that I was blowing because of an MU. Roteness.

            36. My view on this:

              Scientology is a complex and inconsistent subject reflecting one man’s view and frame of mind that contains useful knowledge but is touted by that one man as the Only Path and Mankind’s Only Hope Ever.

              It is pretty useless to have a rational discussion about the subject in itself given the many inconsistencies and Hubbard’s changing and contradicting frame of mind. It is also illogical to define Scientology as anything but how Hubbard himself defines it, given that it reflects his person as a whole.

            37. Your post is illogical to me because either LRH is consistent about how he defines it or he is not. If he is not, then there is no point to talking about how he defined it, because he did not in fact “define” it, if what he says is not consistent. In English there are many words that have more than one definition. And sometimes those definitions are mutually exclusive, or very different. Do we abandon using those words because “their definitions are inconsistent with each other”? No, they re still in the dictionary. Sometimes a particular meaning fades away over time and is labelled “archaic” or some such. Eventually even that notation is dropped. It seems entirely arbitrary to decide that we can’t discuss Scientology because to discuss it we must discuss it as LRH defined it, when he already has quite a few definitions of it. Which one of those do we use then?

              And I am saying that even if we picked one LRH definition and agreed to discuss only by its light, even then each one of us might stil come up with his own idiosyncratic meaning of that definition, so no fruitful discussion would take place anyway. That is largely how I see the situation.

            38. LRH defines Scientology as consistent. He says it is. If you believe him, then you invest effort in that statement.

              Looking in from outside the defined metes an bounds of scientology, Scientology is not consistent. This has been shown over and over again on this blog. We have repeatedly seen both the inconsistencies in Scientology theory and also how to apply “no true scotsman fallacy” to counter any inconsistency observed.

              How any of us apply this is purely a personal decision. Pick a belief system and Go with it or don’t.

          2. You write ‘certain’. Yes. It is an AWARENESS path. Awareness is ‘free’, ‘truth’. Hm. You write ‘penis and basis’. You are being tricky again. If Ron liked the subject of mind, you also. So you can say and use, as you sometimes do, ‘mindfuck’ (an idea or concept that shakes one’s previously held beliefs and assumptions about the nature of reality…def. in the urban dictionary. As an example, quantum physics is given). See what tools you write you like:


  31. Geir

    Isn’t ‘everybody’ in the exact place where one created oneself to be or agreed to (which itself is a creation at the level of thought), only one is not aware of one’s chain of creations? Just asking.

      1. Right. So you are at ‘as-is’ which exists at the moment of creation and at the moment of destruction. Life. Time-less. No wonder you say you cannot create time.Tricky you are!

  32. Isn’t the basics of Scientology about getting out of ‘victimhood’ that is being more and more aware of HOW one (life) is creating and agreeing to one’s illusions on free will? So that in the end one is free to create or not create an illusion in a game (true game or no game condition)? Your ultimate win on OT8?

        1. Or better yet, come out of that double-think trap and comment on it from the outside? Sorry marildi, I couldn’t help playing with the words there….. 🙂

      1. When you wrote down ‘double-think’, the following ‘cognition’ I had, which is a question to you as well:

        Can it be that you did not have ‘time’ to really live out the wins you ‘had’ on a level in life situations, that is life was ‘faster’ than your progress on the Bridge?

        This may account for the ‘double’. Example: you wrote in OT8 that you cognited later in life what had really happened to you after finishing OT8. So, can it be that as your life was really busy during those 25 years: doing intensive auditing, studying, doing business, family etc. you could not really and fully observe and live! the fruits of your wins (kind of lacking enough ‘life demo’)? Another example could be that you composed music and you stopped it as you were doing the next and next levels and you did not have time and there were so many other things.
        In short: expansion of ‘havingness’ and a kind of ‘equalization’ of ‘spirit and the human you’ is happening now.

        As for ‘insidious’: some thoughts, some agreements just to look human in certain situations can account for feeling ‘split’. When realities, perceptions are different and one is sorrounded by people with whom one cannot fully share.

        1. “As for ‘insidious’: some thoughts, some agreements just to look human in certain situations can account for feeling ‘split’. When realities, perceptions are different and one is surrounded by people with whom one cannot fully share.”

          There are a lot of people in this kind of situation. My examples are those Russians who fed Russia at the end of the civil war there and tried to settle in places like Korea, which at the time were under Japanese occupation. My family among others chose to remain independent, and refused any citizenship offered to them. Thus they were classified as “stateless”. “Stateless White Russians”, we were called by the Americans. We were not particularly pretending to be ‘human’, but eventually tried to fit into and get along in, the countries and cultures we found ourselves living in.

          In this sense, all ‘refugees’ have that experience of alienation, of being “not from around here”. The general term is “displaced persons”. There are plenty around today, in many countries.

          I’ve lived in the USA most of my life. Sometimes a person still asks me “Where are you from?”, and I make up something, not wanting to get into all the details.

          The funny thing is, I actually felt something similar about my own family, when I was very young. I imagine I would have outgrown that, in time.

  33. Yes, Val. Great examples! ‘ I felt something similar about my own family’. Yes….the child seeing with pure eyes, kind of ‘exterior’ to what human is about (me experienced that….kind of wishing to ‘belong’ but cannot fully, also wishing to change it but cannot always do that).
    Also, now, I like being with ‘high vibration’ people…not that it is not OK with anyone…it just feels so good when I am ‘inspired’ and ‘inspire’ at the same time…
    same/similar ‘frequency’…like with you now in this topic. Or with a singer friend…so
    love being with artists, really good business people, kids…anyone who ‘vibrates’….

    1. Val
      Do you experience more freedom in your mind and heart that you do not ‘belong and identify’ yourself in the sense most people do who were born in the country where they live?

      1. Yes.

        Some people in this kind of situation identified themselves as “cosmopolitans”, to distinguish themselves from those who were firmly embedded in one culture and and usually just one language.

  34. Geir, here’s a post by Alan Walter (Knowledgism) on the subject of BT’s . It’s from an e-book of over 1200 ESMB posts he made between January 2007 and November 2009. See what you think:
    “Thread 43: OT III? Post #11 20070207-1853 Spiritual Teammates

    “I was well aware of spiritual entities long before Scio…….I used to fight with them during my training as an athlete. After a 2 hour training session I would always end off with a 5 mile run……during the running the voices would start up……demanding me to quit…….strangely the most common excuse to quit was: “We have done enough, let’s go and have a beer.” They were obviously Aussie entities.

    “In 1962 on the SHSBC I ran an experimental procedure that caused a massive Ascension. Experience……..I could not only see my physical universe GPMs but also all the different spiritual entities stuck or connected to them…….but better still each GPM and the Reliable Items unraveled and the spiritual entities were set free…….but the strange thing about the spiritual entities was they did not want to leave. Every cell in my body had live beings in charge, every creation I had created was alive with these beings. I asked these beings why they wanted to stay with me…….the surprising answer was; ‘We are your teammates…..we want to help and grow with you!’ I wrote all this up to LRH…..he thanked me.

    “I estimated I had 8 million plus spiritual teammates……connected to me at that time…….by the way they could leave or stay if they wanted to. Consequently I ended up with millions of highly trained processors, leaders and execs over the years. As we all ended up Class VIII’s, FEBC’s, Data Evaluators…..quite an incredible team. When my teammates and I read the OT III material and NOT’s there was no real need to do much……..they just co-processed each other.

    There is much more beyond these spiritual teammate states than what I described here. I have two simple observations: How you treat your teammates is how you treat people. The other is: The truth is what it is…….not what you or someone else wants it to be. I have an audio tape that covers the subjects of spiritual entities called MIRACLES AND MAGIC and it covers what can happen and has happened to people and Organizations who handle this area incorrectly: http://www.knowledgism.com/audio/fre…s.asp#miracles ”

    Click to access The-ESMB-Posts.pdf

    1. Possibly this is the origin of the “8 million Scientologists” originates from? If you review Alan’s arithmetic, none of it really matches up one place to another.

  35. ‘I think it is BS’. It can be so, Geir, as you audited BTs and I did not. The way I have experienced it so far is that consciousness has different layers of creation. At one layer, from one particular point of view what Alan writes can be true. That is, it is a description of one layer from that point of view (observation-perception-creation point). The layer is being continuously created but its description depends on the point of view one is creating it from. Ron wrote somewhere that one can take up different viewpoints. Marildi can be right when she said that both you and those who write from that point of you like Alan, can be equally right (if I got Marildi well).

    Reading about BTs and now what Alan writes about teammates and says that it is how you treat people resonates with me. I find the words ‘how’ and ‘treat’ as keys here as the how can be the Tones and treat is the outcomes of the Ability to Communicate. As it looks to me, at the ‘human’ layer of consciousness it is a lot of efforts, emotions and thoughts, yet with a free aware ‘glimpse’ it can be seen that it is One-Being-Source. A person staying with that view will ‘treat’ another as oneself, with kindness, respect, love and co-operation (alligned actions). So we have human groups like families, sports teams, business groups etc. living at a different level of success depending on how conscious their members are of not being different at the Source (life) and how permanent that ‘glimpse’ is.

    1. I have seen so many efforts to Make what LRH wrote true that I have lost count. And I am not interested in justifications or making stuff true because of faith or trust or blind-lemming-syndromes. For me it boils down to Show Me The Fucking Evidence. And as I have said a countless times before – I have seen No Evidence for BTs. Not even vaguely. And believe me, I have audited hundreds of hours on the premise that BTs did in fact exist. Without even a shred of evidence. I know how one can fall for faith, for trust and get prone to Making Stuff to Be True. I have exercised my (large) portion of confirmation bias to the detriment of my own integrity. Nowadays, I have resorted to instead hold personal integrity in high regard.

      The question I should have been asked is: “Given that you audited all these OT levels (3-7) based on BTs being real and you have gotten all the gains, isn’t it a danger that, even if they are not real, you saying that they are not real – can it jeopardize another’s potential gain? Is the faith in this necessary for the placebo to take effect?”

      And I have pondered that question until Marty and I had a talk about this are in 2009 where he then was sure that he did not in fact audit any BTs on 7, but rather his own creations and that the EP of every “BT” run on 5-7, the “Me” cognition, is in fact a cognition to the effect that it is Me that creates this. That sealed it for me and I understood that faith in BTs was not necessary for the placebo to work.

      So here I am, thrashing stuff that people say exist without any evidence that it does.

      1. Geir, I think one time you commented that you perceived there were a lot of spirits around. Am I right about that? Secondly, whether that’s the case or not, tell me this: Have you ever been in telepathic comm with a being that wasn’t in a body?

            1. I mean, how do you differentiate being in comm with an actual being from what you are contacting when running NOTs? Is it possible to describe the difference?

            2. I don’t want to go into details about it, but what happened was that there was girl going to school out here and living with her female friend, who was an acquaintance of my daughter’s. Her family lived out in California, and I believe her Dad was terminally ill or in very bad health. was evidently worried about her.

              One afternoon when I was outside, he popped into a spot about 8 feet above my driveway near the backdoor, and focused some attention on me. He did not ask me a specific question but apparently he was there because he wanted to know about her. He apparently got his answer quickly because he made an exclamation about what he found, which was about her relationship with her roommate. He apparently got his answer by flipping through some of my mental image pictures or my recent memories. It took him only a few seconds. He then vanished. I don’t know if he had just died before he “visited” me or what. Perhaps he was just very worried about her.

            3. Wow. In my book you’re pretty OT. The fact that you could even spot him, and then know who he was, that he had focused attention on you, and you got what was on his mind and that he got his question answered – you realize not many people have such capabilities, don’t you? Awesome story.Thanks!

            4. Me no savvy “OT” as anything special. For all I know lots of people have similar experiences but never mention them for whatever reason. This is the first time I’ve ever communicated this one, and this was only because it came up in context and you asked for specifics.

              Most of the time I am too busy being politically correct for the time and place I live in, the society and culture. Like kids who are talked out of remembering they lived before. If the talking doesn’t work a child psychiatrist can usually be found who will prescribe some psychoactive drug that will do the trick. With my background came an excessive concern about “fitting in” which was communicated to me and I absorbed some of it by a kind of osmosis.

              Actually I think many people are more open about talking about these kind of things than I ever have been. I simply did not know what the appropriate limits were, and with whom.

            5. Maybe you should be more open – if you want to, that is. Here on Geir’s, for sure, I don’t think it’s inappropriate at all or a problem for anybody. You made it just that much more real by telling about your experience, and that in itself will make it more doable for others, IMO. That has been my experience, at least. It’s the same for kids: Even if what they can do isn’t outright invalidated, it’s not validated either – and then it becomes unreal to them too.

              Ron said there are gradients of being “OT” and to me it basically means operating as a thetan, which could include a whole variety of things. And I do think it’s special. 😉

            6. And I think anyone who has done TR0 to a win would know the feeling of having a focused awareness being placed on them, don’t you think? But they may not make the connection, if it was inconsistent with their stable data, cultural beliefs or whatever.

            7. Yes, agreed. Stories like yours, like I was saying, make it more possible to “make the connection” because it becomes more real. Just another example of “The truth will set you free.”

            8. Val
              Thanks for telling your story. I agree with you that it is not ‘special’, in the sense that an experience like that is more natural, closer to simple being, communicating and our core nature than any learnt way to ‘fit’. I agree with marildi that communicating about experiences like this can be useful, as communication always is. When it comes naturally, that is the way you did it, not through the filter of the ego, it goes through to the listener and thus can make a ‘connection’ as from
              ‘truth to truth’. In this case, as I experienced it. something can open up in the listener too and will tell a similar, has a cognition or feels the warmth of truth.
              The opposite can also be true, when it goes through ego, it can damage the com.
              Also, in that case, it can build up expectations in the listener. This may be the why for having any ability and boasting about it as being a trap. It is the boasting ego which makes the trap and not a natural thing communicated in a natural way.

              In a sense, not communicating about natural things is holding the social-learnt-conditioned in place. Val…since I have been reading your comments, I have never experienced any ‘ego’ from you. Always the heart, always contributing, giving and also able to change your view. Always like reading what you write!

            9. Well. Thank You Marianne! I have made some progress in the past 3-4 years then. Let me say too, that nowadays I believe a person takes way from Val’s posts, what she brings to them in the first place. So credit to you ! And to everyone else who takes the time to read my posts.

      2. ‘you saying that they are not real – can it jeopardize another’s potential gain?’ no, Geir. If what you are saying is that you have become more and more aware that you are life-creator itself (A-A) and whoever is creating is also that (A-A), to me it looks to be perfect SELF-INTEGRITY. Not personal integrity but self-integrity. The ‘Me’ cognition can be called ‘God’ cognition in my view.

        That there is a description of ‘body-thetans’, that can be a layer of consciousness which can be useful for some to be conscious of first (as a layer of separate beings), helpful for some who are not as A-A (focused) as you were when auditing.

        In my view that layer of ‘body-thetans’ can be a layer where we still speak about separate beings (the fine duality layer), which is a layer of consciousness, which one ‘may’ visit (Alan) or ‘skip’ (you). So both of you can be right, we are just speaking of different ‘depths’ of perceiving.

        If that layer indeed exists (being created), you can be aware of it – there will be a proof. What communicated to me most in what you write is: ‘Show Me The Fucking Evidence’. Absolutely agree with that. Until someone died and communicated to me as a spirit, it was only a possibility that it could happen. Now it is a proof. That there are ‘angels’ or ‘body thetans’ I am not aware of yet. I have a non-dual (one-creator)…hm. view. Also, I am too a ‘work in progress’. So, I leave it open for further exploration.

        1. Addition: at present I have a non-dual view of Life. All is Life, there is no separation.
          I am sure, as the wise say and in this I believe them, that there are lots of layers of consciousness which one can be aware of if one can perceive them. There is a layer of the theta-body. I had glimpses that one can indeed be in a place as a ‘theta-body’ without moving the mest body (saw that when ‘OTs’ did that, very early when I was in scientology). It is a perception layer. Can switch on and off, in my view.
          Another layer is that it is all energy pouring in a flux in a kind of vacuum. Another layer is the layer of swirling thoughts. These layers also switch on and off. I view them as ‘illusions’, what matters to me more is the ONE-SOURCE buddha view. The rest is interesting but only that – interesting. Lots of other things are there to explore.
          I wonder what others’ perceptions are like. Please write about it.

  36. Geir to Valkov: “So, you would like to disregard what LRH wrote in the KSW policy and rather reconstruct another meaning for what you think KSW should mean?”

    I say, sure. Why not?

    First of all, why does it matter that much what LRH wrote in KSW? Let’s grant that even if Valkov’s (and my) interpretation of it as “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it” is correct – or, more precisely WAS correct at the time it was written in terms of application of the BEST AVAILABLE tech known AT THAT TIME – at this particular point in time we have learned enough to know that the tech doesn’t work 100% of the time for 100% of the people and, much more significantly, it doesn’t achieve all we would like it to. In short, we are free enough now in our thinking to be able to seek out data and make the observation with no qualms that improvements could and should be made.

    Whether or not LRH, when he was around, would have allowed others to research and make improvements, the fact is – he himself continued, even after writing that PL, to improve the tech. And whether or not LRH then or now, or the CoS and fundamentalists even now, would “allow” others to improve the tech is completely irrelevant. There’s factually nothing stopping anyone – we are free to do with the tech as we deem fit.

    When people keep bringing up KSW and making the supposed “challenge” that you CAN’T change anything because KSW doesn’t allow it, they come across to me as – ironically – underneath it all, still having too much attention on what LRH said, still not fully free of LRH, rather than simply being able to either accept or reject his various principles, viewpoints, and even his tech.

    In other words, if someone disagrees with LRH’s faulty ideas – fine! Why not leave it at that? Why continue putting attention on them? Forget about KSW, for example – we are free now.

    1. Geir to Valkov: “So, you would like to disregard what LRH wrote in the KSW policy and rather reconstruct another meaning for what you think KSW should mean?”

      I nearly replied “No, that isn’t exactly what I mean”, because it isn’t. I don’t think of it as “What I think it SHOULD mean”. It means what it means to me, nothing more or less. One has to start with the 10 points, which include verifying for oneself that it (standard tech) is what LRH says it is. One cannot make any claims for the rightness of KSW until and if one has done this in good faith and has looked at contrary data from others also. If one has been able to make it work and others say they have not, then what? LRH made abig deal of promoting the “mechanics” but in fact there are some very basic basics to auditing and the whole “mastery” and “guruship” business that are “intangibles”. And LRH did go into these a lot in his early lectures. Then with the Class VIII course he says it was no longer a matter of getting results, it was now a matter of exact execution of the the methods. But in fact to achieve “the exact execution” one has to go from zero and work his way up and that’s a pretty long runway. One cannot do the Class VIII course as his first course and expect much success at all. Before that is the SHSBC and before that are the Academy levels etc. There is a whole lot of “practical” involved there, which has to do with achieving those intangibles. As Gurdjieff said, and it makes sense to me, there are 2 lines of development – Knowledge and Being. One without the other is relatively useless. Intellectual knowledge alone won’t get you far at all. Neither will the development of “Being” without a growth of knowledge, wisdom, judgement. It would result in the equivalent of a very strong muscle-bound man without much intelligence. Good for moving pianos perhaps, or beating up opponents in the ring, but not much else. One must pursue both sides in order to “walk the walk” as well as being able to “talk the talk”. Or as LRH phrased it, BEing and DOing are both necessary in order to HAVE anything of value. Talk is cheap. What people have searched for through the ages are actual methods for increasing being.

      Until proven otherwise, I will go with what LRH said in the first edition of the Ethics book I believe it was, that “scientology is a workable system.” Not necessarily the best possible system or the only possible system. He said that. So KSW requires that those words also be taken into account, does it not?

        1. Clay demo the whole rant? I think not! Never did very many clay demos. Doubt I would know how. How would you clay demo a sentence such as “We will not speculate here about how I came to rise above the bank.” ?

          1. haha well it not only can be done but is routinely done. Imagine the scene of turning one’s attention away from questioning how something of interest came to be. Turning one’s interest and focus away from it and toward one’s faith and belief that one gets certain results from certain actions and just think about that to the exclusion of what one formerly or naturally would wonder about. If you suffer from tinnitus as I do, you might have discovered that you can simply not listen to the noise by tuning it out. This is how one ceases to wonder at how LRH rose above the bank. I clay demo’d the 10 points of KSW many times as various courses required it and became a firmer and more solid citizen of Scientology for doing it. It is effective conditioning and I stopped resisting it as a student. The faster I got on board with various goals related to Scientology in general the faster the pressure to do so stopped and that was a relief. In this mechanism I’ve come to understand and to feel empathy for the destructive person who says they were operating on orders.

      1. Valkov: “I nearly replied ‘No, that isn’t exactly what I mean’, because it isn’t. I don’t think of it as ‘What I think it SHOULD mean’. It means what it means to me, nothing more or less.”

        Yes, I got that. And as I said, I have a similar interpretation of KSW 1 to yours. That aside, my point was that if people see it as oppressive, so what? They don’t have to abide by it! It’s a non issue. Why continue to view it as a problem?

        I agree with your other comments on this last post too – basically that a correct application of the tech involves JUDGEMENT. That’s what makes it flexible! Geir has the idea that it is a fixed method because it’s “standard”, and I keep trying to tell him that it’s fixed only to the degree that “the auditor audits the pc in front of him” – if you want to call that fixed. But then it’s a fixed flexibility. And ANY tech is going to be fixed to that degree, unless you’re proposing a sort of “wing it” methodology of unproven methods – which wouldn’t get predictable results. Semantics, methinks.

            1. I know. That’s why I finally just plunged in on what I thought was applicable to the subject in general.

            2. Check out his latest comment today and see if you might be able to illuminate the subject with your background and knowledge about it.

        1. Marildi: Why continue to view it as a problem?

          Chris: I am not understanding people posting about KSW who are out of Scientology to view KSW as a problem. It seems to only be a problem when a Scientologist attempts to reconcile it with their practice of Scientology. One seems to set up reactive mechanisms to catch and reject challenges to KSW as a way to get the tumultuous contradictions of living the life of a Scientologist to quell. A Scientologist walls off their disagreements with Scientology by categorizing these disagreements under columns such as misunderstood words, etc., and moves forward on faith, holding their misunderstandings, ARC breaks and the like for a “time later” when they assume they will be cleared up.

        2. Marildi: “I agree with your other comments on this last post too – basically that a correct application of the tech involves JUDGEMENT. That’s what makes it flexible! Geir has the idea that it is a fixed method because it’s “standard”, and I keep trying to tell him that it’s fixed only to the degree that “the auditor audits the pc in front of him” – if you want to call that fixed. But then it’s a fixed flexibility. And ANY tech is going to be fixed to that degree, unless you’re proposing a sort of “wing it” methodology of unproven methods – which wouldn’t get predictable results. Semantics, methinks.”

          Chris: An excellent and classic example of cult doublespeak, methinks.

  37. There is a discussion on Keeping Scientology Working further up. Since we ran out of thread levels on that discussion, I will add my general thoughts here:

    In KSW#1 Hubbard clearly lays down the policy that you cannot change anything in Scientology – no procedure, no principle. Studying the rest of the KSW policies, it becomes clear that he thought it as suppressive acts to subtract, add to or amend his works. It follows the idea that “don’t fix it if it ain’t broken”. My objection to this is that you will never then, from hereon out, be able to accommodate for any yet unknown input to the method or any newfound knowledge, ever. As no certain process can produce a certain process if the input is the slightest unknown. And since we are dealing mostly with uncertain input (people), the KSW-premise is illogical, suppressive or even insane.

    Hubbard defined Scientology. He made the whole subject. It is a reflection of his frame of mind. In the KSW #1 policy he also defines the concepts of “Keeping” and “Working” in relation to Scientology. To then go ahead and redefine it to one’s own delight and then also berate others for arguing against KSW because one is taking KSW too literally or is not “free of LRH” or some such is bad discussion manners – because it is quite legitimate to put up an argument against the very thing that will ensure the death (by slow corrosion) of the whole subject.

    With KSW, Hubbard sought to ensure the viability of Scientology. But KSW will in fact ensure the death of the subject. Hubbard should know that since in the Conditions of Existence, he clearly states that anything that remains unchanging will corrode and die. No matter the apparent reasons or justifications for his KSW, he did not heed his own advice when he sealed the death certificate for his own works with the KSW policies.

        1. Right. A blissful condition. Can last forever. Or not? Is there ‘internal and external’?
          Hm. ‘ternal’ is related to ‘territory’, space. With that the dual terminals (me-you) appear. Solution: cut the space, no creation of space. MEYOU is in a continuous change.

      1. This is an interesting question. In life, is it possible to actually have ‘no dichotomies’? One terminal can I suppose sit alone and radiate bliss forever. But in life, I think sooner or later some other bloke will come along and try to mess with you, if only to the extent of saying “Hello!”

        What then?

        1. Well, if you have that sense-perception-reality whatever it is called that the ‘other guy’ is in fact ‘you’ just having a different body, personality…then what the other one is saying is not coming through as a dichotomy but as a com which is there to be answered in the most natural, truest, spontaneous way possible. That is, without resistance. It can come in several ways on the tone scale. Mostly, when there is no resistance at all, the response is in a calm and friendly way no matter whatever way the other initiated the com. This is the reality and practice here lived now.

          The no internal conflict for me means that there are no conflicting thoughts in a topic and so a decision in a situation is direct. Even, there can be no decision at all, just spontaneous action.

          I am interested in Geir’s answer, experience of no dichotomy, no internal conflicts. Geir?

          1. Marianne, this a very good post. I really got something from it. Thanks for that!

            In fact, you have been writing quite a few very good comments on this thread. 🙂

            1. Indeed. Marianne has been on a roll. 🙂

              Interestingly enough, many psychological practitioners without any knowledge of Scientology, have for decades actually, used this principle of responding from their own position, rather than “Q&A-ing”; it occurs to me that is what people often do, instead of what Marianne said.

    1. Personally, I feel the flaw in your reasoning is that you are treating the publication as some kind of cut-off date (1965?) at which LRH negates his own prior teachings. Is that so? I don’t read it that way.

      You say, “In KSW#1 Hubbard clearly lays down the policy that you cannot change anything in Scientology – no procedure, no principle.” You add that he says “nothing may be added to or SUBTRACTED FROM scientology”

      Therefore one MUST include all of his pre-KSW, pre-1965, teachings in one’s consideration of what is scientology and how to do it. To do otherwise would be out-KSW by his own statements.

      I take his earlier works to be where he discoverd and laid out the most fundamental principles, the “monitoring considerations”, the senior data about what scientology is. Its “core ideas” and principles. According to your understanding of KSW, these cannot be “subtracted” from consideration. They cannot be neglected, they cannot be not applied.

      It is not a question of my “defining KSW the way I want it to be”, somehow on a whim or capriciously. (Although doesn’t LRH quote Crowley’s “Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law”?)

      But that aside, does LRH really say that nothing can be added to or subtracted from “scientology”, however you understand that word? Or is that your interpretation of what KSW means?

      I read it that he is saying there are certain validated procedures that should be followed. I don’t even know that that is true. I have only his word for it. I also have his statement that nothing he says should be accepted on faith, without provening it to yourself. That is an early statement of principle on his part. According to your view of the meaning of KSW, that statement of his must also be “followed” or taken into consideration. It cannot be “subtracted”, cast away. So where does that leave your argument?

      I don’t read it that way. You say,

    2. Geir, here’s my 2 cents. There is no doubt that LRH tried to prevent anyone else from researching or changing or improving the tech in any way – which was the case both before and after he wrote KSW 1. No disagreement on that point.

      The PL itself, however, doesn’t really address the subject of others improving on the tech. It is solely directed at members of the organization – those who would be applying the tech as its staff or public – and admonishes them to apply it exactly as it had already been proven workable.

      The point you make about KSW “ensuring the death of the subject” wasn’t true then and it isn’t true now. It wasn’t true then because in the two decades after LRH wrote the policy he continued to improve upon the tech (even though he didn’t allow anyone else to do so independently – as already granted). So up until his death it wasn’t a matter of him “not heeding his own advice.” However, you may have a point in that he could have provided for the day when he was no longer around, with knowledge of how to continue research and improvement.

      More importantly, though, is that in PT the subject has not been given a death certificate by any means. To conclude that it has is an academic assertion at best, since interpretation of KSW 1 as “freezing the tech” would, in any case, apply only to those who agree to that interpretation (whether it is a correct one or not), i.e. CoS and the literal fundamentalists outside the CoS. For anyone else, it’s a non-issue.

      1. Here’s another point about KSW #1. From Wikipedia, about its publication date: “Dated 7 February 1965, it lays out ten points concerning the exact application and preservation of “Standard Tech” in Dianetics and Scientology, and the eradication of “non-standard tech”, more commonly referred to in Scientology as “squirreling.”

        So he was talking about “standard tech” – as it was through 1964 actually, because KSW #1 was published very early in 1965.

        So to understand what he was talking about, we would have to know WHAT WAS “standard tech” as LRH thought of it, in 1964-65? Becaue THAT was what he was referring to. Because of the speed of the evolution of “the tech”, changes did not propagate anywhere near as rapidly as they occurred. Auditors in Australia or Africa or even America would be using what they had learned at the last ACC they attended, or whatever course they had done. The research largely took place at St. Hil, then later on the ship. So we need to know what LRH thought “standard tech” was at the time he wrote that issue. Prior to that time he actually depended very heavily on the R&D done by others, although he would then appropriate whatever he though twas valuable and issue dit under his name. He did usually add the original developers name under his own, though, I believe.

        None th eless, the big question I see is What was “standard tech” in 1964-65? That is what LRH was looking at when he wrote KSW.

          1. Managed to erase my reply, again! So must rewrite! Here goes!

            OK, so we need to know what LRH considered to be “standard tech” in 1979-1980, and how he saw the Grade Chart back then.

            I assume it included the Class VIII course materials. And the prerequisite for that course is(was?) what? Clear or above and the SHSBC, plus appropriate internships.

            So in order to have personal certainty (knowing it is correct) on KSW point #3, one would have to have a lot of training plus a personal state of Being pretty well up the Grade Chart, plus quite a bit of auditing experience, no? The rest can only be accepted provisionally.

            Evidently LRH believed that the “tech” had been developed to a state of consistent workability by that time, and the “workability” had been standardized in the training line-up. So what kind of person was capable of delivering this standardized “tech” consistently? I think it requires natural qualities plus training plus experience in applying the training or the principles learned. Otherwise one cannot ever develop certainty on #3. One can however develop some certainty from the collected experience of others, as to whether it generally works or doesn’t work, and how well or how poorly.

            For example, I rarely see much controversy about the Grades or even Clear. I don’t even see many posts to the effect of “I did OTIII and did NOT get the EP of “Freedom from overwhelm”. I have seen quite few posts that “I didn’t get much out of OTIII”, however.

            My point is LRH made a lot of “over the top” statements in the face of his own principle that “absolutes are unobtainable in this universe”, For example, he claimed that Flag auditing was the exception to that rule. But that’s another tangent entirely.

            1. So the application of KSW, logically, must be gradient. And that is also a basic LRH principle of “scientology” and so cannot be ignored.

            2. I think you are beating a dead horse to its third death.

              Yes, Scientology is an inconsistent mess that the Man tried to bar anyone from fixing.

            3. Geir
              I would like you to put one or two more tools that you use on your blog if you have time for that. As you know, I have used your Processing article, also this method of helping another. Both worked almost like miracle so far. I like simplicity and it looks that you work in that way as you wrote in your C/V. Thanks. Not urgent, I respect the way you have put posts on your blog so far and also like that you create from the instant. Me is doing that too.

      2. Marildi; The “not heeding his own advice” that I was referring to is to not encourage everlasting enhancements according to the Conditions of Existence. Anything unchanging will denote Emergency that will impose a Danger that will turn into a Non-Ex. To discourage improvements is to drive the subject into Emergency and later extinction. That others chose to disregard KSW is another matter entirely and it would be the one thing that can save the subject. Why LRH tried to kill his own work like this is beyond me.

        Otherwise, we seem to agree.

        1. Wow, a reply I wrote here seems to have disappeared. Anyway, I had a different thought, which is this – I don’t think that conditions formulas are applicable to a tech. They are to be applied to individuals or groups.

          1. Let’s start with this: “You cannot have a condition in this universe where
            there is no increase and no decrease. That’s a totally stable condition.
            There is no such thing in this universe from one end of it to the other.
            There isn’t anything that always remains the same.” (LRH)

            That is my point in this. He also goes ahead and says that conditions apply to any individual, group or activity. Even the example of a car having a condition would apply.

            1. What I’m saying is that conditions are operating states, and a technology per se does not have an operating state. Now, it’s true that someone could apply conditions to the PRACTICE of a tech, such as “standard tech,” and if that person’s long-term condition wasn’t rising, then it may very well be that the reason would be that something in the tech needing improvement.

              Thinking about that, however, I realized something. If Independent auditors were to use standard tech, invariably, they may not get very close to 100% perfect results every time with 100% of their pcs – but even so, their conditions may in fact be rising. And if those pcs in general also had rising conditions – then eventually, LRH would have achieved exactly what he intended, which was to raise conditions for the planet overall. Wow, maybe the fundamentalists have a point. Geir, do you get what I mean??

            2. Please re-read the article “Processes, automations and human potential”. Then read and understand Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems (not necessarily the mathematical proofs involved.

            3. I’m very familiar with that article. 😉

              And I totally get your point about a non-fixed process being necessary to produce a fixed result because of unpredictable input. However, where we don’t see eye to eye is that you consider the tech to be “fixed” and I still see it as having flexibility – just as much so as any other flexible process you could name which still remained a KNOWABLE PROCESS. As I wrote in a previous comment, ANY tech is going to be fixed in a certain sense, unless you have a sort of “wing it” methodology of unproven methods – which wouldn’t even qualify as a PROCESS because it would vary TOO much AND it wouldn’t get predictable results. Can you see what I’m trying to say?

            4. You really don’t get a main point of the article: that ANY closed system – regardless of the flexibility IT CONTAINS WITHIN THE SYSTEM cannot ever guarantee a certain result if the inputs are not FULLY KNOWN. The system itself must be forever improving in order to accommodate for unknown input and new knowledge. The only such system I know of is science as a whole – or human knowledge as a whole (as a superset of science). Any system that is left unchanged and unenhanced and unimproved WILL FAIL. I cannot see Scientology surviving in the future. I can only see its sure demise as a body of knowledge. It will be antiquated – as it already is becoming.

            5. “The system itself must be forever improving in order to accommodate for unknown input and new knowledge.”

              Does the SYSTEM or methodology of science keep changing?

            6. Well, I have to admit I didn’t think that the methodology of science is changing. Can you please give me an example?

            7. Marildi: – then eventually, LRH would have achieved exactly what he intended, which was to raise conditions for the planet overall.

              Chris: LRH blew from Scientology in 1982 knowing full well what a pretender he was and that he’d been selling a “bill of goods” only. He blew and he took a few suitcases of money and he lived in trailer courts until he bought the ranchito at Creston and there he lived out his days in anonymity — hiding. LRH saw himself as a fugitive, not as a freedom fighter. In one sense you are right that he achieved exactly what he intended, he intended not to get caught by the police and he did not get caught by the police. When he became enough of a neurotic liability to COS, he was most probably murdered by his handlers for the filthy lucre he left behind.

            8. Chris, if you’re truly interested in a comm cycle, stick to the train of thought instead of making it into an opportunity to repeat your oft-repeated rants about LRH’s personal outpoints. On the other hand, if that’s your only purpose, go ahead and carry on playing with yourself (yes, that’s what I mean). 😛

            9. After all that’s gone down, after all the evidence is in, do you really believe that L Ron Hubbard was trying to clear the planet? Are you utterly unaffected by any data regarding Scientology and L Ron Hubbard which provides no confirmation bias?

            10. I imagine he “gets” that you are beating a dead horsie. Because once a horsie is dead in Geir’s mind, there’s no hope of bringing it back to life, even with standard tech. Should such a beast even exist.

            11. Val, beast, you say? Here’s a video for your philosophical contemplation:

            12. Geir, this is in reply to your last post where you wrote:

              “Marildi: ‘Well, I have to admit I didn’t think that the methodology of science is changing. Can you please give me an example?’
              Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

              That Wiki article uses the following definition of scientific method:

              “The Oxford English Dictionary defines the scientific method as: ‘a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.'”

              You had last posted this: “The system itself must be forever improving in order to accommodate for unknown input and new knowledge. The only such system I know of is science as a whole…”

              Your idea about “forever improving” doesn’t fit with the history of the scientific method. It’s true that this method was developed and improved over a period of centuries, but once the basic method was worked out it has remained stable for several centuries already as a highly workable method of inquiry (albeit not the only one).

              Note that the same can be said for the tech: It was worked out and developed and fine-tuned over a period of time – also a matter of centuries, when you consider the accumulation of knowledge that it was built on – and then it was stabilized at the point it became a highly workable method.

              So I go back to what I basically said earlier: If Independent auditors were to use standard tech, invariably, they may not get 100% perfect results every time with 100% of their pcs – but even so, if their conditions were rising and if those pcs in general also had rising conditions, then eventually LRH would have achieved exactly what he intended, which was to raise conditions for the planet overall. In other words, maybe the fundamentalists are doing something entirely valid. Not that it isn’t valid to seek better and faster methods.

            13. I have spent more than two years to help you understand my
              point here. It seems I must collect some patience to keep trying. As for now, I don’t have that patience. Sorry. For the causal reader, please read my article titled, “Processes, automation and human potential” and see if you can get the point I am trying to get across.

            14. Geir, you are doing something you often do in our discussions. When it gets to a certain point, you claim impatience or some such – and quit – rather than address the point I last made, which it appears you have no comeback for. I was hoping you weren’t going to do that this time. And yes, you can speciously chalk this comment up again to the fact that I’m the one who just doesn’t get it. It seems to me that you simply play unfair.

            15. Of course you would say that in response to my comment above. What else could you say? But seriously, I do Not have the stamina to spoon-feed you on this one. I have been trying for two years. I believe I must go on for another two years.

            16. Right. Just as I predicted you would react, and for the reasons already mentioned.

              In my last comment I challenged your statement that the scientific method was “forever improving,” and I even used as a basis of that challenge what you gave as support for your statement – the wiki article. However, the article itself showed that your statement wasn’t true.

              Now, if you had been sincere and not just rabbiting from the discussion, you could have pointed out what you thought I didn’t duplicate in the wiki article or in your statement. Instead, you shifted the topic to your own article. By so doing, you took the discussion back to before I asked for an example.

              And when I pointed out that by you comparing the tech to the scientific method, which has been in existence for centuries, you had actually made a case for the use of the tech without any improvement to it – you had no answer to that and didn’t have the balls to say so. Instead you use the old standby of Ad Hom.

            17. Sorry, Marildi. I can’t be bothered. But I do think the casual reader gets it just fine. They would correlate the above discussion with Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems and get my point.

            18. Let me throw this in. It is a confession! I have attempted several times to find a version of Goedel’s stuff written in plain English and failed. The Wikipedia version is written in mathematics-relate gobbledygook to me. And I ‘m not talking about the mathematical proofs! I’m talking about the words used, while apparently English, 3/4 of them seem to be specialized definitions from mathematics. And people complain about LRH making up new meanings for common words. That’s a laugh!

              I would guess 99.9% of the world’s population would have no comprehension of what that article is saying. And I am one of them. It seems to me that anyone not having a strong background in mathematics and it’s advanced nomenclature, has no chance of understanding it.

            19. @ Geir.

              I’ll say again, you conveniently evaded the discussion point that last came up – with the sudden “realization” that I am the one not getting some OTHER point that you supposedly have been trying to get across to me for 2 years.

              The fact is that you take no responsibility for your own inability to follow through on a discussion and/or to make yourself clear. I can’t tell you how disappointed I am in you. Where’s the intellectual integrity? I don’t see it.

              This time I really tried to stick with you and honestly would have been entirely willing to see something different from what I had been thinking. But you simply cannot, or will not, confront a discussion when it gets to the point of you not having any good comeback. Every time I made a good point this happens. You stick right in there up until then.

              And as for the point of Godel’s, the tech doesn’t violate that principle. It is consistent but incomplete. Let “the reader” have that data too.

            20. Here you end up verifying my claim while thinking you do not. YES, The System Is Incomplete, And Therefore It Must Always Evolve As Any System Must. How Hard CAN It Be, I Wonder.

              Apart from that, discuss Scientology’s shit loads of inconsistencies with Valkov. You may learn a thing or two from him.

              I rest my case. Please do not make this any harder on yourself.

            21. “The System Is Incomplete, And Therefore It Must Always Evolve As Any System Must.”

              What is that based on? This is a straight, simple question.

            22. Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems.

              Read it. Understand it. Do not ask me to be your teacher for the n-th time on this. Please.

            23. I’m not asking you to be my teacher. But if you know well enough something you are referring to, you should be able to explain it – even to a child. And you know that.

              And no matter what you say, you are still evading a direct discussion. You gave an example of what you were talking about, and when that didn’t fly you resorted to “the answers can be found in such and such.” Again, I just don’t buy it. But if you don’t have the guts and integrity to have a real discussion with me, so be it.

            24. You are really hopeless, Marildi. Let me spoonfeed you one last time.

              I pointed to the Scientific Method to show that it HAS evolved. That it perfects and evolves less now than before is expected – BUT it must FOREVER EVOLVE because of Gödel’s. Just like any and all axiomatic systems – like Scientology. Now, on top of that, as Valkov so succinctly has pointed out, not only is Scientology FAR FROM COMPLETE, it is also LOADED WITH INCONSISTENCIES. Take the last one up with him.

              Now pleeeeeease, can you let this go? Pretty Please, with Cherry on top? Or do you Need to have the last word even here?

            25. If you actually would grant me beingness and read my comments, you would know that I’ve pointed out the fact that, like the scientific method, the tech HAS evolved – over the decades that LRH worked on it and before that over the centuries that other thinkers were doing so.

              And then I suggested that “perhaps” like the scientific method which is still doing great service to mankind, in spite of the fact that it may still evolve, the tech also can continue to do great service even in its present form. AND I added that I’m all in favor of continued research and improvement of it.

              Now if you would make a friendly comment to me like the last part of the one you just did but without the put downs included in the first part, I might let you have the last word.

            26. The first barrier to study is “unwillingness to learn.” You spend your energy crafting arguments instead of discussing. This leaves you embroiled in perpetual misunderstandings with the time not spent arguing spent trying to smooth over your feelings. Trying to understand what another communicates and then acknowledging when you have before trying to make them wrong will eliminate much of the need to make wrong. That you’ve apparently intentionally frustrated Geir is the result of this out-TR2 and a misunderstanding and abuse of TR3 with your TR4 completely out of sight.

            27. And if you would stop being so obnoxiously self-righteous on a continuous basis it would be even better.

            28. I could try if you would try to understand and acknowledge the complaints toward the inconsistencies in Scientology. If this changed for us, it might be an internet first. LOL

            29. I still don’t get Godel’s and its relationship to something like scn, but what I am finding missing here in this discussion of Science vs. Scientology vis-a-vis Godel’s is that in Scientology there is this “KSW” thing. In Science there may not be an officially published KSW thing, but yet often Scientists are very resistant to new ideas. I see 2 different issues here. A scientists can be criticized for publishing his results based on poor “scientific method” This is different from criticizing him because of authoritarian motives. So a document like KSW could be published for various reasons, and may be a mix of truth and lies. And to make things worse, it can then be used in various ways, too. Like to help maintain th e integrity of a subject, or for political purposes. Unfortunately, often life is like that!

            30. Gödel: No system can be both complete and consistent and must thus evolve to accommodate for newfound input.

              Whenever Science, methodologies, methods and any body of knowledge must improve, must grow better or will corrode or die (Hubbard also spells this out clearly in the Conditions of existence and elsewhere). Trying to stagnate or stop improvement is in fact tantamount to try and stagnate or stop the very subject one seeks to safeguard.

              That science tries to protect rather than evolve is a bad thing. Just like KSW is a bad thing.

            31. p.s. You gave the scientific method as an example and yet that hasn’t evolved for centuries.

            32. Yet, even that system cannot be complete and consistent – as you yourself concluded regarding Scientology. And therefore it must forever evolve. Can you now pleeeeease let this go?

            33. No, I can’t. You were unfair and treated me badly, and you haven’t made up for it or shown that I got that wrong – which I don’t think I did. I now wonder if I can ever trust you to follow through on an honest, rational discussion without you resorting to debate tricks to get out of it if it isn’t going in your favor.

            34. Original point: Scientology must forever evolve. It cannot be cast in stone, or it will die/become obsoleted as long as there exists unknown input. This I have shown. Clearly and many times. Despite this you started berating me for your own lack of understanding. When I told you I didn’t have patience for this, you started attacking me. Marildi… seriously. You seem to always need to have the last word. I will let you have it. Whatever it may be. And I will not respond to your next comment. Feel free to exercise your need.

              Beyond that, I call for a really loooooong group hug 🙂

            35. “Original point: Scientology must forever evolve.”

              I see now where things got confused – it was with the word “forever.” To me, it implies a CONTINUOUS evolution. Earlier, you had said “The system itself must be forever improving…” There, with the word “improving,” you even used a progressive verb form (one ending with -ing) – which, even more so, communicates a CONTINUOUS improving. This is why I was surprised when you gave the example of the scientific model – and that’s the point where the out-comm started.

              Anyway, what I’m mainly getting at is that I now understand that you did not mean “forever” the way it came across to me, and thus I have no problem understanding the idea that systems need to evolve when new data is discovered. Obviously, that is what research is all about – discoveries are made and the system gets adjusted accordingly.

              So can you now do the same and let me know that you see my point too, that a system such as the scientific method or the tech of Scn. could, at least theoretically, go on for whatever length of time before anything is discovered that would necessitate a change in the system itself?

            36. Not “whatever length”. Here are the factors involved: The smaller the subset of mitigated input is in relation to the superset of all possible input, the more the system is in need of improvement. A more precisely defined desired outcome/results/products increases the need to improve the method to mitigate unknown input. The greater the variance in the unknown input, the more flexibility is required in the method. Etc.

              So, the more we have People as input, the more flexibility is required In The System Itself.

              And here I believe we are at the core of why Scientology is such a Massive Failure compared to its promises. One Man, One System, Very Little Research, Command Intention (heavy handed governance and micromanagement intended in the system itself), KSW.

              Scientology had to fail. It couldn’t have done otherwise given the factors above.

              The only possible way to salvage the value therein is to let everything lose as public domain, let research and validation rule freely and the results of validation and testing speak for itself.

              Knowledge yarns to be free.

              All philosophical knowledge should become an integral part of the Ant Hill evolution known as human knowledge and not be compartmented and protected and locked down for financial, power or other reasons. Or lest the knowledge is suffocated.

              The results must remain senior to the method. Worshiping methods is religion. Aiming forever for better results is science.

              BTW; Did you think that “forever improving” meant that the system must be improved every Planck Second, every second, every minute, every hour or every day?

              Could you please re-read the above discussion and ensure that this doesn’t happen again by putting in more effort to read and actually understand what I write before Having To counter it to defend Scientology?

              Hugs 🙂

            37. “Could you please re-read the above discussion and ensure that this doesn’t happen again by putting in more effort to read and actually understand what I write before Having To counter it to defend Scientology?”

              I already have re-read the discussion. And yes, I can do what you wrote above. I was actually trying my best to do that this time. That was why I was really thrown by your response to my reply telling you that the article on the history of the scientific method indicated that it had not evolved since the 17th century. You might have spotted my confusion right there and helped me out of it. Instead you went into a general invalidation of me.

              Anyway, that’s water under the bridge.Can you take responsibility too for the ever-so-minuscule, teensy-weensy, off-chance. remote possibility that you might be able to help ensure a good discussion too?

              Hugs back. 🙂

            38. I will. I will try to figure out how.

              BTW; Did you think that “forever improving” meant that the system must be improved every Planck Second, every second, every minute, every hour or every day?

            39. And as an aside, every second compared to every day is proportionately almost exactly the same interval of time (laying almost on top of one another) as when compared to the magnitude of disproportion of the Planck second. (My notes on this lay unconsolidated). There are more Planck seconds contained in each and every second than there have been standard seconds since the Big Bang 13.798 trillion years ago.

              There are only 86,400 seconds in a day. With 31.536 million seconds in a year and only 13.798 trillion years in the universe, when multiplied together, this is only 4.35 times 10^17 seconds! Not a very huge number when discussing Nature! lol, I mean LOL!

            40. “BTW; Did you think that ‘forever improving’ meant that the system must be improved every Planck Second, every second, every minute, every hour or every day?”

              Earlier, you wrote: “The system itself must be forever improving in order to accommodate for unknown input and new knowledge.”

              In reply, I asked: “Does the SYSTEM or methodology of science keep changing?”

              And your answer was “Yes. And it must. NOTHING can remain the same. Do you now get my point?”

              So I will ask you the same question: Does it need to change every Planck Second, every second, every minute, every… ? Do you now get my point? 😛

            41. Answer my question first. Did you think that forever improve meant every split second. Was that your understanding when you started the discussion down south?

            42. (Now, if you just hadn’t added the part “…when you started the discussion down south.” [sigh])

              No, I didn’t think it meant every second. But I didn’t think it meant 4 centuries, either! As is the case with the scientific method. THAT is where the discussion went south, old buddy – when you changed it from addressing the comment to stating an Ad Hom. And if you really do mean what you wrote above, that you will “try to figure out how” to ensure a good discussion with me, you might learn something from this very example.

              But! I can learn just as much! In my case, I shouldn’t have reacted to your going off topic and making personal remarks. I should have realized that you were exasperated for some good reason (even if it was because of an misunderstanding on either part), and then I would have operated on that basis. I’m sincerely trying to remember that.

              You know as well as I do that it takes two to make a fight, but it is easier when both try to avoid one. I really like it when you put the cherry on top. 🙂

            43. Is “scientolgy” really that inconsistent? I have Marianne’s comment below here in mind. Also Geir’s essay on “Automation”.

              When I look at scientology, I look to sort what I am reading/hearing into various degrees of “importance”. Some datums are “senior” to others, which are “jumior” to the senior ones. There is a kind of heirarchy or pyramid involved. Some concepts are “more basic” and override other statements. LRH himself refers to this idea.

              So here’s an example. This was published less than 2 years before KSW #1:

              “— The more thetan you have present, the less policy you need and the better things run. Only a thetan can handle a post or a pc. All he needs is the know-how of minds as contained in Scientology. That was all he ever lacked. So, given that, sheer policy is poor stuff, as it seeks to make a datum stand where a being should be. That’s the whole story of the GPMs. So why not have live orgs?”
              From: HCO PL 23 October 1963 — Refund Policy; pg 243 OEC Vol. 3

              This to me clearly states the supreme importance of having “live thetans” monitoring, administering, and directly operating whtever element whatever elements of “automation” seem to exist in Scientology. To the extent that a “toolbox” can be considered to be “automation” at all.

              Thus I have never been entirely comfortable with Geir’s view that Scientology is an assembly line process. In my view it is true that in practice that is what Scientology has often become, and that the current iteration of the Church “worships” KSW and weights it all out of proportion to it’s intended scope. And I also think it is true that a “rookie’ just lerning to audit should do it “by the book”, in a rather automated fashion. That is inevitable in learning to do anything in any field. One ]goes by th ebook at first, then les and less as she learns more and gets to the point where one is “playing the piano” instead of practicing scales rotely over and over.
              There was some good discussion on Marty’s blog at one time on thesubject of “independent thought” and extensive quotes of LRH were posted. Marty posted one in the OP which he obviously considered could be one of these “senior datums” I mentioned.

              I think this has been an ongoing issue in sorting out what are apparently
              “inconsistencies” in Scientology. This is not to say LRH did not at some point “change course” or even “reverse course” in the direction he was takinfg Scientology. Marty himself pointed out a critical point in his first book – when LRH wrote “an Open Letter to All Clears”, in which, instead of promoting the continued self-determinism and independence of Clears, he came on all moralistic and put the brakes on any Clear’s freewheeling lifestyle choices. Some people point to OTIII and above as reversing from “auditing the pre-OT in front of you”, to targetting specific mental content assumed to be existing across the board in all beings on Earth. This was felt by many as a switch to an unwarranted “evaluative” approach, and one that may not even be valid, at least for some. It does seem odd, from an outside view, that LRH apparently assumed all cases at bottom were identical to his own, as I have gotten the impression that LRH was “not from around here”.

              So to me, the consideration that Scientology is an “inconsistent mess” is a bit of a generalization that needs further sorting. Some of th e apparent inconsistencies may not be, but appear to be for lack of sorting junior from senior datums. Statements LRH made need to be prioritized as to scope and importance. How one ties his shoes or cleans his car is not as imortant as how one audits, for example.


            44. ‘Not “whatever length”. Here are the factors involved: The smaller the subset of mitigated input is in relation to the superset of all possible input, the more the system is in need of improvement. A more precisely defined desired outcome/results/products increases the need to improve the method to mitigate unknown input. The greater the variance in the unknown input, the more flexibility is required in the method. Etc.’ – Geir Isene, Author

              This was an incomplete comm cycle – I forgot to tell you how much I liked this elegant description.

            45. Geir
              You write that ‘scientology is an inconsistent mess’. Can you allow for the possibility that there is at least one person on Earth who can factually help you factually experience that it is not the case? That there might be some order underlying the ‘mess’?
              This man sits down with you with all the data in books, tapes etc. around and whatever question you have on which you base this ‘inconsistent’ and ‘mess’ will be answered BY YOU by studying and using your free will.

              I would welcome such a professional person to come on your blog. How about you?

            46. I have done that several times before. And there are, as Valkov points out, so many provable inconsistencies – also covered on my blogs – that it is hard to keep count. Marildi has tried and failed. A basic inconsistency is covered in my blog post Scientology Bait & Switch. Another is the mess regarding labelling people SPs. Yet another is the dichotomy between helping people become free and at the same time dictating through policies minute details on what they should do and not do. Yet another is Hubbard’s own track of blatantly lying while he claims to promote truth. And then there is trying to raise people on the tone scale to tranquility while at the same time fighting enemies, real and very imaginary at every corner. And we have the promoted concept of “what is true for you…” while at the same time not accepting Any disagreement with what Hubbard wrote (covered in M4 and other places). Etc. Etc.

              To run another two years with a person determined to prove that Scientology is consistent is not on the top of my list of wishes.

              Others may want to have a go at this 🙂

            47. Geir: Others may want to have a go at this 🙂

              Chris: No thanks. Marildi thinks I write to her when in fact I write to the blog in order to provide a counterpoint for casual readers to see. It concerns me when I think the puffery of Scientology might be taken literally.

            48. ‘I have done that several times before’. With a top professional in real life the way
              I described it? Not by yourself and with the help of our comments. I have been witnessing your tremendous research. Just excellent…truely…just excellent! Still, it looks that some of your attention units are not completely free of some tiny parts. Looks. Is this the case?

              Thanks for giving examples. They are topics to start with that a fully trained-qualified person can help clarify not only for you but anyone who has attention on them. If it can be done and it is not done, it is a kind of an example of not KSW.

            49. marildi
              your last comment…it has come through….no mind….not even intent (which is always personal, so restricted in a sense) ….just Life….pure Life….for the first time…

            50. Marianne, you are so insightful. I believe there has been a change in my universe – and if anybody would notice, it would be you! If you can remember which post it was, let me know. In any case, thank you! 🙂

        2. Geir: Why LRH tried to kill his own work like this is beyond me.

          Chris: As I’ve pondered all the stories of the true researchers and true sources of Scientology, and as I have had some personal experience and sweat lugging around LRH’s “original handwritten materials,” and his daily routine of collecting up the writeups, session notes, etc., from the advanced SHSBC and elsewhere I’ve come to see a pattern that I used to not see which is that of LRH spending volumes of time handwriting up notes and issuing bulletins, reams of them from the work that others did. It has dawned on me that maybe I give LRH too much credit for being smart. The disingenuous act of taking credit for the work of others leaves me as speechless as any of his other charlatan acts but most importantly, it makes him look stupid to me. Maybe KSW was the best of the best that he could personally do to round up us sheep and separate us from the influences of the rest of the world. Valkov said I’d been fed copious amounts of “buulshit” so I’ve been thinking about that and maybe he’s right and maybe this is the best example of it. When he wrote, “The work was free . . . ” I suppose he really knew what he was talking about.

      3. Marildi: To conclude that it has is an academic assertion at best, since interpretation of KSW 1 as “freezing the tech” would, in any case, apply only to those who agree to that interpretation (whether it is a correct one or not), i.e. CoS and the literal fundamentalists outside the CoS. For anyone else, it’s a non-issue.

        Chris: Another take on this would be that the entire policy is an academic assertion by LRH since it is not backed up with empirical evidence. The actual evidence of its workability is statistically covered by the 8,000,000 (LRH’s number not mine, resignees. Literally everyone who has ever had contact with the subject. The most important reason that it is an issue to anyone seriously contemplating the subject is that it flagrantly provides the best most clean statement of obvious falsehood about the subject. Every line of it a false and vitriolic rant. Then one has to ask, “If this, then what else?”

        As you state, “for COS and literal fundamentalists outside the COS” it matters. I say it not only matters but is the lynch-pin binding all the “tech degrade” bulletins and policies together. I don’t agree that to everyone else it is a non-issue. In fact, I believe it is the key and most obvious issue in all of Scientology. One needn’t be a Class 8 or otherwise tech trained person to read and to closely examine and understand that this policy is psychotic.

    3. To be precise; Here is the main points of that KSW policy:

      1. “Having the correct technology”:
      2. “Knowing the technology”
      3. “Knowing it is correct”
      4. “Teaching correctly the correct technology”
      5. “Applying the technology”
      6. “Seeing that the technology is correctly applied”
      7. “Hammering out of existence incorrect technology”
      8. “Knocking out incorrect applications”
      9. “Closing the door on any possibility of incorrect technology”
      10. “Closing the door on incorrect application”

      He claims (several times) that #1 is done, complete.

      But read carefully #3. That’s the brainwash right there.

      1. Geir
        I used your list of a ‘method of helping another’. I am absolutely sure, I KNOW that it is correct, moreover, I KNOW that it can change lives. AM I BRAINWASHED by you?

          1. Maybe I do not get what you say. ‘Believe’ is thought. ‘Know’ is not a thought. It is a Know on the top of the scale. Which could be substituted by Perceiving. Perceiving a ‘tool’ in operation. The ‘tool’ in operation is Correct in handling life.

            1. For me there is a reactive ‘know, right, always, true’ AND there are the ‘qualities of life’ as KNOWing, RIGHT, ALWAYS, TRUE…the qualities of the Flow.

            2. I may have got closer what you mean. I haven’t built a ‘belief’ around its effectiveness. The tool is there. I ‘know’ that it works but did not get fixated on that ‘know’. The rest what I wrote above is also true but another aspect of it.

            3. Here is a subtlety of the causes of ‘double-think’. You provided a tool. I used it and observed its operation. I did not build a ‘thought’ around it. It means that I use it as it is in the five points. AS-IT-IS. Not doing something else, not putting there any additive. That is, I don’t believe that it is something else than it is. The outcome is: I observe that the tool is CORRECT in helping ‘another’. If I keep using the tool with the person I started to use it and just observe it operating and do not build ‘thoughts’ around it, then IT will never be a ‘double-think’ CASE. See: IT will never be a double-think CASE. That is, for any CASE to get into existence, the individual STOPS OBSERVING for any reason and creates a thought/belief either by labelling or evaluating. In FACT OBSERVATION is not stopped, the TRUTH is always there but there can also be a THOUGHT. The feeling of ‘double-think’ comes from a ‘divided state of conSCIOusness’. That is, when truth–awareness is invalidated as being junior for whatever reason by a thought.

      2. You are making more of #3 than what is there.

        “Three is achieved by the individual applying the correct technology in a proper manner and observing that it works that way.”

        Are you looking through a filter in or to find brainwashing? 😉

        1. Should read “in order to find…”

          p.s. Marianne has seen it through no filter, just as it is, IMO.

        2. “…observing THAT it works that way”.

          Wow. If that ain’t brainwashing…

          If I would write such a policy (of course I wouldn’t), the I would be sure to substitute “THAT” with “WHETHER”.

          1. IMHO, you are not seeing the forest through the trees (or “for the trees,” whichever version you like) when it comes to KSW.

            The phrase you used in another comment – beating a dead horse – is the exact one that occurred to me with regard to the attention and importance many people place on KSW. And it’s been a dead horse for a long time – since way back when the freezone began – as witnessed by all those who have been researching and attempting to improve the tech ever since.

            1. Marildi: And it’s been a dead horse for a long time – since way back when the freezone began – as witnessed by all those who have been researching and attempting to improve the tech ever since.

              Chris: What were some of those improvements?

            2. Whether or not there were improvements wasn’t my point. I was only pointing out that regardless of KSW 1, there has been lots of research and ATTEMPTS to improve the tech. In other words, KSW isn’t a stop for anyone who doesn’t accept it as a stop.

            3. Do you feel that KSW is not LRH? And if LRH wanted something stopped in the name of Scientology then shouldn’t it be stopped? Do you feel that in this instance that LRH should be ignored?

          2. An example for THAT, which happens to be a FIXED process when observed, can get one out of ‘brainwashing’ (basically conditioning).
            The first course I did was Therapy TR-s. I chose that. When doing the ‘do birds fly’,
            at a point I ‘saw’ some kind of a thick cloud swirling in front of my face. We continued. I could observe it, did not know what it was. Even got into it partly – bad feeling. At the same time felt the strength of life rising in me. Finished the cycle. The
            cloud was still there. A woman asked me to join something. I said using ‘life’ through the cloud ‘no’. Soon after I realized that that ‘cloud’ was the ‘reacive energy of the mind’. I guess that was my first ‘detachment’ of it with the tool called scientology.
            THAT ‘do birds fly’ and the rest got my life potential bigger. Clearer perceptions followed. Also, my intention got stronger. A little later, an auditor learnt Dinanetics 55 for my sake. Because I wanted to do that.

            1. To be honest, I didn’t particularly notice playfulness, but I didn’t notice that he is in one of his lighter moods. Me too, in case you hadn’t noticed. 😉

            2. Oops – I meant that I DID notice he is in one of his lighter moods

            3. Of course I did notice that! I so love when the two of you are in com! I always learn something, I enjoy the flows! Even when you disagree a bit or more. Also, you have changed, the flow is still with your usual light but I feel some slight changes of tones and your style is more varied than before! Did not ‘think’ about it and did not want to
              ‘evaluate’ but you asked. I enjoy every instant of it otherwise I would not be here.

            4. “Even when you disagree a bit or more.”

              Yes, sometimes it is “more” than a bit. LOL 😀 But I like it too when the two of us are “in comm.”

              And thanks for telling me your observations – you are very astute to have noticed something different. I felt it too. I said long ago that Geir’s blog is like a process, and it continues to be. Glad you are here as an added ingredient – an exotic spice. 🙂

          3. Are you sure you are not misinterpreting the meaning of “that” in this context?

            THAT: pronoun and adjective, plural those; adv.; conj.
            (used to indicate a person, thing, idea, state, event, time, remark, etc., as pointed out or present, mentioned before, supposed to be understood, or by way of emphasis): That is her mother. After that we saw each other.
            (used to indicate one of two or more persons, things, etc., already mentioned, referring to the one more remote in place, time, or thought; opposed to this ): This is my sister and that’s my cousin.
            (used to indicate one of two or more persons, things, etc., already mentioned, implying a contrast or contradistinction; opposed to this ): This suit fits better than that.
            (used as the subject or object of a relative clause, especially one defining or restricting the antecedent, sometimes replaceable by who, whom, or which ): the horse that he bought.
            (used as the object of a preposition, with the preposition standing at the end of a relative clause): the farm that I spoke of.
            (used to indicate a person, place, thing, or degree as indicated, mentioned before, present, or as well-known or characteristic): That woman is her mother. Those little mannerisms of hers make me sick.
            (used to indicate the more remote in time, place, or thought of two persons, things, etc., already mentioned; opposed to this ): This room is his and that one is mine.
            (used to imply mere contradistinction; opposed to this ): not this house, but that one.
            (used with adjectives and adverbs of quantity or extent) to the extent or degree indicated: that much; The fish was that big.
            to a great extent or degree; very: It’s not that important.
            Dialect . (used to modify an adjective or another adverb) to such an extent: He was that weak he could hardly stand.
            (used to introduce a subordinate clause as the subject or object of the principal verb or as the necessary complement to a statement made, or a clause expressing cause or reason, purpose or aim, result or consequence, etc.): I’m sure that you’ll like it. That he will come is certain. Hold it up so that everyone can see it.
            (used elliptically to introduce an exclamation expressing desire, a wish, surprise, indignation, or other strong feeling): Oh, that I had never been born!
            at that,
            in spite of something; nevertheless: Although perhaps too elaborate, it seemed like a good plan at that.
            in addition; besides: It was a long wait, and an exasperating one at that.
            that is, (by way of explanation, clarification, or an example); more accurately: I read the book, that is, I read most of it. Also, that is to say.
            that’s that, Informal. there is no more to be said or done; that is finished: I’m not going, and that’s that!
            that way, Informal. in love or very fond of (usually followed by about or for ): The star and the director are that way. I’m that way about coffee.
            with that, following that; thereupon: With that, he turned on his heel and fled.
            before 900; Middle English; Old English thæt (pronoun, adj., adv. and conjunction), orig., neuter of se the; cognate with Dutch dat, German das ( s ), Old Norse that, Greek tó, Sanskrit tad

            Can be confused: that, which (see usage note at the current entry).

            Usage note
            4. When that introduces a relative clause, the clause is usually restrictive; that is, essential to the complete meaning of the sentence because it restricts or specifies the noun or pronoun it modifies. In the sentence The keys that I lost last month have been found, it is clear that keys referred to are a particular set.

  38. In gymnastics I was asked to practise a ‘fixed’ movement over an over. The trainer was not interested in my thoughts, complaints (unknown input coming up to be known) further than listening to them. The result was more and more life energy to do the movement, also, the movement has become easier to do (less and less effort, emotion and thought). It required persistence, honesty (to voice my thoughts and emotions) and the inner drive to perfect the movement as much as I could. EP: being the movement AND the energy gained back after releasing emotions and thoughts.
    The Master video you posted is similar.
    For me ‘to accomodate any new found knowledge’ is the next step. Given enough ‘energy’, me as a gymnast can come up with a new movement, kind of intuitively. That is art (new creation).

    A fixed-complete-consistent is the opposite of the non-fixed-incomplete-inconsistent.
    So, keeping something ‘fixed’ is a ‘trick’ in good hands to get the ‘unfixed’, which is the life-energy-flow. That is if you MUSTN’T be creative with the ‘certain processes’ it is because if you do them over and over, it will produce that you will get a FLOW with which you CAN be creative in life. The trick is to get the ‘flow’, more and more F/N, in the end a ‘free Tone’. My present view of it.

    1. ‘No certain process can produce a certain process if the input is the slightest unknown’.
      Absolutely true. I don’t know if you wanted to write EP after ‘produce’ instead of certain process or it was on purpose? Either way, the EP is always a F/N
      (plus an awareness unit gained back with an ability to see and act). The only requirement to have this result, in my view, is to be completely honest as a PC. That is, to communicate whatever is there, no matter what. Also, to be completely certain in what one communicates. Kind of ‘what is true for YOU (the person) is true for YOU (life as the dynamics).
      Example: once in session the auditor asked a question and I answered it. After that, instantly, my awareness started to ‘expand’ in such a speed that my first cognition was ‘ok, I get it why in Solo one is doing it solo…the speed’…then, still expanding
      lots of other cognitions and perceptions…kind of ‘up and up’….I communicated it to the auditor, who said ‘come back here,,,end of session’. Hm. I said OK and said that
      I understand her (which I did as she was not trained for the phenomena, which I knew based on my studies in my free time and based on the knowingness I got during expanding) and said in a calm way that I want her to write down my com to the C/S. The session ended with a F/N. It was superb. Hm. certainty, honesty as a PC and responsibility for both the PC and the auditor.

      The only principle I followed during my studies and auditing was that I am there, do what is asked to do and anything can happen as Ron did not write down anywhere that one cannot get more gains than the EP. So I had, continuously because I kind of had the attitude: now.

      What remains in the ‘now’? When two people communicate?

  39. ‘But KSW in fact will ensure the death of the subject’. One aspect: the ‘death’ of the ‘subject’ in a person’s mind is most welcome. That is, the individual has no more attention units stuck in it (stuck for whatever reason) and lives his life as a continuous F/N. The Flow. The Tao. Isn’t your blog an example of this? That through the way of discussion a kind of ‘clearing’ the ‘subject’ is happening? That is more and more life by clearing the earlier misunderstoods and by changing viewpoints?

    Ron wrote somewhere that there are some who live it, others teach it, again others become auditors in orgs. As for the last, I am sure that there are some (maybe not many) who have studied, audited both as an auditor and a PC, also the different parts (ethics and admin) fully. They are the ones because of whom the ‘subject’ will not ‘die’. This ‘group’ can be small now, though. Also, in fact millions of people got from one true datum to full courses out of scientology which they live now of course in their present condition and present tone level. By ‘living’ so, life is ‘working’.
    Also, even the critics ‘keep it alive’, as any attention unit is life, isn’t it?
    In short: that the ‘official’ part of scientology is ‘shrinking’ may be true but its effect is
    ‘alive’ in different forms. As its basics is the description of the mind and life itself.

  40. Valkov; I would like to extend a thank to you for the comments you have made on this thread. I now understand better how scientologists may find it easy to defend Scientology in the face of opposing facts and iron-clad logic. I have long since realized that Scientology contains its fair share of inconsistencies – but with your comments on this thread I have come to the conclusion that it is in fact strewn with inconsistencies to the point that it invites and promotes double-think and makes it possible for a person to take just about any stance on the subject. Scientology is an inconsistent mess reflecting the mind of its founder. That does not negate valid and valuable knowledge and tools in the subject, but it makes it more important to promote critical thinking to those studying it than perhaps any other subject that I know of.

    1. Geir, honestly I think you are legend in your own mind. As apparently are many other OTVIIIs.
      I suppose I don’t so much mind you proclaiming I was beating a dead horse; for the information of other readers, I believe the “dead horse” is not what it might seem to be from the context of this thread, because I don’t believe I have ever before presented the particular reasoning about KSW that I presented here in this thread. The fact that you interpret my posts as “justfying” KSW proves to me are simply unable to duplicate certiain things and their implications. You obviously missed that I think KSW interpreted in any other way than what I have done thus far is in fact insane. The way KSW has been used by the CoS is of course nuts, but was initially
      well intended. The way it has been used by Miscavige is pure duplicity, because he does even come close to following KSW. He only pretends to.

      What surprises me is your apparent inability to understand my efforts to
      “parallel ” LRH’s mind, and also the logic of my thinking about scientology, particularly KSW. My logic tells me, and ought to tell you, that it is illogical to follow KSW. You could validate that, but instead you brush it of as I’m beating a dead horse and then “thank”me for in effect, being a great example of brainwashing or soemthig along those lines.

      I will defend you by postingmy belief is that English is your second language and therefore you sometimes miss a meaning or the implications because you don’t quite get the context.

      Other than that, I like your blog and it has provided me a venue for making some personal progress in defining my own thinking about various things. As for being under your microscope, thanks for making me occassionally feel like a microbe. But as I said at the start, some OTVIIIs seem to be solipsistic legends in their own minds.

      1. Wow. What a response! Here I am validating your view on KSW and thanking you for helping me see that it really doesn’t matter because, as you say, a person can take pretty much any stance on Scientology due to its loads of inconsistencies. And then you come back nasty. Ouch, Val.

        1. Well if that’s th ecase I am sorry and I apologize completely. And I’m glad you spoke up then.

          I did not get any validation from what you wrote. Since there have been a number of occassions in the past when you and others have lumped marildi and I together as uncritical or inflexible “scientologists” or “apologists” or “justifiers” of scientology and LRH, I read what you wrote as more of the same – that you were “thanking” me for showing up as a perfect example of the flaws you like to expose.

          1. “Since there have been a number of occassions in the past when you and others have lumped marildi and I together as uncritical or inflexible “scientologists” or “apologists” or “justifiers” of Scientology and LRH…”

            My turn to ask, what is that supposed to mean?

            1. I guess it means whatever means whatever you take it to mean. I had in mind occassions when Geir pointed to you, or me, or both of us as examples of some kind of “die-hard” “scientologists” or defenders or justifiers of scientology or LRH, in the face of his “ironclad” logic.

              Or maybe it was a bad dream I had. Or maybe I misinterpreted things, which I have a tendency to do. What it is “supposed” to mean, I haven’t a clue. I just post the words that come to mind. To a large extent these days, sometimes “IT” wants to speak, and I let it. Sometimes that doesn’t work out too well though.

              You can usually sense what I mean – go to it!

  41. Valkov just posted this excellent comment above but, at least on my computer, it can’t be read in the narrow column it’s in, so I am pasting the email copy of it here:
    Is “scientolgy” really that inconsistent? I have Marianne’s comment below
    here in mind. Also Geir’s essay on “Automation”.
    When I look at scientology, I look to sort what I am reading/hearing into various degrees of “importance”. Some datums are “senior” to others, which are “jumior” to the senior ones. There is a kind of heirarchy or pyramid involved. Some concepts are “more basic” and override other statements. LRH himself refers to this idea.
    So here’s an example. This was published less than 2 years before KSW #1:
    “— The more thetan you have present, the less policy you need and the better things run. Only a thetan can handle a post or a pc. All he needs is the know-how of minds as contained in Scientology. That was all he ever lacked. So, given that, sheer policy is poor stuff, as it seeks to make a datum stand where a being should be. That’s the whole story of the GPMs. So why not have live orgs?”
    From: HCO PL 23 October 1963 — Refund Policy; pg 243 OEC Vol. 3
    This to me clearly states the supreme importance of having “live thetans” monitoring, administering, and directly operating whtever element whatever elements of “automation” seem to exist in Scientology. To the extent that a “toolbox” can be considered to be “automation” at all.
    Thus I have never been entirely comfortable with Geir’s view that Scientology is an assembly line process. In my view it is true that in practice that is what Scientology has often become, and that the current iteration of the Church “worships” KSW and weights it all out of proportion to it’s intended scope. And I also think it is true that a “rookie’ just lerning to audit should do it “by the book”, in a rather automated fashion. That is inevitable in learning to do anything in any field. One ]goes by th ebook at first, then les and less as she learns more and gets to the point where one is “playing the piano” instead of practicing scales rotely over and over.
    There was some good discussion on Marty’s blog at one time on thesubject of “independent thought” and extensive quotes of LRH were posted. Marty posted one in the OP which he obviously considered could be one of these “senior datums” I mentioned.
    I think this has been an ongoing issue in sorting out what are apparently
    “inconsistencies” in Scientology. This is not to say LRH did not at some point “change course” or even “reverse course” in the direction he was takinfg Scientology. Marty himself pointed out a critical point in his first book – when LRH wrote “an Open Letter to All Clears”, in which, instead of promoting the continued self-determinism and independence of Clears, he came on all moralistic and put the brakes on any Clear’s freewheeling lifestyle choices. Some people point to OTIII and above as reversing from “auditing the pre-OT in front of you”, to targetting specific mental content assumed to be existing across the board in all beings on Earth. This was felt by many as a switch to an unwarranted “evaluative” approach, and one that may not even be valid, at least for some. It does seem odd, from an outside view, that LRH apparently assumed all cases at bottom were identical to his own, as I have gotten the impression that LRH was “not from around here”.
    So to me, the consideration that Scientology is an “inconsistent mess” is a bit of a generalization that needs further sorting. Some of th e apparent inconsistencies may not be, but appear to be for lack of sorting junior from senior datums. Statements LRH made need to be prioritized as to scope and importance. How one ties his shoes or cleans his car is not as important as how one audits, for example.

    1. But LRH states that the later issues trumps the earlier 😉

      Ah… Scientology makes it all too easy to justify whatever view you want on it only because of its inherent inconsistencies as Valkov originally pointed out. His back-paddling seems like a valiant effort to remedy what he may now view as damaging to Scientology. Him becoming quite inconsistent here may seem less important than saving the face of one’s beliefs?

      I believe that DM thrives on this inconsistency and makes it possible for him to justify his ways so easily.

      Discussing this subject seems less and less productive.

      Guys; Scientology is dying as is evident from all statistics. IMO it was doomed to be from the get-go. Protect a body of knowledge? Hem it in? Hinder free research? Call it squirreling? Yep. It couldn’t survive given that mindset of it’s founder.

      Scientology is dead. Long live free research!

      1. ‘Long live free research’. That’s right! There is just a little BUT: if you happen to research in a no-path, like…you name it, you may be surprised that part of what you will experience will kind of ‘match’ phenomena described in scientology. Then you may even say….hm….I just love it….love it….and the guy called Ron was indeed a great guy….
        (p.s. I am not a scientologist)

      2. But LRH states that the later issues trumps the earlier 😉

        DOX PLOX.

        There you go again! You actually ARE a legend in your own mind, aren’t you?

        And using the label of “scientologist” against me as an ad hom! Tsk tsk. Not to mention “believer”, and “defender”. What happened to “justifier”?

        I didn’t even say ALL the “inconsistecies” are “apparent”. Just that some of them may be. If your “logic” is so “ironclad”….. I suppose you think that HCO PL of 1963, Refund Policy, is cancelled by some later issue? Like KSW #1?

        Would that be the entire issue that is cancelled, or just the parts of it that don’t confirm your “logic”?

        Of course Miscavige considers, it cancelled, as he has written his own “refund policy” – across the board “No judgement allowed! No refunds, period! Only I will decide !”

        Geir Geir Geir, I am starting to think you may be hopeless in regard to some of your considerstions. 🙂

        1. Jeeez, Val.

          I wasn’t even talking about you when I referred to Scientologists above. I don’t even think you are a scientologist. I was simply stating that it is sooo very easy for A SCIENTOLOGIST (NOT you here, Val. NOT you!) to defend the subject simply because it is inconsistent – the very point you made earlier.

          Good God, why so sensitive and taking this so personally. You already became nasty once by error. Please don’t go overboard again.

          1. I will keep it in mind. And I wil go back and review the posts in question. Isn’t it amazing how many different ways a simple post can be taken? 🙂

            1. OK, I reviewed the posts. I quote you Geir: “His (Valkov’s) back-paddling seems like a valiant effort to remedy what he may now view as damaging to Scientology. Him (Valkov) becoming quite inconsistent here may seem less important than saving the face of one’s beliefs?”

              But of course in your very next post to me you claim it was “NOT about you!”

              WordPress has a Polling feature you can install on your blog. Then we can poll the readers on how they think you meant your reply to my post, reposted by marildi, in which I question how how much of an “inconsistent mess” the materials written and spoken by LRH really are. I did not in fact claim they were all consistent, but suggested their inconsistency might not be best summed up by the generality “an inconsistent mess”. There is no question the various concrete applications and realizations have been inconsistent with each other.

              India migh tbe referred to as an inconsistent mess, as might the European Union, and US politics too. IIn each case, th econsistency might be found not in what they say they are doing, but in who is actually benefiting by th eapparent inconsistencies. It is entirely possible Scientology theory and even policy could
              be far less of an inconsistent mess. Or maybe not.

      3. “Scientology id dead!” A catchy slogan, LIke “God is dead” of a few years back. Don’t hear that one muchanymore, do we?

        We will all know when “Scientology is dead”, I suppose, when all the books and CDs and tapes etc suddenly go Poof! and vanish into smoke or collapse into dust, right? Perhaps our memories of it will mysteriously disappear also?

        Will that be coincident with the uttter demise by complete dissolution of the CoS?

        As I posed to Chris, it appears wht you refer to as “scientology” and what I refer to as “scientology” are 2 entirely different things.

        Thus some of these discussions are 100% straw man. Tower of Babel.

        1. I have come to believe that this is inevitable given the nature of the subject. Yes, any viewpoint on this subject can be taken and backed up by parts that fancies one’s position. Thanks for that revelation.

          1. Isn’t a belief or a thought is just that? A belief or a thought? Didn’t Ron say that one is advised to be able to take up any viewpoint and also lose all?

  42. I would like to give you a couple questions which mostly interests me:

    1.Are you stable exterior as an OT? Are you exteriorized now at first time?
    2.Are you 100% convinced that you have lived past lives?
    3.What do you think helped you the most to become a more creative person?
    4.What is actually your greatest realization that you made in your life?
    5.What do you think is the most interesting truth or principle of life?
    6.What do you think is the most important life principle a person should follow?
    7.What aspect of yourself do you think you should work on nowadays?
    8.What tools do you use to plan, manage and organize your day and life?
    9.How do you specificaly define the concept of freedom?
    10.What do you think is the most effective exercise for free will?

    Thank you very much for your answers to this questions.

    1. 1. No.
      2. Yes.
      3. Simply doing creative stuff. And OT 2.
      4. That I am the source, the cause of all my experiences.
      5. See #4
      6. See #4.
      7. Create more fun.
      8. As little as possible. If any: HyperLists.
      9. The ability to exercise one’s free will.
      10. Every day; Make a random choice (a choice that you are confident is not directly an effect of some external situation).

  43. Hi Geir,
    I corrected a grammar and syntax a little bit. Thank you for your answers. I have a next bunch of questions that has emerged im my mind:

    1.What do you think are the dreams which we can perceive during the sleep? When do you think we create them and why?
    2.Have you had dreams after attesting the state of clear? If yes, did your dreams changed in some way during your path on the bridge? When on the bridge?
    3.What do you think are the main causes why OTs are not stable exteriorized as LRH wanted?
    4.What do you think are the main causes of lack of certainty of OT that he will always maintain his memories life after life?
    5.Do you think that there are the positions of tone scale that above the 40-serenity of beingness?
    6.Do you think that a person is able to grow spiritualy simply by working with considerations and without working with the memories of his pas lives?
    7.Do you think that a person is indeed a creative being or it is indeed the only our postulate that we are creative beings?
    8. Do you think that we have postulated ourselves and we are a cause that caused itself? Do you think that a spirit can postulate his own total vanishment?
    9.Why do you think we wanted created something rather than be nothing and theb suffer rather than be in native state?
    10.Do you think that every being is the creation of wholeness which has the illusion of idenity?
    11.Why do you think a person perceive himself if he is only one person? Is the viewpoint which is peceived and the viewpoint which is perceiving the part of the same original person?

    Thank you very much for your answers to this questions.

    1. 1. We create our experiences all the time – every Planck seconde. All our perceptions, our feelings, our thoughts. This automatic creation, the obsession or need to create doesn’t go to sleep 🙂
      2. Yes. Dreams have become increasingly more vivid in a way.
      3. Because he was on the wrong sci-fi track with BTs, Xenu and all that.
      4. IDK
      5. No idea. I’m not even sure the Tone scale is correct.
      6. Yes. I think therapies via memories are a red herring via.
      7. We are creative at the core. We are cause. Cause creates effects.
      8. Nope.
      9. To experience a high, you need a low. There are no mountains without a valleys.
      10. Pretty much See my article, “On Will”.
      11. I didn’t quite get that. Could you rephrase?

      1. Thank you very much for your answers. It was very inspirative. Ok, I will rephrase my last question (11): Theory: Every person is only one person. I am me, you are you, we are ourselves. But we are perceiving ourselves as a persons. I perceive myself. You perceive yourself – somebody is perceiving himself. There is therefore a person which is perceived (for example me) and the viewpoint which is perceiving that person ( for example my viewpoint of perceiving me). Do you think that a person separated the part of him by creating the viewpoint of himself ( viewpoint of self-perceiving) or that self-perceiving viewpoint is not separated viewpoint but only the ability self-perception? In other words: why do you think a person is indeed perceivng himself ?

  44. Hi Geir, I am sorry that I give you this days so many questions, but I am very curious these days in finding the answers to many questions. So I would ask you these next questions:

    1.Do you believe that we should be able to love anything and anybody?
    2.Can you perceive the thoughts of others? (In other words: ‚,Can you read the minds?‘‘)
    3. What factor (character trait, skill, attitude etc.) do you consider as the most important for success in any area?
    4.What tools that LRH figured out do you use still nowadays?
    5.What tools do you use to change the considerations of yourself or somebody else?
    6.What is your opinion and your personal experiences of the ,,purification rundown?‘‘
    7.What is your attitude on the psychiatry, psychothrapy and psychology now?
    8.Do you think that it is better to leave a friend that is effected by a placebo effect believing in the source of placebo effect or it is better to say him that he is the cause of that effect?
    9.What do you think is the basic reason of ,,confidentality‘‘ of the bridge levels?
    10.Do you think that it is possible for a person to do all his spiritual processesing solo by himself?

    I am looking forward to your inspirative and interesting answers. Thank you very much for them. 😉

    1. 1. Yes
      2. Vaguely and sometimes
      3. See #1
      4. TRs, parts of the Tone Scale Tech and that’s about it.
      5. Radical honesty
      6. It was good for me.
      7. It’s OK. Still needs work – as does any science.
      8. Do that which works for him.
      9. “Eliteness”, PR and the lure to make people want it (“mystery sandwich”)
      10. Yes

  45. Hi Geir,
    Thank you for your answers -it was very inspirative for me.Thank you for your willingness to anwer my questions. I havethe following bunch of questions that has emerged im my mind and really interests me:

    1.What do help you to apply and implement the realization/principle of full responsibility into your everyday actions?
    2.From where have you got the inspiration when you created the purpose-ability-opportunity coaching model?
    3.What helped you mostly to maintain always the iron integrity?
    4.Have you ever meet some OT that was exteriorized many times or is stable exteriorized?
    5.Did you perceived some improvements in your health after doing some bridge levels?
    6.Are you perceiving that you have now some special spiritual abilities that you did perceived you had before doing the bridge? Are that abilities stable?
    7.What do you think is the most amazing tool you have ever created?
    8.What do you think is the most universal and workable coaching tool?
    9.What do you consider as your highest purpose in life now?
    10.What is your highest values in your life now?

    I am looking forward to your inspirative and interesting answers. Thank you very much for them 🙂

    1. I would like to add one more question: Do you believe that e-meter works as LRH claimed? Do you believe in the workability of that machine at first place? 🙂

      1. I do think the e-meter works for finding what the person has issues with. It does not validate any of his past experiences as factual (you cannot claim that some past life incident actually happened simply because it read on the meter).

    2. 1. OT 8, then simply making a habit to always look what I cause/create in situations.
      2. From coaching hundreds of people.
      3. Getting continually bullbaited by church staff who incist on taking your time and money for ineffective or stupid purposes.
      4. No
      5. No
      6. “No shame/blame/regret” is a stable state that came gradually on OT 7 and culminated with OT 8.
      7. HyperList
      8. To make people realize they do create every thought and emotions they experience – all the time
      9. To conquer death
      10. To have no shame/blame/regret

  46. Hi Geir,
    Thank you for your previous answers -it was very inspirative for me.Thank you for your willingness to anwer my questions. I am here with new answers that interest me:

    1.What problem solving methods do you use the most?
    2.Do you think that the concept od ”conditions” as described by LRH is a workable tool for an organizations?
    3.What helped and helps you to stay mentaly fully in the present moment the most?
    4.What do you think are the main factors that cause the amnesis of a person on his track?
    5.Do you know the TRIZ method of innovation? Do you use it?
    6.What makes you personaly a more innovative person?
    7.What do you think is the most critical mindset difference between rich and poor people?
    8.How do you persuade and yourself to practice some habit?
    9.Do you think that it is truth and beneficial if a person say that he is indeed creating everything that effectes him? (including weather, four seasons etc.)
    10.What do you think is the best indicator of the strength and power of a spirit? Do you agree that it is the ability to maintain his position in space or something else?
    11.What today or historical person do you consider as the most interesting and wonderful spirit ever?

    I am looking forward to your inspirative and interesting answers. Thank you very much for them. 🙂

    1. i would like to add one more question to my bunch of questions: what experiences do you have with the creative processing?+what do you think are the pros and cons of that process? Thank you very much 🙂

    2. 1. Various. But the less methods, the better.
      2. Limited workability. The proof is the Church and the many uses of this in the WISE sector. It doesn’t create much expansion – and certainly not compared to expansion based on pure passion and common sense.
      3. Doing things I love.
      4. The wanting of a game. You need mnesia to reboot the game.
      5. Nope. Will check. Thanks.
      6. Doing things I love.
      7. Following their passion, ensuring one impress others with giving value.
      8. Didn’t understand that question.
      9. No – only his own experiences. He takes part in the creation of reality, but he is fully responsible for his own experiences.
      10. He’s ability to not give a fuck.
      11. Kurt Gödel.

      Cool questions. I enjoy your questioning. Thanks 🙂

      1. I enjoy your answering and so gratitude is also on my side 🙂 I will restate my 8th question to make it more clear: How do you make the habits stick? Or in other words: how to you motivate yourself to persist in doing some habit? What makes you do it day after day afer day and persist in that habit? 🙂

  47. Hi Geir,
    Thank you for your previous answers -it was very inspirative for me.Thank you for your willingness to anwer my questions. I am here with new answers that interest me:

    1.How would you describe the true native state of a spirit in a few words or sentences?
    2.Do you think that there exist something like God? How do you understand the meaning of 8D?
    3.What do you think is the most direct and simplest way of rehabilitating the postulating ability?
    4.How do you understand the sentence that a person is indeed a highest truth?
    5.What mental exercises are you practising on a daily basis? What one of them have the greatest impact?
    6.Do you think that there is an eternity before us or that there will be the end of the existence?
    7.Have you ever had some personal experiences of the parallel universes?
    8.If you had the garancy of fullfilment of ANY your wish, what wish would you have?
    9.What would you advice yourself if you travel through time and you meet yourself 20 years old?
    10.Do you think could be the consequences if you help or save someone on the one side, but you limit his free will and determinism at some degree?

    Enjoy the questions. I believe they could inspire you in some way. I am looking forward to your inspirative and interesting answers. Thank you very much for them. 🙂

    1. I would like to add one more question: what do you think is the basic cause why a person starts and is sabotaging his unlimited potential? 🙂

    2. 1. Cause
      2. Yes, Cause.
      3. Decide. Then do. And lots of it. It’s similar to exercizing a muscle.
      4. Doing stuff I love. Self-reflecting on any non-optimum handling by myself and correcting as I see fit. Basically being a good feedback loop 🙂
      6. There is now. And only now.
      7. Nope.
      8. Ability to exteriorize with full perceptions at will.
      9. To be the best feedback loop I can be.
      10. There are short term handlings that are needed that can limit free will. When doing such handlings, just make sure you restore the person’s ability to exercize his free will again.

      Inspiration received.

  48. Hi Geir,
    Thank you for your previous answers -it was very inspirative for me.Thank you also for your willingness to anwer my questions. These are the next inspirative questions:

    1.How much pan-determined do you feel yourself most of the time?
    2.What do you consider as the most important factor in your previous recruitment work (97,5%) ?
    3.What do you think is the most valuable personal trait which the person should improve in life?
    4.What spiritual or mental process that you were doing have you enjoyed the most?
    5.What identity is the most characteristic for you now?
    6.What triangle (for example ARC, KRC) do you consider as the most important and most useful?
    7.What do you think is the most wide-spread limiting belief in the mind of people nowadays?
    8.What was the greatest effect that you caused in your whole life?
    9.What do you think is the highest purpose in the universe we all live?
    10.What do you wish for the whole humanity the most?

    Enjoy the questions. I believe they could inspire you in some ways. I am looking forward to your inspirative and cool answers. Thank you very much for them. 🙂

    1. One more question: do you think that the existence was created once upon a timeor that it just is now at the present moment and was indeed never created and will be never uncreated? 🙂

    2. 1. About 43.2%
      2. Checking the candidates previous results – actual value created in previous positions
      3. Ability to love
      4. TR 0, OT 7
      5. Being unfuckwithable
      6. Purpose – Ability – Opportunity (see my article, “Processes, Automation and Human Potential)
      7. “I can’t do that”
      8. My 4 sons
      9. To play the game – for enjoyment
      10. Fun

  49. Hi Geir,

    Do you think that something like this is indeed possible or it is only a fake video?

    Thank you very much for your oponion on that.

  50. Hi Geir,

    I have a life-gamification question for you today:

    Have you ever created a skill-tree system that you was apllying into your own life? 🙂

      1. It is a tree-like diagram used for example in RPG games that contain the skills that can be improved and it includes also the info about the conditionality of some skills (for example writing skills can be developed only after some level of basic language skills). It could look something like this: https://www.google.sk/search?biw=1366&bih=662&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=skill+tree+&oq=skill+tree+&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i19k1l4.3884.4043.0.4363.….0…1.1.64.psy-ab..0.2.258…0i5i30i19k1.4moJHEmKxDc#imgrc=VwYLvsOFBnqYRM:


Have your say

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s