Here’s another one in the “Fuck it!” series.
My good old friend Mårten Runow (OT 8 still in the Church of Scientology) once said to me: “The good thing about non-scientologists is that they don’t know that they have a reactive mind they can dramatize).“. What got me thinking about that quote was an excellent comment from Spyros:
“I thought it could be useful to have a book or books that contain SCN stuff that don’t require a line of trainning to be applied. I thought stuff like study tech and assist in particular, would match this criteria. And then, I got a cog: Ever since I stopped considering study tech -the misunderstood word(s) phenomena in particular- I stopped having that phenomena. I can read a text and see a word that I don’t quite grasp and continue reading and have no problem with the rest of the text at all! No blankness, no wondering about it, no tendecy to blow etc. I’m sure Ron knew about this. Actually it is mentioned in an instance somewhere in Student Hat. But not much stress is put on it. If I wanted to relay something from SCN to the broad public, that would be something like “if you want to have a problem, consider that it exists –or that it can potentialy exist!”. Want to have a reactive mind? Consider that there is one….then to make it even more real, try to resolve it (counter-create it)”
And I believe there is a great deal of truth to this. Chill.
227 thoughts on “Create the problem… or chill”
You wrote: The good thing about non-scientologists is that they don’t know that they have a reactive mind they can dramatize.
Does this mean that you actually do believe that the reactive mind is dramatized KNOWINGLY??? If so, this violates the definition of the reactive (or subconscious) mind.. Please explain… and of course chill…like the icebear… but you’ll get a cold ass…
Good question, Per, especially since it is pretty easy to observe instances where people react quite irrationally – and some of them even observe it for themselves and state explicitly that it as a reaction they cannot control.
In addition, it is not difficult to find people who no longer have the specific reactions they once had before getting auditing.
Isn’t it so that when you get to the point of knowing that you create you own ractive mind that you then stop doing it? I just can’t see how one can KNOWINGLY dramatize a (subconscious) reactive mind. Please explain this Geir…
Isn’t it so, that according to LRH, one started to mock up the reactive mind somewhere along the track. Why then, could that point in time not be when he started to read DMSMH?
Geir: I don’t know how you use these words. A Mock-Up is a technical term which is a KNOWINGLY created mental image picture and is NOT part of the bank. Would you like to answer my question?
NB: God Påske…!!!
I am still looking forward to your answer.
I think people mock up lots of things unknowingly, semi-knowingly and knowingly. We may perhaps as well use another word. Let’s use Create, instead.
Thanks Geir, maybe I misunderstood your intention but your words talked about mocking up a reactive mind. You see???
Exactly. – Mike
Said to this:
“Isn’t it so, that according to LRH, one started to mock up the reactive mind somewhere along the track. Why then, could that point in time not be when he started to read DMSMH?”
That post of mine and Geir’s didn’t imply that people didn’t benefit from auditing. We agreed that before one can handle a problem, he has to put it there. So, he can also not put it there.
People that act reactively can do so if they think that they are like their father, or that they have something with their nerves or demons make them do it or whatever. If they knew that they did it themselves to themselves, they would have it under control.
It is also possible to mock up ‘unknowns’ and hidden and semi hidden things about yourself –including memories.
love it ! reminds me about cleaning a clean 🙂
Wow. Yes. So, if you have a person that is “well and happy”, do not get him to do NED. If you have a person that can communicate with anyone on any subject, do not get him onto Grade 0. It is a major cleaning a clean.
It is similar to asking a professinal golfer how he hits the ball? It gets the guy interiorized into the mechanics of it and then he can’t do it anymore. Or at least is can happen that way. Some golfers would keep smashing them fine.
Yeah, it can surely happen so! The mind starts to interpret, use labels and the golfer gets
involved with the thinking process instead of looking at and hitting the ball…
This begs the question whether it is really such a great idea to become a fully trained auditor in order to go up the Bridge…
“This begs the question whether it is really such a great idea to become a fully trained auditor in order to go up the Bridge”. Good question. The way I see it is the other way round…that one has to be at least Theta Clear to be able to ask the PC a question naturally in a pure-clear space. The RIGHT question…and here comes your processes article into the picture. What do you think?
Oh yes, that would be useful for that database that I mentioned before –which level of which Bridge can make a theta clear?
I think it is the way as you said. No matter if in auditing, study or else, One need not wonder feeling suddenly stupid with something where you felt good with in the first place.
Oh yes. “Don’t fix it unless it’s broken”, otherwise you’d be “cleaning the clean”.
My entire bridge was a cleaning-a-clean experience.
If it ain’t broke don’t fix it.
Thank you, Annegreth, for your ingenious comment.
Wonderful! Finding the potential of potentials?
Thanks, Marianne. 🙂
Re your question: Huh?
It has been clean all along. It has been a potential for infinite creations all along. Creations are potential creations as they arise from free will which has been free all along. One just cognites that and “case” is over. This is how I meant this. Does it make sense now?
Great, I concur 🙂
This has mostly happened to me too. The good thing was I figured out to avoid the confusions as I told myself that it is BS … at least for me in that time and drew back.
“reminds me about cleaning the clean”
I train would-be teachers. The first thing I tell the trainee is that I know that s/he already has the best grade for the outcome of the training. The trainee usually looks at me and asks how that is….and comes up with loads of past examples how s/he saw others teaching…successful and unsuccessful attempts…at some point the recalling stops and right after that an original idea is born what and how the trainee will do…from then on the person is in the “driver’s seat”…runs his/her own processing..creates or finds the tools and gets the best grade! I usually get some flower or chocolate…both of which I love!
Love the icebear picture!
Amazing… I mean your method, I’m not that fond of neither flowers nor chocolate and even that I like the icebear’s position, I still wouldn’t call it amazing.
HaHa… I usually put the flower on my desk in the staff-room and eat the chocolate with my workmates. It’s a fairly simple thing indeed, with my students too who also have the best grades or one grade lower in some cases. Students love running their own learning. I also tell them that I want them to “get rid of” me as soon as possible, so they need to speed up.
And they do. And come to class earlier and stay…the private ones also.
Profant….I really know that they know…and can….and I just watch and wait…nothing can work better and be more fun than when a person’s creative ability starts to operate. Is it trust? Looks to be. As for the icebear’s position, there are other parts of life and there are other positions too!
To be amazing, things don’t have to be complicated 🙂 Yes, I agree that consulting creativity of the students is the right thing to do. But one doesn’t see that very often in everyday life. Anyway, I must care to employ this aspect into my graphical organization of study.
You see, this is the value of talking about it here on the blog. I just reminded ! you of what you initially knew and could do by giving an example….it can’t be otherwise as you say you will employ it….who cares that we don’t see it in everyday life? You and I and those who are here can bring about change! Next time you remind me of something! It is CARE. Wow! Yes, it is. Thanks for talking with me!
Marianne: Students love running their own learning.
Chris: Enjoyed this post and kudos for sage advice. My wife and I were discussing one of our children’s overwrought teachers this evening and trying to understand what would help her chill.
I think that it depends. I remember being a boy knowing nothing about scientology and reading books of Jules Verne, for example. Although they had been translated into my native language, they still contained difficult words for a schoolboy. Later when I read them again, I discovered new parts I couldn’t remember reading before. I think that those had been the blank spots and I got those words defined in between.
What I can say about my application of the study tech in studying scientology is that my effort to be a good scientologist and clear everything as demanded cost me a lot of time.
I think that the primary problem with the study tech is not following the “don’t fix it unless it’s broken” rule. To me it infers – let the person skip MUs (except key definitions) if he otherwise duplicates what he reads / hears and can work with it. If he can’t work something out or has a wrong idea about it or can’t remember reading a page in his materials, then make him look for his MUs until the situation is OK.
The greatest problem that I’ve had with studying was to be forced to study things I never cared to learn –that is to say most than 80% of the stuff I learned at school. That wasn’t learning, that was imprisonement. If somebody thinks that mechanics and ethics are above self-determinism in importance, please open a book (not you in particular, profant. Just saying…)
Other than that, if I really wanted to read something, one way or another, I would read it.
The notion that I had trouble at school because of study tech alone is science fiction to me 😛
I had the same problem mainly at grammar school. I was interested in most of the things taught at elementary school. I don’t know why and I didn’t know the study tech yet 🙂
Profant: “What I can say about my application of the study tech in studying scientology is that my effort to be a good scientologist and clear everything as demanded cost me a lot of time.”
Yes, and a waste of time is just part of the ill effects. One of my biggest pet peeves was the rigid thinking that was applied to word clearing – where, for example, you had to clear words in the Remimeo section with way-out-gradient definitions in the Admin Dictionary, even though right on the study tapes is the data about evaluation of information. And LRH clearly states that if you do get MU phenomena by not clearing every word, all you need to do is go back and find the word, say “Yeah, that’s a word I don’t know” and that will handle it. And you can go right on reading. Spiros also mentioned that this piece of tech was in a study tape but that it wasn’t applied. So true.
I’ve seen students in Scn courses MADE into bad students who once could study just fine! This is one of those things that occur because either the tech terminals do not have a full grasp of the tech as a whole and/or the “powers that be” force a literal interpretation of certain pieces of tech as they themselves do not have conceptual understanding of the whole.
…and the pic reminds me of myself…most of the time 😛
The pic is me right now 😉
Now you’re talking! 😛 😉
Hurray!!! Geir has been talking for some time!!!! And his artwork talks a lot too!
If you think that there is something that you don’t create and it is being created by itself, you can stop creating that as well. You can read the about this ‘cycle of action’ in ‘the fundamentals of thought’ –so as to speak in Scientologese.
I got much much much more reactive mind after reading Dianetics –stuff I never had before. I stopped myself like that. from doing things, and I restimulated myself Prior to Dianetics I also had considerations about parts of myself that I didn’t have full control over. Parts that were below my consciousness. What is I didn’t have such considerations?
“What is”=What if
It’s one thing to audit to handle something unwanted, for negative gains. It’s an entirely different thing to audit in order to increase abilities or to create new abilities.. there you will not be cleaning cleans…
Has anybody noticed psychiatrists being extraordinarily nervous, anarchists feeling suppressed, uptone Scientologists being very sensitive to the down-tone-ness of others, christians being afraid of satanic things and the list goes on and on…? Who creates those situations for them?
I got declared an SP somewhat recently in the COS and I wasn’t aware of it. Anyway, I contacted a friend SCNists of mine (she didn’t know I’m ‘SP’. They don’t announce it anymore, unless they have to, to avoid unecessary legal trouble) and we were talking just fine and we were friendly to each other etc. And at some point I told her to check my status in the COS because I didn’t want them to interfere with us in the future. And she found out that I am ‘SP’ by the COS, and while thinking about it, she felt sick!! She created herself as PTS! And she was happily chatting with me, prior to that.
Alanzo has been on to this for a while also. I believe one can create any ology or religion by first presuppose the existance of some unwanted condition and then go ahead and forge an elaborate handling for it. That is precisely why I advocate to ONLY go by what the person wants to achieve rather than the very folly approach by LRH where he presupposes What You Need and already know how to fix what he sees as You.
Your BT’s are suppressive! 🙂
… and psychiatry has been doing this for decades – to come up with all kinds of unwanted conditions you are supposed to have because you are not “normal” and need fixing.
Yes, agree. And LRH had people put there problems as well and then put them to handle them.
What I disagree with Al over, is that in SCN one can (potentially) as-is. And if he puts there a problem due to SCN, he can as-is that too. It is bad when somebody creates problems that he doesn’t have in the first place to handle, but I think that is done outside of SCN too, so I can justify it ONLY if way goes all the way through and as-ises EVERYTHING. If one just creates problems, and doesn’t fully handle them, better ‘fuck it!’ 😛 go on vacations instead. So, it is VERY important that Standard Tech does not as-is EVERYTHING, or am I wrong? Why all this worrying about SCN if everything is as-ised? Why get victimised by the COS and lose friends and family etc? This is a disaster. The COS with it’s tech creates more than it as-ises….from my point of percepton.
My view: As-isness is a fact. It can solve any problem. This is the nature of creation and what we see hints of in Quantum Mechanics. And as the person is able to cease to create, he can obviously also create. And people are creating problems and issues continuously – in fact we are experts in it. And a person doesn’t need much nedging or suggestions to start creating new issues – like a reactive mind, an MU phenomena, “mathematics disorder”, PTS-ness, “breaking rules disorder” or anything concocted by any person seeking to sell a solution.
Yes, I fully agree
Wow Geir! Glad you speak about it so clearly and in simple terms! Very enlightening!
“As-isness is a fact. It can solve any problem. This is the nature of creation and what we see hints of in Quantum Mechanics.”
Then why were’nt you interested in the the attempts of some of us (me, Marianne, 2ndxmr, Chris, and whoever else) to discuss QM and the nature of creation? In that thread you expressed your doubt about such a discussion arriving at a better understanding of Scientology (I can’t recall the exact wording) and then you proceeded to quickly post a new blog post about Scn – effectively cutting off the discussion by so doing. And you continue to write posts about Scientology in spite of your “shift in viewpoint”.
I blog about whatever grabs my attention. QM hasn’t done that quite yet. You have instead inspired me in many other ways.
Then you must have changed your mind. I recall at least as far back as a couple years ago how keenly interested in QM you were. And it was key to the viewpoint you expressed in your article “On Will”, which you wrote not that many months ago.
It’s about what grabs my attention in the here and now – sufficiently to write a blog post about it. I am very much interested in QM and read about it weekly. But not enough urge to crank out a blog post just yet.
isene: My view: As-isness is a fact. It can solve any problem.
I’ll jump in here with how F**kit helped me as-is a banking situation I was enduring. I was told how much longer I would have to wait for this long incomplete filled with errors cycle. After watching the videos of the f**kit series and having ordered the book, I came to that conclusion and immediately called, faxed and handled it faster and thoroughly. It was like f**kit, I’m not waiting, get it done by the fastest method.
So this new therapy 🙂 is working for me and look forward to using it often. Thanks Isene.
De; Wooohhhaa! Our first Success Story!! 😉
Isene: Our first Success Story!! 😉
I was thinking that afterwards and glad you said it! Yes!
I have to laugh because I know all the other thoughts to work with, looking at, then letting go etc, but still being effect somewhat. The f**kit just seems to work better for me. Not the meaning I previously had for the saying, like forget about it, but f**it, I’m taking charge! That is a shift of sorts.
“come up with all kinds of unwanted conditions you are supposed to have because you are not “normal” and need fixing.”
I remember telling you this (basically about the fact that no-one is broken or needing fixing) way back when on your forum, (2010?) and you arguing with me about it.
I’m glad to see you.
Virginia (using Mike’s account)
A Bridge that leaves one without handling everything, is not partial help. It is betrayal. You are asked to consider all those problems over all Dynamics and then you are blackmailed to wait for God COB to decide to give you the Bridge that you need. Even LRH had said that the road to truth is a dangerous one, and a person must travel it all the way. Is it done?
Great Point, Spyros –
I believe that much of the “case” that Hubbard discusses, with all their symptoms, work as positive suggestions for Scientologists to dramatize.
Why list out all the “symptoms” (feelings) for “MUs”, “out-gradients” and “lack of mass”, for instance?
Why tell Scientologists that an “out-list” or a “wrong item” can be one of the nastiest case manifestations?
Because it gets you to create a “case” for yourself. And then to dramatize that case on yourself, which makes you more dependent on Scientology to handle it for you.
Hypnosis is not becoming more “unconscious”, as Hubbard said. It is concentrating all your attention on to ONE ITEM to the exclusion of all else in the room or the environment.
While in this state, a person becomes hyper-aware of one item to the exclusion of all others. And that one item can penetrate so deeply into the person’s mind that the person looks up and sees the whole world, and themselves, differently. Thus, hypnotic and trance states can produce profound changes in a person’s life, and can be some of the most therapeutic states for human beings.
Meditation, prayer, reading an “absorbing” book, etc. all bring about hypnotic or trance states in human beings. These states have the characteristic of “lost time”, like you get up and look around and say “Wow, where was I?” “How much time went by?”
They are very common states for human beings. The state of IN SESSION is a hypnotic state. TRs are used to produce that state in the pc.
But while in this state, a person can pick up other items which he was not aware of, being focused onto one item and ignoring the rest. He can believe that these other items which snuck in there were thought up by him – when they weren’t. They got in to his mind while he was distracted. He mis-owns these other items and thinks that HE thought them up.
This is how Scientologists come to have a “reactive mind” that is very very real to them. This is how you come to have “body thetans”, and “engrams” and “secondaries” and even “locks” and all the feelings and other manifestations that tell you you have them.
This is how you come to dramatize Scientology, and become completely trapped in it.
The way to untrap yourself, is to question critically, spot “source” on these things, re-read and re-listen to Hubbard but this time with a very critical eye, and never let a datum go past without questioning it thoroughly.
Some people don’t want to untrap themselves from Scientology. It gives them good feelings, too. And they don’t want those to go away.
I have a friend who has re-listened to every tape from 1950 all the way through to the OEC/FEBC. This time through though, he did not consider that he was being spoon fed the secrets to the universe. He considered that “here was this guy who was presenting me with ideas, and I’ll be the judge of whether they are true or not”.
He is no longer a Scientologist. And he does not have a “reactive mind” or any type of “case” any more.
Alanzo: He is no longer a Scientologist. And he does not have a “reactive mind” or any type of “case” any more.
Chris: Another hard hitting post. I want to ask about this guy whether he has what he would consider non-optimum emotional feelings or reactions to his environment. Does he kick the cat when he is angry? Can you fill in any of this?
He is now stuck with his “own” problems, not ones given to him to dramatize by LRH.
This is actually a step up.
Many of the “ruins” a person came in to Scientology with never get handled. And almost all of the issues that a person originally got involved in Scientology to handle remain with them after they leave.
This is because, in my opinion, Scientology sets up its own problems in people, and that is what it addresses. This has been noted by many people who have gotten real therapy after being in Scientology for many years.
Alanzo: This is because, in my opinion, Scientology sets up its own problems in people, and that is what it addresses. This has been noted by many people who have gotten real therapy after being in Scientology for many years.
Chris: I can vouch for this phenomena. I never came anywhere close to handling my “ruin” (hated that word as rank evaluation and invalidation) until lately — 20 years out of Scientology. I took on the problems described by The Bridge to Total Freedom and then went about addressing those. I was always pleased with my auditing. I always “won” but never or maybe rarely in an expected way. I came to think that getting something out of my sessions other than any pre-conceived expectation was just a phenomena of the mind rather than evidence that something other than what I was being told was going on was going on. Now I’ve realized that this is what I call the “counterintuitive result” and today it is a tool that I use to watch for unexpected solutions to problems that come from moments of insight rather than logic.
Excellent post Alanzo. I certainly can relate to reading the tech at home and becoming more critical as I went along. I was familiar with reading and taking what I wanted, and did so with his tech too. That was when I started to see the contradictory statements. An example of this is where he ridiculed people who wear glasses, on and on, and came up with different methods of fixing it, in different lectures and I guess none worked.
Hi al. Funny how we seemed to disagree and now we agree.
I only have two small things I disagree with. First that the definition that you give to hypnotism, was given by LRH too (fixture on something). Actually he said that the whole MEST universe is something of this sort, for a person. The other thing is that as-isness is ONLY when one is creating something himself and he is knowing it. If he is not creating it (as in the concept of the subconscious ming) then that is alter-isness. The subconscious either in SCN or in psychology is a trap concept because it says that you are creating something that you are not aware of. It is alter-isness. You are creating it the moment you get that idea, only.
I have adopted a habit of not thinking with Scientology at all. I don’t think with terms like “as-isness”, or even “reactive mind” or “analytical mind”.
I have found that these concepts are attached to a trap apparatus that I simply do not allow myself to hang on to in any way any more.
I look to brain science and Buddhism and many other subjects, and I pick and choose the ones I like from a big smorgasboard, and I fashion them together in my own way now, trying not even to think of them with words.
Any ideology is a fixed and limited thing. And I do not believe I live in a fixed and limited universe any more. So I try to break down thinking patterns and reshape them as much as I can now. I try to throw away words and look directly at the thing the word is trying to explain. I usually find that a word doesn’t explain the thing very well at all.
I see the mind as a beginningless river of shit, mostly, with no golden nuggets in it. I don’t go down there any more looking for anything valuable. In fact, I spend a part of each day trying to look at things without my mind at all. I hope to get better and better at that.
I only use Scientologese in this blog too, because I know others speak it, and rarely with some other SCNists too. I don’t really have any close SCN friends where I live 😛
Yeah I understand what you mean, though I don’t understand why you left the SCN trap to get into the neuroscience trap 😛
The cruelest hypnotic implant in Scientology is the “No Interference Zone” where you could die if you are exposed to the OT levels before you are “ready”. This was intentionally designed to implant a phobia, a horrifying terror that you could die.
It was done to Scientologists very intentionally by L Ron Hubbard. And it is a manifestation of who Hubbard became as he had run his cult for 17 years (by 1967).
This is an important thing to look at regarding the nature of L Ron Hubbard and what he was actually doing to people with Scientology.
Scientology was not healthy for L Ron Hubbard. A lot of other people didn’t do so well with it, either.
I dont know much about it. But the idea that whoever knows OT materials dies, is COS propaganda…probably to scare independents. Hubbard just described what the implant contained.
I know first hand that confidential stuff that pertain to Clear, are not really confidential, as they were mentioned beforehand in other issues. Obviously the Church doesn’t want people to know that the reactive mind is a mere imagination that is altered over and over by considering it real and then you fight against it too!
From Ron’s Journal 67:
Click to access scientology-rons-journal-wall-of-fire-transcript.pdf
I’m afraid this is L Ron Hubbard, all the way, Spyros.
You sort of got me on that –but notice the past tense.
In my own estimation, LRH wouldn’t leave any dangerous stuff to COB and his likes.
It’s not dangerous, Spyros. Nothing about the mind is.
The idea that it is dangerous was LRH’s implant.
If you know that you mock up, imagine, consider, think up your reactive mind, why get into Dianetics in the first place???
Is this question for me?
If so my answer is that I was totally fooled by Dianetics. I mocked up the whole thing right on Hubbard’s cue. But I figured it out, with the help of a lot of other people.
It’s just a rhetorical question 😛 but good to know 🙂
The most amazing process I ever did in Scientology was on a life repair. It was off-meter, in a shopping center full of people. The auditor pointed to a person, and said alternately, get the idea that person is beautiful, get the idea that person is ugly. (the wording might not be exact but you get the idea.)
Those people would change before my very eyes! And all I did was change my idea about them. I was amazed at how total the shifts were from one attitude to the other. That day I learned that beauty really is in the eye of the beholder, and ugliness too.
I tried it out on everything after that, with all kinds of different attitudes. Just get the idea that [fill in the blank.] is [fill in the blank.] I wasn’t actually doing any auditing but once I was aware of what I was doing and that I could do this differently, well, I would just find myself doing this in all kinds of circumstances.
A couple of years ago I extended the use of this idea. I discovered several things about it. The first thing I found is that I could shift very entrenched habitual behaviors simply by repetitively focusing on whatever attitude I wanted to cultivate and deliberately creating them over and over. I found that if I kept up on this for 3 -4 weeks, the new idea became a habitual pattern of behavior, completely replacing the old one. I learned that by doing so, I shifted into an entirely different set of circumstances as well because the people around me also began to respond very differently to me and they shifted too. I wondered if I had hypnotized myself but concluded that I had not. This was definitely more akin to getting out there and practicing driving a car until it becomes “second nature.” Also, the old behavior wasn’t gone, it just wasn’t the immediate or “normal” response. I could still choose the knee-jerk response, and in some instances it was the right response.
I was always reluctant about the described problems associate with having MUs, because I had been an avid reader from the time I was a toddler and I guarantee you I had a gazillion MUs by the time I learned about MUs. It didn’t deter me from reading or learning at all. Nor did it produce antipathy to reading and learning. In non-fiction reading I learned the knack of focusing on what was important right away. The school textbooks were very helpful, they always put end of chapter questions in the books. So I read the end of chapter questions first and then read until I found the answers in the textbook. Backwards, but it saves a lot of concern.
When I first got into computer technology work, there were no dictionaries. NONE. NADA. Entire languages without definitions! It was read it, do it, see what happens. I found myself down at the machine level of programming trying to understand what the hell I was doing. Several languages later I learned that there are only so many things you can do with a computer language and only so many functions that a computer can do. Each language has its own words and approach to the same core functions. There are even generations of languages, languages built on languages and functions built on functions. Many of the new words in this area are marketing terms — they sound sexy, but they are mainly just cute and memorable descriptions for a variation on a core function. The same is true for the English language.
But I did love word clearing. I still do. Especially now that there is a really great etymology dictionary online. These days I clear the words down to the ground of their essence. Very rewarding for me. Now I am working on the symbols that the words stand for. There is truth to the idea of a misunderstood or not understood as something antipathetic. But what I mainly find is that I tend to approach new things (symbols) with some diffidence — I don’t really know what they do or how they behave so I am a little more cautious in working with them. I definitely learned in computer programming that if you have a misunderstood, that process absolutely will not perform as expected. Sometimes, even if you understand it, it still won’t perform as expected because it is a “bug” in the program– i.e. just plain well doesn’t work. All programming languages have lists of “known bugs.” Part of programming expertly is knowing what the “known bugs” are so you don’t spend precious time trying to work with them. Other subjects have that too. They just don’t have thousands of programmers working to list the “known bugs.”
There is most definitely a point to that (original post). I have, many times, seen people who are sympathy-seekers, “victim” types, etc., study some amount of Dianetics or Scientology material and then go into rather off-putting dramatizations that they assign to some type of case described in the materials- I have literally heard one person, decades ago, for example, who was highly irrational, go into melodramatics about her “restimulated prenatal engrams”, many people whining about currently being the victim of “I’m so keyed in, because you just gave me a wrong indication” (duh, if you know its wrong, and thus haven’t accepted it as being true, how can you say you’ve been affected by it?), “stop evaluating/invalidating me” (again, if you are aware that it IS “inval/eval”, than how do you claim this is having some effect on you?), and more. Of course, what is actually occurring is that, given an entire body of new “emotional ailments”, the person is using this material in order to defend/protect theirself against someone or something, to avoid experiencing or being responsible for something, to have an excuse for something, in short, to be a mental health hypochondriac. They will take the agreement that there are such conditions and try to manipulate others with these for desired effect- sympathy, special dispensations for irrational/irresponsible behavior, whatever. I have also often seen people attribute things about themselves to their “OT III case” or their “OT case”, having no idea what the material of the OT levels consists of, as a way of assigning especially formidable power to their considered or assigned aberrations, perhaps because they simply hadn’t been run on a process that actually would address and unburden or resolve some issue that was a problem for them, and still persisting- “I can never get out of bed in the morning, and I just know its my OT III case”. That can excuse the person from confronting things they find difficult, because it comes from “such powerful case”.
It reminds me of an old-time baseball coach who talked about how pitchers lasted the entire 9 innings of most games they started, and pitched over 300 innings a year, “before they discovered rotator cuffs”. 🙂
@ Dexter, Hear, here! You got that down. 🙂
Excellent comment. And very to the OP.
I don’t really understand your post. Are you blaming someone for dramatizing Scientology after they have been prompted to dramatize Scientology?
If you’ll notice, in each of these cases you listed, you could have put them straight about their “OT Level Case”, for instance, by telling them that the OT Level case does not address what they think it is doing to them.
But that would be evaluation of their case, right?
So their dependence on their auditor, and on Scientology, remains in force.
Hey there, Alanzo 🙂 I’m not saying that there haven’t been cases of people being “prompted to dramatize Scientology”, but that is not what I’m referring to, so much as the fact of some people’s tendencies to seize onto the idea of “being heavily restimulated” into what they understand or fancy some particular case phenomena to be, the way a hypochondriac seeks out and reads about a deadly disease, and decides that he is suffering from it. The more exotic the disease, the more dramatic and attention-getting, and the more intriguing the case material, the more “interesting” and attention-getting it is presentable as.
And how is what you are referring to different from someone who believes they have a “Scientology case”, as prescribed by the “Bridge to Total Freedom” that they have been reading about and accepting as their own?
I’m not sure you get my point, Al. Not every Scientologist for whom the “standard tech” paradigm resonates frequently obsesses on and acts out their fancied “case”, like a hypochondriac does with fancied illnesses, but some do.
I attended several Book 1 seminars as a helper where brand new book 1 auditors brought friends or family members for their practical section of the seminar. Those people had not been taught anything about the reactive mind — they found incidents to run without being coached on what a reactive mind was. Some of the incidents were quite hair raising, and a few ran into past lives incidents. My own preclear went back to a past life incident and she knew nothing about Dianetics — and I mean nothing. No problems finding or running the incident and she did experience considerable relief, and also figured out why she always wanted to decorate her house Spanish style. She also expressed astonishment over finding herself dying in the Spanish civil war — told me that this was amazing but it was just like any other memory she`d ever had. During the session I offered no suggestions at all as to what she might be seeing or experiencing. i.e. no leading questions. I`ve known this person for years and believe me, she`s no history buff and she was a very conservative protestant housewife all her life. After the session I went to the library to check and see if there was even such a war. Yep. The date she said she died in that previous life incident was just a few days before she was born. All this from `the file clerk will now find…`
Maria: All this from `the file clerk will now find…`
Chris: I have been not talking about my own past life recalls, but your post has made them present to the front of my thoughts. I do not think the Scientology concept of “thetan with a mind, body, & product” is laid out quite right nor is that of memory.
When my 15 year old Aussie sheep dog was 6 months old, I let her out into a 40 acre parcel with 200 grazing sheep. Unsure but curious and without training or direction from me, she nevertheless was drawn to those sheep and within a very few minutes was circling and packing them into a shoulder to shoulder group. “Bred” for generations to do just such an activity, the societal “group think” is to toss out a word like “instinct” (which if you look at it can be seen to be a tautology) and to consider the matter explained. I don’t agree with this view.
I am leaning toward a more amalgamated concept of the “memory of man” — of all biology if you will — rather than of thetans. The reason I don’t care for thetans-concept is that sometimes thetans are spirits, sometimes individuals, sometimes mind, sometimes nothing. Thetans are for me a fall back position to culture rather than taking a fresh approach and view of existence. And an amalgamated and biological memory can help account for why “individuals” remember “being” the same person in history, much as we see what each other sees in present time.
If the programming code within us can remember which color to make our hair, can it not also remember that we used to be Julius Ceasar?
I really wasn`t speaking to the efficacy of the model at all. I was speaking to the existence of particular phenomena regardless of what you call it or how you model or map it. You can call it racial memory, trauma, akashic records, or anything you want to. I was merely pointing out that memory, recall, mental visions etc., exist whether anyone explains it or not and whether anyone explains it badly or with the most piercing truth.
People manifest emotions. Certain emotions are uncomfortable, others are pleasant or even enjoyable. So far no one can tell me exactly what they are made of or how they arise but they surely arise. There is no need for a primer on emotions for them to exist!
Mental image pictures are another. I can call them imagination, dreams, visions, doesn`t matter. Almost every person I know can see them or has seen them, I don`t know anyone who doesn`t dream at least once in a while throughout the course of sleeping. Ask someone to visualize a cat. I really haven`t met anyone outside of a hospital or in a state of severe impairment or illness that can`t do that. I don`t have to teach them how to do it. I just ask them to think of cat, and what do you know, they see a cat and the cat they see is always different from another person`s seen cat.
Memory as a function. This one`s a no-brainer. Depth and clarity of memory vary, and there are people who have what most consider to be an impaired function. Loss of memory is generally considered to be catastrophic.
Sense of continuity of experience, or (the often maligned) self is a common experience, so common that I am sure it is the most used word in the language — I, me, mine, myself, and don`t forget my name. And the dog is my dog, and it is the same dog today as it was yesterday in terms of being THAT dog and not some other dog. Ask a person to imagine themselves as non-existent, gone, no longer and the distress and antipathy to this idea is obvious.
Talking to ease discomfort. I find that someone who has lost a loved one or has been in some kind of physically damaging incident like an operation or illness will often try to talk about it. Over and over and over again. My theory is that they instinctively are trying to exhaust the pain of the memory. I think the people brought to that seminar dived in the way they did because that is what they tend to do anyway — its just that under normal circumstances people shut them — mostly because they get tired of hearing the same story over and over again!
We can argue maps and definitions and the theories of how and the why all day long and the things above continue to show up no matter how often we change our theories about these things.
The only thing I was speaking to was Alanzo`s theory. It sounded to me like he was saying that if no one was taught about the reactive mind, then there would be nothing for auditor`s to audit because the only reason people could access past incidents is because the person was taught to put them there. This does not align with my own personal observations as outlined above.
Maria: Ask a person to imagine themselves as non-existent, gone, no longer and the distress and antipathy to this idea is obvious.
Chris: Those are really good points. I wasn’t trying to speak only to your comments but to these ideas and models of mine that your comments brought to my mind.
It seems to me that the antipathy that you mention toward what amounts to the inevitably consistent and predictable cycle of life must be rooted in a mistaken idea of how life comes and goes. Why should something so very normal, predictable and inevitable evoke so much distress? To fight so hard against what passes for everyone seems unreasonable. Again, I am probably not addressing your comments but only what they make me think of.
Maria: My theory is that they instinctively are trying to exhaust the pain of the memory.
Chris: I think you are right and ceaselessly yammering about it doesn’t particularly seem to exhaust it, so a person must be creating it over again every moment. I am not trying to make light of people’s difficulties, just exploring what is happening.
Maria: The only thing I was speaking to was Alanzo`s theory.. . . This does not align with my own personal observations as outlined above.
Chris: Agreed. But it also seems evident that only some people mock up a reactive mind to match Hubbard’s model. Not everyone does this — confirmed by Hubbard. There can be and are many explanations for the distress of memory.
Yes, Chris, I think it is pretty obvious that they are repetitively re-creating the incident by talking about it over and over again. But they are not doing this because someone told them they had a reactive mind. They are doing it because they are experiencing discomfort, discomfort that is associated with their illness, their accident, their loss. So they go get drugs, they drink booze, they try to forget it all, all of this to try to get relief from the discomfort they are experiencing. And perhaps the most truthful truth is that they experience it because they focus on it, then again, perhaps it is also true that their failure to completely experience it puts it into a state that hangs up for them because they are not completely and thoroughly creating it, bringing it into the realm of realized and deliberate creation.
Maria: I think it is pretty obvious that they are repetitively re-creating the incident by talking about it over and over again. But they are not doing this because someone told them they had a reactive mind.
Chris: Agreed. Yet in my tautological universe, every construct is a construct. Every manifestation is manifested. Alanzo’s reach may be too far to say that we first incept the idea of reactive mind and thereafter dramatize; however, Dexter’s description of hypochondriac symptons which mimic and match Standard Out-Tech seems real self constructed nocebo effect.
Maria: . . . bringing it into the realm of realized and deliberate creation.
Chris: And there may be another explanation similar to thermal runaway which triggered by one reaction creates conditions — out of the control of the individual — where the negative feelings and reactions escalate on their own potential.
Chris: It seems to me that the antipathy that you mention toward what amounts to the inevitably consistent and predictable cycle of life must be rooted in a mistaken idea of how life comes and goes. Why should something so very normal, predictable and inevitable evoke so much distress? To fight so hard against what passes for everyone seems unreasonable
Yes, that is the million dollar question.
All I can tell you is that when I am told that ultimately I will dissolve into absolute nothingness, no presence, no existence, oblivion, total nihilism, blotto, zippo, nada, unknown and unknowable, I feel completely violated, down to the ground and to nowhere. No self, delusory or otherwise, in this or any other universe, not even self as an unconscious ground of being. With that I see absolutely no reason to do anything at all. And really, if that is how it really is, then I see no point in perpetuating this nonsense that passes for living. I have followed that chain all the way to the end of it and at the end of that chain brought me to a state where I cared for nothing and no one, not even me. i.e. no point in continuing this fruitless process.
It has taken me 18 months to undo that adventure and get back to a point where I have any interest at all in anything to do with living this life. Even now, I hear people discussing their goals and I wonder to myself what the point of it is, given that it just ends, totally, one day. I hear people talking about enlightenment and I wonder why they would bother. Who gives a shit whether babies are burned, and animals treated with cruelty and so on. Its just a bad dream and the dream will end and then there is nothing and no reason.
I am sure that there are those who would say that I am just deluded by my ego, or that I am stuck in some construct of self and this very grasping is my roadblock to liberation and that I am stuck in a lie and a delusion and so on and so forth and I just need to face up to the fact that when this delusory self dies that`s it and I will never know what happened anyway so enjoy the moment. In that case, I would rather be immersed in the matrix and not know that it is a matrix. Purple haze sounds good.
BTW this rant has nothing to do with anything you said, I am just taking this as an opportunity to explore, as I expect you are doing with your posts.
Maria: BTW this rant has nothing to do with anything you said, I am just taking this as an opportunity to explore, as I expect you are doing with your posts.
Chris: No, don’t worry, I know that it doesn’t. But powerful stuff nevertheless. I can duplicate and I can think with the blind alley that you describe and I can get it. When I do that, I begin to get the idea that I must be so very arrogant to consider that I’ve thought of all the possibilities and so out of an entire world full of human drama that those or these are the few or only choices left. I’m not writing this very well.
There is balance and there is context and there is focus. Without these, the identity that makes up the self destabilizes and is destroyed. Too little pain seems as problematic as too much pain. Too little and too much pleasure seem equally problematic. Does it matter what happens to these selves? Does it matter that the puppets are composed of sufficient will to be able to choose whether or not to dance in the Great Drama?
Without becoming too morbid, my programming tells me to continue while my underpinning will says, “There is choice.” But the choices for my identity are obviously limited. My mother hopefully lied when she told me I could be anything I wanted. I was never going to be The President nor an astronaut, but someone else can be and finally is. Still not writing this very well.
There is this game that you and I are playing and let’s call it, “How Close To The Truth Of Life Can We Come Without Dissolving The Game?” I think this is the MOST DANGEROUS game within The Game of all. When we go down that sickly sweet dark chocolate alley and gorge ouselves on the fruit of The Tree of Knowledge, we risk all and even if we don’t destroy ourselves in that “erase” tunnel, we yet come away spinning with vertigo and a bellyache from too much sweets.
So are any of the identities saved? And are they remembered? It seems so, doesn’t it? But like characters in a play, after the performance, the costumes are hung in the closet and life goes on. I still didn’t write any of that very well.
Chris, thank you for that. You summed it up with – and life goes on. I finally found this, which explains a great deal to me at least:
I will go so far as to say that to assert the Buddha taught egolessness is extra-Buddhist. Buddhist egolessness is the handiwork of latter day, 20th century Buddhists. Here is an example of D.T. Suzuki using this term which should actually be rendered “insubstantiality”—certainly not egolessness.
“Buddhists generally talk about the egolessness (ANATTA or ANATYMYA) of all things, but they forget that the egolessness of things cannot really be understood until they are seen with the eye of prajña-intuition. The psychological annihilation of an ego-substance is not enough, for this still leaves the light of prajña-eye under a coverage” (Mysticism, Christian and Buddhist, p. 36).
If we were to substitute ‘egolessness’ for the Pali, ANATTA which is Sanskrit is, ANATMA, it would read like this. By the way, the italics (CAPS) are mine.
“Bhikkhus, form is impermanent; that which is impermanent is suffering; that which is suffering is EGOLESSNESS (anatta); that which is EGOLESSNESS is not mine, I am not that, that is not my EGO. Thus must this be viewed with perfect insight as it really is” (S. iii. 45).
Here is the same passage only this time substituting ‘insubstantiality’.
“Bhikkhus, form is impermanent; that which is impermanent is suffering; that which is suffering is INSUBSTANTIAL (ANATTA); that which is INSUBSTANTIAL is not mine, I am not that, that is not my SUBSTANCE. Thus must this be viewed with perfect insight as it really is” (S. iii. 45).
As the reader can see, the second passage is hardly confusing as compared with the first.
What is being conveyed is the aggregate of form is impermanent, suffering, and insubstantial; these being the three marks of conditioned existence. These marks, in addition, are not to be confused with our substantial self.
Having gone through the exercise of nihilism and found it to be a direction that simply isn`t fruitful, illuminating or in any way helpful, the above article clearly demonstrates the problem with English translators. Ego does not belong in the contemplation of true presence and what I will refer to as true self – it is a limited construct of the mind, an aggregate just as anything else that is manifested in conditioned existence and has no bearing on real presence. Real presence does not die with ego or with any particular manifesting system. There is no annihilation of the real self, which is so often confused with form, the result of conditioning and manifestation.
That works for me.
Maria: That works for me.
Chris: And that is all that will ever be required! Kudos.
Maria: “Having gone through the exercise of nihilism and found it to be a direction that simply isn`t fruitful, illuminating or in any way helpful, the above article clearly demonstrates the problem with English translators. Ego does not belong in the contemplation of true presence and what I will refer to as true self – it is a limited construct of the mind, an aggregate just as anything else that is manifested in conditioned existence and has no bearing on real presence. Real presence does not die with ego or with any particular manifesting system. There is no annihilation of the real self, which is so often confused with form, the result of conditioning and manifestation.”
Chris: Having celebrated Easter this morning, I just found a few minutes to read your rich text above and find it sublime. This is the point where we begin to mince words and I just see no reason to do that as you’ve nailed it as well as it can be nailed in English.
From Alanzo’s link to Quora then scroll down: 7. Epicureanism Epicurus was a rather amazing Greek philosopher, who, through sheer logic, could come to such fundamental conclusions that it took almost 2200 years for science to develop to prove them correct. The basic idea of Epicureanism can be encapsulated by the Tetrapharmakon: Don’t fear god, don’t fear death, what is good is easy to get and pain is easy to endure. Especially in light of the existential fear of death that we as human being tend to generally share, the idea is very simple: when you’re alive, you’re alive, so thinking about your own death is premature and pointless, and when you’re dead, you tend to be too busy being dead to notice it at all.
That’s very cool 🙂
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(τετραφάρμακος), or, “The four-part cure,” is the Greek philosopher Epicurus’ (341 BC, Samos – 270 BC, Athens) recipe for leading the happiest possible life. The “tetrapharmakos” was originally a compound of four drugs (wax, tallow, pitch and resin); the word has been used metaphorically by Epicurus and his disciples to refer to the four remedies for healing the soul. The four-part cure Don’t fear god, Don’t worry about death; What is good is easy to get, and What is terrible is easy to endure (Philodemus, Herculaneum Papyrus, 1005, 4.9-14).
“There is no annihilation of the true self”
I read your discussion with Chris. Kudos from me too….that’s really a tough question…those
18 months you mention, I totally get you.
” When you are alive, you are alive, so thinking about your own death is premature and pointless” yes, so far I agree.
“when you are dead, you tend to be too busy being dead to notice it at all.” Chris, what you are saying here could be a key to how to face death consciously. That is how not to be too busy while experiencing anything else than the process of death itself. I’ll get back to this point.
Being alive…being aware of anything in the here and now can be a big step, kind of witnessing condition in which thoughts, labels can still appear. There is another condition, perceiving, out of which actions arise without a thought first giving a command what to do. To me this second one is closer to the simplicity of being alive. And being more and more conscious. How do you see it?
Perceiving…spontaneous knowing and being able to experience fully. Is it possible when one is dying? I believe, yes. I recall auditing some past deaths when I factually went through the confusion which preceeded the death of my body…conflicts in my mind, which didn’t allow me to fully, consciously experience death itself then. While auditing, I physically experienced in my present body the death of those past bodies…my persent body got more alive and I resolved the confusion of those past lives too. I am saying now that it can be possible to stay conscious during the experience of death. What may be important to mention here is that the ” I ” kind of “found” itself first before alowing myself to go through the experience…there was fear, terror first as an emotion with the consideration ” I will die” now…there was an “ok, I ‘ ll go into it’. That simple OK resulted in the disappearance of the fear…what remained was just the experience.
I don’t know how it was for others during auditing. What I know is, that Adyashanti spoke about it in a similar (not the same, simillar) way, also, he said he had found all the confusions in all his “previous” lives and resolved them…all in an instant. That was his final awakening.
Did you go through a similar experience? How do you see this question of being conscious of all that is happening during and after “death”?
Yeah, this sounds like overt-motivator sequence to me –especially the OT3 and OT7 type of case. Imagine grabing a thetan and squeezing him to give you thoughts and mass and pushing and pulling him and do all sorts of things with him. It’s an overt –that I’ve made 😛 Then I’m ‘victim’ of them being restimulated…poor me huh
I have seen ‘important’ people in SCN encouraging newbies to have this kind of attitude. Actually, they more or less drive them nutty like that. They go like “oh you have a bank and its strong and blah and it is not you talking now, it is your bank talking” and then if that person dramatises they go like “Oh you shouldn’t allow that to happen. You are responsible for it! Stop it! Take control of your bank!” and nonsense like that. SCN is just horrible in the wrong hands. And for the most part I have seen it in the kind of hands I described. Most people just abandon it sooner or later. Mostly the really hardcore SCNists stay, along with and hardcore anti-SCNists. Interesting combination. Two opposing forces of equal magnitude…a problem.
Yes, they don’t do it out of stupidity –the important ones. They do it to control the other person. If you control his bank, you control him, they think. That’s how brainwashers, implanters, call them what you want think. That’s their line of work. It is exactly what psychoscientists said too, with their theories about stimulus responses. And so now one can break free from this system, even without having to invalidate SCN as philosophy, by knowing that those guys wanted him to consider his bank to be very very real and very very solid and very much out of his control. Don’t buy that stuff 🙂
Don’t tell me Ron told people that their bank is solid –he did. But they had been told that before too. They had an effect viewpoint beforehand. And later on LRH said other things. It isn’t just a single time that he changed his approach. He also said (“rehabilitiation of the human spirit” tapes) that he had regretted starting a science (Dianetics) in the first place. So, don’t stick with something he once said, and miss the wider picture. The whole fundamentals of thought book describes how the thetan creates and uses his case willingly by himself onto himself. You never see him being a victim there.
“I can read a text and see a word that I don’t quite grasp and continue reading and have no problem with the rest of the text at all! No blankness, no wondering about it, no tendecy to blow etc.”
So very true and I do that too. so glad you mentioned that. I’ve even faked needed word clearing, just to spend more time talking with someone or having some attention plus the additional points in a class. At home I’ve never had a problem with anything I read and depends on the subjects importance, can skip over words I don’t even know with no problem.
Yes, I experienced too the phenomena when I didn’t have any MUs etc, just because I considered it possible that I might have had an MU. I wanted to learn everything perfectly and I was very careful to not bypass words….being very careful is some freakingly banky attitude!!!!
Spyros: being very careful is some freakingly banky attitude!!!!
I am not one to turn to psychology for advice on the mind, but in this case there is a concept which is relevant to this conversation. We are all familiar with the word placebo as it applies to the field of psychology and medicine, but there is also the concept of a nocebo. The latter is also known as the placebos “evil twin”. Placebo – “I will please”. Nocebo – “I will harm”.
It is well documented that patients given a sugar pill (a placebo) can recover from some serious physical ailments if they believe, for instance, that the pill is some new wonder drug. And this is where the nocebo comes in. People can acquire the symptoms of an illness just by reading about it. And as research has shown, even die from an illness they heard about and believed they had.
Now take the idea of a placebo and nocebo beyond the field of medicine, and it will be found that these principles apply to all walks of life. Witch doctors around the world use the nocebo to great effect. Once the victim has bought into the curse put on him or her they are doomed. I have personally witnessed this in Africa more than once. To cut a long story short, once you have bought into the teachings of LRH your physical, intellectual, emotional and spiritual perspective become contextualized accordingly – the teachings then define who you are, what you see and how you respond to it.
There isn’t a human being on Earth who hasn’t bought into some belief system or the other – it keeps us oriented in an ever changing world. Obviously some systems are better than others. When it really comes down to it, it is not the auditing that works but the pc “allowing” it to work. The pc’s gains are due to the power of his or her own mind – it is the placebo effect at work in some form or another. This is not necessarily a bad thing, if the pc gains from auditing, why not keep doing it. In the case of the C of S, it’s just a very costly way of going about “saving your soul”.
But, some will say, what about the truth. Surely some things are true and some things not. As I see it, nothing is as it seems – nothing. The only measure of what is true and real is mindset – the “angle” from which you look at your world. .
This in a nutshell is my perspective on the truth: The most empowering skill anyone can acquire is being enabled to change their mind at will. Truth and reality are creations of mindset. Change your mind – change your truth – change your world.
Mindset is the bridge between consciousness and the world we experience as real. What we experience as reality mirrors the omni presence of consciousness.
Hi Joe. Welcome!
I have heard that you were the captain on the Apollo. I believe you were also a research auditor under LRH? What else?
hihihihi 🙂 hi!
Yes – it’s an awesome post by Joe.
Nice post! I’d like to add one thing. “It is not the auditing that works but the pc “allowing” it to
work. Allowing in this context can mean that I allow myself to be the effect of the auditing question. To a question which so far I have resisted to fully experience and thus have become the effect of it. Allowing myself to be effect thus automatically results in me being cause. Or, allowing myself to completely fail, the result will be success. It looks that allowing equals the removal of the NEED to have control over what I “should or shouldn’t” experience
instead of just experiencing what there is. That is I give up my “preferences”.
In brief, I allow Life to be as it is and I allow myself to experience Life. I give up e.g. the “I know it better than Life”. And here we enter the I don’t know…so let me experience it. (?)
Before you can allow something as 1st Dynamic, and be effect, you need to cause it as yourself 🙂
I agree fully.
Welcome to Geir’s blog, Joe!
To cut a long story short, once you have bought into the teachings of LRH your physical, intellectual, emotional and spiritual perspective become contextualized accordingly – the teachings then define who you are, what you see and how you respond to it.
Chris: Good post Joe. And this is why I say that Scientology is consistent within its own metes and bounds.
If somebody follows LRH and doesn’t know he is mocking up his own bank, you can read HCOB ‘Liabilities of getting audited’ wherein LRH explain how when one’s ability to mock up increases, his ability to mock up his bank increases too. And that was the liability and being able to create good, solid mock ups (they processes with mock ups back then).
LRH himself has invalidated the DMSMH point of view, it doesn’t take an SP to do it. Dianetics was 1950 and it’s not SCN, and its ancient history –stone age. DN is better than to think that psychiatric theories about brain mechanisms are true, though. LRH re-created the mind in a resolvable manner.
I experienced the phenomena of misunderstood words during my studies prior to having read about them in SCN too. But case doesn’t have to last forever. Generally, my case became much much more intense after I read about it –I considered it a fact, reality and I put it there irresponsibly, a thing which was the opposite of as-ising. Don’t insist that case is there in order to resolve it. Nothing IS there by itself, according to the SCN axioms themselves. Read.
Cause inherently implies effect. Only if we put a distance between the two we can say that there is cause and there is effect. e.g. if I cause my hand to move, the intention and the concept of move are already there in the cause. If we remove the space concept between cause and effect, there is neither cause, nor effect, only creation. What do you think?
This is such an important thing that you said. Before one can become effect, ‘he’ needs to assume that he is something else than he is, because naturally, he cannot be….he is out of the game…no space, no time, no wavelength etc
Imagine you are playing with your toys…you are doing it but you cannot be effect. There is no game for you. If you become one of those toys…threre you are, you can eb hurt and feel joy etc. I don’t think it’s bad, as long as you don’t hide your awareness that you are not the toy.
To assign importance in oneself as a toy is such a trap…you don’t like the idea of not being the toy afterwards. Self-important valences need to handle that before they can ‘get out’.
I, as no wavelength, can create my body and experience my creation…the experience in itself is an as-is in that instant, so once again I get no wavelength…but I can create it on and off…so it’s a continuous creation-as-is-creation. What do you think?
Yes, I agree 🙂
If we think along this line.”Before the beginning there was a cause and the entire purpose of cause was to create an effect”.
If we think of “before” and “beginning” in spatial terms and remove the “space” from cause and effect as I said above, we get the purpose of life which is to create.
What do you think?
Please read my above comment about cause and effect. (03-29 at 11:23)
Also my comment at 11:44
So: have we finally solved this question so as to end the discussion on what Ron meant by that sentence? If so,I go and have a coffee.
Why I was having a coffee all along. But you probably mean out. Sure you can go 😛 When you come back, we can create some more semi-unknowns to make known 🙂
The sexual impulse has to do with cause-effect. Allowing oneself to be both sides of cause and effect, we have removed the space between them. So through sex, we can experience the creative flow of life. Allowing oneself to experience that Flow, creation can be continuous in different areas of life. What do you think? (also, let’s dissect that sex-pain engram stupidity). Here is a break (holiday), so I have more time.
Perhaps all force, all illnesses are connected to the suppression of the creative Flow of Life.
To simply allowing oneself to create, that Flow starts to take control over any suppression and resistance and healing happens.
I think that the associating pain with sex is GPMish, banky, reactive, implant, in some respects. Sex attracts thetans and their attention and pain repulses them and their attention. So sex can restimulate pain, as it is typical of case to get the opposite of what your goal is.
I don’t understand why life has to be a flow. A flow (energy) is a creation, no? Who is the creator, and mostly what is the creator?
I don’t see it that way that sex repulses thetans. Just the opposite. Thetans are creative and sex is just another way of being creative and experiencing creation.
Pain is basically confusion. I am not good at electricity, to express it with words. What I just see is that pain may have to do with that at a flow level. As the body is basically of electric, energy flows, there may be conflicts, confusion between the flows, which is called pain. I experienced it factually, perceiving conflicting flows while having a headache.
What the creator is I don’t know (at this point). What I experience is that I don’t have a SENSE of an ” I “. The ME is . This me is able to create space, energy. Also, there can be the sense of a pure energy…kind of flowing free. It is not created. It just IS. Can’t describe it better.
As Life survives and can do nothing else than survive, an illness, such as cancer, may show that the creative quality of Life has been suppressed. So there are excess cells. It may have to with the genetic line. The cause can be either on the male or female side. Given that the body is of the two sides, one’s aware allowance to fully experience the energy flows in the body may restore the balance. Mentally and factually one also gives oneself the allowance to experience oneself as both male or female, in which case the opposition is gone and we get pure energy, the pure flow. How do you see it?
This is the first time I get this idea of bodies having both make and female sides. So, I don’t know what to say. But about the energy of life, scientologically speaking, I know LRH reffered to it around the time of SOS and SCN 8-80. I remember that the aesthetic band was higher than emotion and effort and thinking-about (figuring things out). But later on, in SCN 8-8008 he revised. Causative thought (postulate) was put above the aesthetic band both in sequence and in important, for without a postulate you cannot have energy either (you can see ‘the Qs’). Also, it could just take a postulate to injure your body. First comes the thought, then comes the energy to make the body sick –and the rest of the MEST parts. So, if you as-is the postulate, the MEST as-ises too. It’s that simple. You can also postulate that you will create an energy that heals the body or something else. Yes. But keep in mind that it is you who is the wizard of that spell.
“Without a postulate you cannot have energy either” – there’s the lie! We cannot have ENERGY in MEST meaning, yes! But there is a kind of PURE ENERGY which just IS. Not postulated, just IS. That is the FLOW, the Tao.
The rest I experience the same way as you do.
Spyros – Let me give you a different viewpoint. You have assumed the truth that above it all is the postulate needed to create energy in the first place. Could it not be found to be true that an all encompassing etheric energy already exists through and within all. Then we could assume the idea that our postulate is really just snatching a bit of the energy and assuming the position it is ours, under our control, etc.
I have studied all the books you noted and did the OT levels. I also know that within every cell of our body and every cell of all plants and animals is a distinct and observable energetic vibration. Disturbance, blockage and alteration of this energy may bring about disease – and the opposite correction helps bring about health. All life is working with the energy it has laid claim to, so to speak. I don’t think the cell of the leaf of a weed made a postulate first.
As noted over the past several post subjects – we begin to think via the paradigm of our own creation by agreements we make. The static may be a “nothing” because it considers it is. Just my two pennies…
Yes sure, I built logical pyramids based on the ‘nothing with potential for something’ static. From that point on, logically, for that ether to come to existence there would have to be a decision for it to come to existence –or maybe many decisions, logically structured –interconnected with each other. Static doesn’t necessarily cancel life as energy. It’s just that in order to resolve something I think it is best for me to ‘locate’ the most basic basic basic source. And for myself, the definition for static works best.
I also concur with that. I works for me at this time, but not because it must be true but for now it works as a truth and I, you or any of us really shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that it is still our basic agreement at work.
Thank you! After reading your comment it has just dawned on me. A way to describe the Flow,the Tao, which some friends here asked me to do. It is that which is STILL and MOVING at the same time. Or, as you write, “within every cell of our body and every cell of all plants and animals….a distinct and observable energetic vibration”.
When one doesn’t move one’s body but it is in the most relaxed position at the same time, when there is a kind of a gap between two thoughts one, who hasn’t experienced it yet, can get a feel of this pure energy. It is an experience which is very different from the experience
of not having thoughts, clear mind, as-is-ing mest….hope I could describe it better now.
….it is that “helps bring about health”…as you say, SA. SA…thank you…please write more about your experiences and insights…how you see and live life!
I have some different viewpoints here. The body being still is a very relative idea. As of right now mine is moving with the planet turning, it’s travelling around the sun and the suns moving in the galaxy which in it’s turn is moving in different directions too.. so maybe when my body is still relevant to my chair, it is still moving in 8 different directions, and if you go into quantum physics it is still and moving in 8 different directions or neither, all at the same time… how is that?
I get what you are saying. Question: when you, your mind is still and relaxed (no effort, focus to get it still), also your body is like that, do you PERCEIVE the planet turning, it’s travelling around the Sun…or….? What do you PERCEIVE?
Yes Marianne, I definately feel the planet turning, around it’s own axis and in it’s orbit around the sun. This is how I can know what time it is without looking at my watch and what season of the year without looking at my calendar….I also have a very strong perception of compass direction, I can always tell you where north is without using a compass, even with eyes closed. This is something I have drilled a lotv when sailing and navigating at sea… it’s a lot of fun to be well oriented…
Per: it’s a lot of fun to be well oriented…
Chris: Agreed. I stopped using an alarm clock to wake myself from sleep in 1982. I recommend this.
Excellent! Then you are in the “here”, you are perceiving. For me, at this point, it is about perception. And asking myself questions sometimes to get an answer. Like about the Higgs etc. Are you an OT8 too (as you said you did the OT levels). Also, what is your interest now? What do you do in that direction? If I may ask.
I just typed in male female energy and I got interesting results. I am not putting here anything as you can google it if you like and if you have time. For me it is always experience first, then comes googling. It seems that there is a lot there which supports what we are talking about.
Thanks for the exchange so far, talk to you later!
Fine 🙂 I don’t know all kinds of energies that there can be. I just think that before there can be something, there is a nothing, and that nothing is the axiom’s static. But anyway, you know the say — what is true is what is true for you, and so on 🙂
Thank you too — see you later!
Yes, you can see Google as a mirror of life…
Per: you can see Google as a mirror of life…
I don’t quite know what the purpose of bringing her is. I do agree very much with what she is preaching, we have choices … sure…
But I am suspcious that she is not LIVING her own philosphy as her eyes are soooo dull and sad without any sparkel to them… this is ofcourse my private hidden standsrd..
The purpose was to show an example of a person, you or others may not have heard about,
who is living in the NOW. She was born in 1942, you can wiki other data about her and a lot
of videos. There are quite a few realized, enlightened beings ( I use these words in lack of better ones) living on the Planet. Yes, your observation is your observation. Yes, I can’t see any sparkles in her eyes either in this video. She definitely has PRESENCE in my observation. What she is speaking about is very simple, true and it is possible to live like that.
Sure.. I agree…
To me she is talking about Clear and OT on a gradient… Here is how I said it myself:
What it means to me
I have seen quite a few people saying that when they went Clear they got clear in their head. Uncontrolled thoughts disappeared. One of my friends said that before Clear it was like living at Central Station and when he went clear, all trains stopped and it became quite. This is a good description of what he experienced.
To me it was kind’a opposite. Before Clear I could NOT think. My head was empty, I had no memory I could not really get to gribs with my own ideas. They just appeared and disappeared in my head/universe..
When I attested Clear I had such a win because I was able to handle some of the thoughts that came in. I gained some control. I could create thoughts. I could compute. It was like I got the key for the computer. I could have opinions of my own. I could shift around with the different thoughts that appeared… It was a heck of a win. At my job I could suddenly handle situations a lot better.
Later on I found out that something was missing at the state of Clear. I was still somehow effect of what I felt, and my feelings were still submerged and I thought that that was GOOD. ”A Clear has no feelings” – I honestly believed that. Those in the Org who had gone clear had no case to show, no HE&R no feelings that I could see and I thought that this was how it should be… I got wiser…
Then I worked on the SHSBC and training did the trick for me. It was throught training I LEARNED things. Things I could USE in my life and I went on staff and audited a lot. I trained people and I learned some more. I did all the OT levels, but somewhere there was still something missing.
Then I started working with TIME. When I did all the Axioms and Factors in clay on the Briefing Course I realized that there was something wrong with such a basic thing as TIME. But being a true brainwashed believer I didn’t take it up with anyone because I knew I would be word cleared into submission…
”Before the beginning…. ” You know, that sentence does not make sense.. If there is anything (not considering MEST) before time, well then time HAS already begone, hasn’t it?
There were many definitions of time, and I studied them all very very carefully, demoed and clay demoed all of them, but there was still something wrong, and then Ron said: ”Time is an illusion” doesn’t exist. Wow… what is this? Now THIS made sense. And then again – the best definition I liked was: ”Time is something we invented so that everything would not happen simultniously”…
To me this is getting to the basics of it. Many things fell in place for me when time started to drop out as a factor in my universe. To really understand ”no time” or 0 ”Zero” is where you will find what Clear and OT is IMO. If time does not exist, then Prestent Time does not exist eather.. then what?? This might shake some very stable data here and there, but it also opens up to some new aspects which you will mainly see handled in Quantum Mechanics.
Going in and out of time moving on a Time Track is only in order for us to learn NO TIME … If Eternity has no time, then it is HERE… !!
Clear and OT to me is your gradient path of understanding time and getting cause over it completely.. To me this has been the most rewarding of anything I have ever done.. getting out of time…
Per, that is a really excellent post. Well balanced and real. I see lots of similarities in your conclusions to my own.
For me, it seems that many people throughout history have worked out these personal identity issues to a good result. Very few have published and fewer still are remembered through their works for what they achieved. However, no matter because this game of “Who am I and what does it all mean?” is never worked out for anyone by another. It seems to be a personal path of discovery and we either scratch where it itches or not; work it our for ourselves or not; become happy about these results that we achieve for ourselves or not. Any smile of satisfaction obtained through doing the pilgrimage is the part of the quest that is ours to keep . . . all else disappears.
Amazing! You are amazing! Such wins and I love your style of writing! As for the “Before the beginning….” I get what you are saying. If you roll up this thread, not much, you will find a discussion-chain between Spyros and me. If you are interested, please read it and share your views.
Ohh thank you… how nice (Blushing, blushing)..
What I wrote was in fact my response to your exchange on “Before the beginning…” I think I just put it in a wrong place, can’t always find my ways around responces, comments and answers..
What you are writing about your win on Clear has helped me get more conscious of what I am doing. I have no idea what “state” I am in but what is happening is the following. I can create a viewpoint out of which a thought can arise. While talking with someone I can easily do that. However, I observed that it creates a little distance. We can exchange thoughts in this way, like in a game. But, there is another way. I don’t have a viewpoint as such…no ” I ” sense…in this case a “thought” just arises without a viewpoint and it is more to the situation, to the now, the here….can ask questions like that too…about topics I have never studied…as if Life Flow through this person called me would know what the proper words or actions are. So I operate two ways….the second one is more typical.
Thanks a lot for telling how it is for you. I understand very well how you experience it. My view on that phenomenon is that being yourself you can have a virewpoint or not have a viewpoint. When you communicate you often create a viewpoint from which to communicate from AND a dimension point to communicate TO. Communication is cause – DISTANCE – effect… There are other ways to share ideas like in telephatic communication where you do not use physical distance, but this is not strictly communication as pr. the comm formula. This is more like instant sharing of viewpoints, at least that’s how it works for me…
Thanks Per, I got it! I wish you a Happy and Joyful Easter!
I liked that video. It aligns with the great truth that: Everything is manifested and nothing is unmanifested.
Glad you liked it Chris! Have a beautiful day!
I liked that Marianne. Thanks for posting it!
Thanks for watching it! And Byron Katie’s simple method, the “Work” works. I tried it on myself some months ago because I was curious. I did it 4-5 times. I wanted something simple I could use when the situation was like that. I have used it to help another a couple of times the way she is doing it in the video. It worked! But it needs an auditor’s presence to run it well. She is also one person who “woke up”. In the middle of suffering. You will find her story on the Net.
I have a theory:
Hubbard researched traumas in various patients. He came up with a method to handle those traumas. He thought this would be a great therapy for everyone. He created a model around it with a Reactive Mind being the central component. He then got around to sell it wholesale.
But the model is just a model and not the reality. I don’t believe in a reactive mind. I believe in gradual consciousness of our creations – from totally conscious creations (and with full control) to the fully unconscious creations (with no control – such as all the physical universe). There all the shades in between – but no specific Reactive Mind.
As Hubbard sold his model and method to everyone, he also started what in Scientology is known as “Cleaning a Clean”, where people without any mental issues in need of handling would be sold on the Reactive Mind and the need to handle it. And so they introvert and start to create issues they didn’t have before.
This is not to say that there aren’t mental issues in need of handling and that Dianetics cannot handle such – but the liability of starting to mock up issues that corresponds to Hubbard’s model is quite real.
That`s a good theory! It opens more doors than it closes and offers direction without inadvertent misdirection or additives.
” I believe in gradual consciousness of our creations.” Me too! E.g. Echart Tolle calls it the Pain Body, which is a much simpler, easier to grasp concept than the Reactive Mind. He gives plenty of examples in videos for the simplicity of handling it. Also, less time.
I loved Dianetics and Scientology auditing. Though I didn’t have a major problem with time, I found them time consuming. Plus the lot of admin.
Yes, it is similar to how I see it too. But see DMSMH is the #1 book in sales. It approached people’s ‘reality’ the most. The body and the victim viewpoint. Although being a body having a mind and being a victim were lies, it appealed to people the most.
I think in the final analysis, Ron had the hard task to make a Bridge that would be uniformly workable for all. That means the strictly body types, the more spiritualy aware ones –all. So, it was not fair on everybody. Earlier attempts to reach higher points of the awareness chart faster, didn’t work uniformly on all, because some people just didn’t get it. For example, -I assume- not all could mock up space when they thought that the only space that can exist is that of the MEST universe. Not even all auditors could grasp that well enough to run it. So Ron created Bridge after Bridge after Bridge…
Eventually, after having invalidated his own Dianetics over and over in his early SCN lectures, he put it back, because people could run that. They could run incidents more easily than run other things. So, creative processing got banned and the timetrack became a reality again.
I think this approach of reaching down to someone who think he is effect of everything and having him assume a causative position bit by bit, by reducing that effect, would be OK too, if the Bridge was complete up to a total causative position. And this is my arguement with the current standard tech. I have read that Ron was missing from the Church since before 1980 and that he had created those OT levels and yeah it seems to me that those orgs were not willing to receive such levels. People were happily becoming more happy by ‘erasing’ past unpleasant experiences. But observe the reaction in someone when you tell him something completely out of MEST universe reality. He is liable to attack you. Afterall, no DM would had taken the orgs over if he had not been invited from the inside.
“….so they introvert and start to create issues they didn’t have before”
Can it mean that e.g. in between two sessions one can indeed just mock up (the right word then as you used it) issues that one would never create? Which then can really make one’s life more difficult? Yes, indeed one can….I remember your inside the head of an OT7…when you created being scared which you otherwise wouldn’t have been creating.
Is it relevant to your point?
“I believe in gradual consciousness of our conscious creations (and with full control) to the fully unconscious creations (with no control – such as all the physical universe).
I have a question I am now just wondering about: is it possible to get fully conscious of how we are creating the physical universe? The planets, the stars, the black holes….? What do you think?
Can you imagine a physical universe? It would be your own creation.
Geir: I have a theory:
Chris: Yeah, you wrote that better than me. I use too many metaphors and my posts are too long!
One root of the problem can be that I don’t know any person of higher consciousness whose
presence and flexibility in the use of questions could be reproduced by another. Ron himself in the tapes I know was more or less flexible.
Yes SCN was his, so he grasped it well, and he could communicate and audit it well too.
A thing over which I get charged, is when I have to explain something that I say over and over again, to show I don’t mean what the other person thinks that I mean…
I wonder is it really that some (few) don’t grasp that I’m not against Ron’s Scientology or do they pretend so because they are against Ron’s Scientology?
I never said that auditing etc are bad. By all means, as-is everything that you are creating. As-is charge along all dynamics. Be all dynamics. Leave no case unhandled. Be all free potential.
I said it doesn’t serve anyone to put there charge that you don’t put there in the first place. And to reduce oneself because ‘charge is there’ is to commit an overt –as per the code of honor as well. Also, a charge that you created a moment ago, doesn’t need to last forever. You can stop putting it there.
The COS doesn’t have this point of view that I know. According to the COS, for as long as you have charge, you are crazy, wrong, bad, unethical etc. If you think along these lines, why don’t you join psychology and get normalised and be good. What do you have against psychology?
For the last time, I think that auditing is beneficial when it acts in accordance to the thetan’s self/pan determinism. The datum that there are things that cannot be handled like you handle your first dynamic case, is false and it’s suppressive. If you want proof, read LRH –not just the COS-approoved stuff. When it is all handled then there is no case. And ‘all’ includes the 2nd, 3rd, 4th dynamic…all of them. There is no handling the 4th dynamic through the 3rd. There is handling through responsibility. You handle your own creations. The Church wanted you to think that you depended on it to deal with the dynamics but it was all a fairy tale for the purpose of controlling you. You handle your own creations yourself –not any Church. Even when you co-operate with an auditor/CS, you do all the work yourself. The auditor/CS gives you the tech to do the work. If he does anything more, screw him too.
This was for Scientologists who think they can go around reducing people in the name of Scientology, because they ‘know better’ what is ‘wrong’ with the other person. And also telling them that they cannot achieve stuff, because it cannot be achieved. By all means again, join psychology. You will have a bright career there teaching them to be realists, and to compromise and adopt to society etc.
I didn’t intend to convince any non-SCNist that SCN is good or nything. I really don’t intend to do so –just so I’ll be understood. 🙂
Because I don’t like it that I get polarised, I’m going to quit discussing about SCN again, untill I change my mind. But I want to show you something which pertains to the reactive mind and case and everything in general, to show you that LRH didn’t mean things the way you may have been told.
Do you think you have a reactive mind or case that acts against you without you knowing about it?
Any knowledge which can be sensed, measured or experienced by any entity is capable of influencing that entity.
Also, from the fundamentals of thought book: “Know=effect”
I’m heading back to my delightful lazy polar bear stance. 🙂
Oops I missed this most important part continuing from Logic 3:
COROLLARY: That knowledge which cannot be sensed, measured or experienced by any entity or type of entity cannot influence that entity or type of entity.
What is the icebear doing now?
I came back to the original message from Geir on this string, namely:
My good old friend Mårten Runow (OT 8 still in the Church of Scientology) once said to me: “The good thing about non-scientologists is that they don’t know that they have a reactive mind they can dramatize).“.
This is a typical arrogant Churchie look at the “wogs”. Don’t tell me that Mårten really think that this is a good thing, because all he learned about the Reactive Mind would be bad then. That a person who is supposed to have reached OT 8 can come up with such a statement proves to me that he is a totally by-passed case and have not really understood much, or that the OT 8 HE did by-passed reaching him completely. The statement further expresses that his opinion is that it’s better to keep non-scientologists in their unknowing ignorant state, as he thinks this is good. I can’t see from what has ben written on the string that it was ment like a joke.. unless there is something I missed.
I believe that Mårten was joking – but that he inadvertently alluded to something interesting: That if a person gets to know about something that isn’t really true for him, he may start dramatizing it. And I have come to the conclusion – through discussions on this blog and otherwise – that there is no such thing as “a reactive mind”… and that leading people to believe there is such may get them to mock it up and dramatize it.
WHAT A BOMB SHELL. An OT 8 Does Not Believe In The Reactive Mind?!?
I now believe there is an almost infinite gradient of consciousness – from being “in the zone” (as athletes express it) to “everyday life” to “tired” to “drunk” to “sleepy” to “asleep” to “sound asleep” to “unconscious” to “almost dead” to “dead”, etc. And that we create everything we experience at all levels of consciousness. We also create our worries and traumas etc in present time. Some of this can be grouped into a model and be called “a reactive mind” if one likes. But, I hold that this is merely a model and that there is no such “thing”. This opens the door to a gradient handling of a person consciousness rather than attacking a “thing” that doesn’t exist. So, there are no Clears, just “clearer people” who have increased “awakeness”.
Yes Geir, I agree with all you wrote here. Before I got to the end of your post I had decidede to write that the mind is just some model so we have something to talk about and call “that thing” – and then you wrote just about the same… we are on the same page here..
I see it a similar way as you do. I have questions based on your earlier com. with Vin.
Vin: What makes you most irritable?
Geir: Arrogance, intolerance and insistence that others are wrong.
Vin : Could it be your own filter?
Geir: Of course.
You: “..if a person gets to know about something that isn’t really true for him, he may start dramatizing it.”
So…that you get irritated by arrogance, intolerance and others being wrong shows that you don’t see their truth, as they are, as they can manifest in life as responses, in certain situations. Because you don’t see their truth, their value – you dramatize them. Instead of truely and properly to the situation use them as a “tool”.
Is that so? If yes, who/what is the root of this dramatization? If there is a who, who is that person whom you resist(ed)….didn’t allow to do the above?
Per: That a person who is supposed to have reached OT 8 can come up with such a statement proves to me that he is a totally by-passed case and have not really understood much, or that the OT 8 HE did by-passed reaching him completely.
Chris: Or maybe there is another explanation? This statement is evidence for my own concept that Scientology is a closed and complete and consistent belief system when considered solely from within itself. I say it is closed and complete since it is self defined as such. I say it is consistent because it says it is so, and within itself? It can be shown to be so.
In Per’s example, an OT8 may have audited until he confronted the basic inconsistencies of Scientology and therefore popped completely out of Scientology. As long as one stays IN the set of Scientology, there is an answer for everything. Scientology is a complete theory of everything within the metes and bounds of Scientology. For those not in the closely defined group, not so much. Within Scientology there are Class 12s and OTs with strongly hinted at but undisclosed for obvious safety reasons – super powers. And outside the sphere of Scientology? There are no OTs with super powers. This fantasy dissolves the moment that one pops up above the fog and looks around to see the universe extending far beyond these Scientology property lines.
Except no system can be both complete and consistent – even when if considered completely within itself, per Gödel. Even when confined completely within a system’s frame of reference, it cannot be true.
Based on your experience, which one is true for you:
1. scientology is consistent and incomplete
2. scientology is inconsistent and complete
0: scientology is inconsistent and incomplete
Per, as you are trained and experienced in the tech, I would also like to ask you the same questions I asked Sapere Aude: Do you find anything inconsistent in the basics principles. including things like the Axioms, The Factors, The Logics, and the Scales? And how would you express the incompleteness of Scientology?
I sure do, and I would call it a HIT or MISS philosophy…. which it is.. There are too many inconsistances to mention too, like the WHY is never ‘over there’, a real why is always HERE, and how many times did Ron use psychiatry MAA etc as why’s and who’s for Scientology or his own problems? Also ‘Before the beginning…was a cause…” Come on.. Who/what caused the cause to be.. etc etc..
Okay, I would agree with most of what you wrote but it isn’t in the category of basic principles. And the “Before the beginning” point may be a problem with language, in my honest opinion, but thanks. 🙂
Per, here’s an excerpt from Scientology 8-8008 that I think explains a lot of The Factors:
“Time can be defined as change in space, but where one attempts to define motion as change in space, the definition lacks usefulness since one does not define what is changing in space; there must be something there to change in space in order to have the illusion of time.
“As was earlier discovered in Scientology, the single arbitrary is time. This is because time did not exist as such but stemmed from havingness.
“When Man experiences ‘time’, he is experiencing havingness or not-havingness.
“Time is summed up as ‘had,’ ‘have’, and ‘will have’. Goals in the MEST universe are summed uniformly under the heading of ‘will have’. One engages in action in order to have.
“This is one of the most important points of processing. The individual has made a postulate to have and has then gained something he did not want at every single point on the time track where you find him stuck.
“Example: He desired to have a castle. He may have been engaging in an action which would gain for him a castle and was stopped and killed by an explosion which destroyed a wall before him. The explosion caught him with a postulate that he would have and gave him something he did not want. Struggling with the facsimile afterwards, the auditor will find that the incident began with the postulate to have and is now in a state of indecision since the explosion is unwanted.
“Bluntly, any and all aberrative incidents to be discovered in a preclear are a reversal of havingness where the preclear did not want something and had to have it or wanted something and could not have it or wanted something and got something else.
“The entire problem of the future is the problem of goals. The entire problem of goals is the problem of possession. The entire problem of possession is the problem of time.
“Time is impossible without possession of objects.
“Thus is resolved one of the weightier problems of the human mind. The auditor may find it difficult to encompass this principle, since time may continue to exist for him as an entity, an unknown and hovering thing. If he will use the principle that the past is had or did not have, that the present is has or does not have and that the future is will have or will not have, and that past, present and future are divided and established entirely by desire, enforcement and inhibition of havingness, he will find his preclear recovering swiftly.”
Right, I know those references, and to me it’s all solved when I look at time as I crete it, naemely as something created so that everything doesn’t happen simultaniously.. Uncreate it, or don’t crete it and all problems with time and in havingness will be nulled… IMO.
Best drill I know is to be ‘outside’ time, or to have no time… You can do it too, it doesn’t take any time…:-))
p.s. Based on the above reference, wouldn’t it make sense to say that “Before the beginning” simply means “Before there was any “have”?
Have = Time. Before time is an oxymoron.
He doesn’t say “Before time”, He says “Before the beginning”. And from the explanation in 8-8008, that would mean before the beginning of “have”, as there is no such actuality as time. “Before ‘have'” isn’t an oxymoron.
“Before” implies here Time – as is evident from the rest of the factors. See at what factor Time comes in.
From The Factors:
20. And the many viewpoints, interacting, become dependent upon one another’s forms and do not choose to distinguish completely the ownership of dimension points and so comes about a dependency upon the dimension points and upon the other viewpoints.
21. From this comes a consistency of viewpoint of the interaction of dimension points and this, regulated, is TIME.
Based on the above and the previous Factors, it seems to me that there was a beginning in terms of created dimension points (“have”), and when those dimension points became a consistency of viewpoint there came about the agreed-upon CONSIDERATION of time – but the actuality is still only a matter of “have”, as per the 8-8008 reference.
I am not sure Geir as no have could be a nothingness, and that can aslo be ‘haved’…
Per: “…no have could be a nothingness, and that can also be ‘haved’…”
LRH isn’t using “have” in that way, per the definitions of “havingness” in the Tech Dictionary. “Have” involves dimension points, i.e. particles, as per The Factors.
Saper Aude, I’m interested in whether you find anything inconsistent in the basics principles. including things like the Axioms, The Factors, The Logics, and the Scales. Also, how would you express the incompleteness of Scientology?
Sapere Aude: 0: scientology is inconsistent and incomplete.
HaHa…I didn’t “dare” to say THAAAAT…….Geir…? Your answer?
It is bot inconsistent in parts and incomplete as a whole.
Cause inherently implies effect. Only if we put a distance between the two we can say that there is cause and there is effect. e.g. if I cause my hand to move, the intention and the concept of move are already there in the cause. I we remove the space concept from between cause and effect, there is neither cause nor effect, only creation.
Before the beginning there was a cause and the entire purpose of the cause was to create an effect. If we think of ‘before’ and ‘beginning’ in spatial terms and remove the ‘space’ from cause and effect, we get the purpose of life which is to create.
Marianne, what you say makes sense to me because the creation of space, time and energy (dimension points) are considerations that make up the apparency (isness/reality) known as the physical universe, but they are not actualities per my understanding of LRH – and you, too. 🙂
Marianne: ” . . . we get the purpose of life which is to create.”
Chris: How does purpose differ from a belief system?
Yes, this is the rub. This is the reason that no one may look too closely at closed belief systems or the illusion will be ruined. There seems to be nothing at all about life which can be understood completely and consistently.
This work of Godel’s while no secret is yet hiding in plain sight. The ramifications of his theorem are huge and contain a solvent for understanding which is not generally recognized outside his field of science.
Mu hunch, too.
As for me…much, much earlier I was in a retreat with an ‘enlightened’ being. There I ‘saw’ that there was no such ‘thing’ called mind…lots of other perceptions. I was not ‘mature’ enough to ‘stay’ with it. In scientology, on the Objectives, there was a ‘deeper’ confronting it.
On the ‘Self-Analysis’ came the final cog: I am that which surrounds the ‘Bridge’. That was it! So I left.
With a later ‘awakening’ I started to Live and navigate That. That was actually the ‘awakening’ of the ‘Heart’. The Life Flow, the Tao. I went back to meet the ‘enlightened’ one, also met another. Much different perspective and experience….there is so much to experience and explore…..it’s inconsistent and incomplete…..
If the honesty questions about life and livingness did not appear at least to be inconsistent and incomplete then they would have been answered eons ago. Then what would we be discussing here? (Not to mean we need them)
Just wanted to say this was a very lucid viewpoint from Spyros, and a very lucid comments thread in general. This is like preliminar, then the viewpoint needs to move on. You can’t hold on a doubt forever, like if something is created (not objectively real) and then is counter-created (fixing it on making it real). Then one get the answer about those things that still exist if you stop thinking, and drops it the bubble of mumbo-jumbo.