Conclusion: There are no Clears

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 “create it” it and dramatize it.

WHAT A BOMB SHELL. An OT 8 That 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”. This would explain the constant trouble in the Church of Scientology regarding Clears – they try to pin down an impossibility. David Mayo described this in the early 90’s.

I see the level of consciousness paralleling the level of free will in a person.

The quest then, is how to increase the consciousness, the free will of the person and the clarity of the mind.

random event?

555 thoughts on “Conclusion: There are no Clears

  1. The Mayo essay is very enlightening.

    I consider myself a Clear, though as can be seen by the fact that I have not sought confirmation of the state, I am not so sensitive to invalidation of the state (which fact I could use to argue, would tend to confirm the state).

    I do not consider the state of “Clear” an “absolute.” It was a qualitative “leap forward,” as the Hegelians would say. It is a definite qualitative change from my prior state. It is a consistent ability to retain full analytical awareness in the face of situations which formerly triggered reactions and “mental mass” which noticeably impeded thinking. That stuff is gone.

    I have the desire, but not the need, to run out more engrams in the future, but I see them as ‘holders’ for unexamined postulates, rather than actual impediments to my present time living.

    I observed a qualitative change in my wife after the state was ‘officially’ confirmed for her. Despite my disagreements on her choice to remain connected to the suppressive organization, I cannot deny that it was a definite, positive and permanent change in her response to life.

    Thank you however, for going after this “sacred cow.” It forced me to take a newly searching and honest look, at ‘me.’ And I find that I cannot deny that a dramatic shift occurred that despite the continuing problems, upsets and imperfections of existence, remains for me an undeniable qualitative advance in consciousness and mental ability.

    Making the elusive state of Clear a little less significant, might not be a bad thing. Yet it remains and will remain, a significant goal for many who read the books and postulate for themselves a goal to arrive at in terms of freedom from reactivity. How much “freedom from reactivity” remains a technical problem to be worked at. I’ll save that dissertation for another post.

      1. Penny: Love it! Here’s my answer. Purpose, purpose and purpose. Get on it, stay on it, discover it, do it! You’re there!

        Chris: When we say “what is my purpose?” aren’t we assuming that there is a deterministic purpose which lies hidden within us all and that it is waiting to be discovered? Purpose to me seems to be one more layer of belief system. And when we choose a purpose, aren’t we choosing to believe in goals which are best for us?

        Isn’t purpose at the root of the goals-problem-mass?

        1. Chris: Isn’t purpose at the root of the goals-problem-mass?

          R: Yeah! That is exactly where I am right now. Freedom vanishes condensing into energy and matter.

          Seems that the heart of it is: How much freedom to keep while still being part of a game?

          If you attach yourself strongly to a fixed purpose you become solid

          If you don´t, you are a coward !!!

          My best answer so far: Don´t become too much attached to your purposes and keep reviewing, perfecting or trashing them ALL the time. Don´t let them become solid and don´t you become solid about them. My main problem with it so far is that I still care for people.

          Here´s my out-list of the moment:
          What is really important about life?

          To survive?
          To win a prize / defeat an opponent?
          To learn?
          To know?
          To become more able?
          To create knowledge for myself?
          To create knowledge for others?
          To create pleasurable and aesthetic things?
          To have fun?
          To be?
          To grant beingness?

          OOOPF! UMPFFF!!!

          1. If you have *higher powers* …swing by James Randi’s…he’ll pay you 1 MILLION Dollars to demonstrate any such “Abilities”. FACT is….no one has, yet. Want to try? 🙂 Oh …”He’ll just invalidate my wins”. Well, IF they’re true powers, it would not matter what ANYONE said or thought abut your abilities, would it? Accept yourself, love yourself and pass it on. <<< that's it! That's ALL it is. The rest makes s/body $$$$: Period.

            1. Tory: Accept yourself, love yourself and pass it on. <<< that's it! That's ALL it is

              R: Out list corrected!!. A Big hug for you, Tory 🙂

            2. Too bad that offer wasn’t made when my ex was alive. He demonstrated them to me, and I’m sure he would have been willing for $1M. Besides such things as a match that had landed on the floor jumping into the ashtray to the ability to unhook the muscles in the body’s leg and bring it down to a stork leg then build it up again before one’s eyes.

        2. As long as we are in this universe having a game to play, something we want to do, is crucial to our quality of life. After Clear we reevaluate purposes to verify what we want to do for this lifetime at least, if not for longer.

          “No such thing as clear” spoken by one who is clear or above simply tells me that he was natural clear, and the state was not correctly acknowledged. The natural clear has no bank. That doesn’t mean that others don’t have a bank. Granted, we have to know about it and understand it in order to dissolve it, and as we go along we start duplicating that mind and it pours out charge enough sometimes to shake us to the boots. Once discharged, of course we are seriously released.:) Then it just takes a little bit to see the bacic “holder” of the bank and as-is it. No bank then, unless you put it there.

          I one went through Scientology and didn’t experience any of this, one could have doubts about the existence of the reactive mind.

          My favorite Dianetic story was after the birth of my third child I had a numb shoulder. After a month we (my auditor Fred McLean) and I thought we would try to run out the incident engram style. I was put out just before the baby was born. When I got toward the end of the incident a nurse gave me a shot in the arm. She apparently did a poor job of it and she said to the other nurse, “it is a good thing she can’t feel it.”
          As soon as I saw the computation the flow started to come back in my arm. Almost all off the numbness disappeared instantly, and withing two days after that it was back to normal.

          This was the reactive mind shutting off the flow on a literal basis. It was “a good thing” survival, that “she can’t feel it.” Classic example.

          Not that I have come such a long way since then (1953) I can look back and sometimes wonder, was it real that I ever had a reactive mind? Then I remember that experience and some others, like the 1/2 hour of grief I re-experienced over losing my blue astroid in space (I had so carefully screened it from others; what a shock to find it gone) –oh I could go on and one about engrams. The worse are those one used as a ser fac, because they affect all one’s present life.

          I’m sorry Geir never had the experience of how the reactive mind works. Perhaps he is no worse off for not having had it, but it is an experience I truly am happy to have had. LOL, maybe I will thank the “Gods” that thought up the idea of a reactive mind. What a game!

          Pat Krenik

          1. I do not believe in the theory of Dianetics, the Reactive Mind and how to erase what was never there. I do believe in a gradual consciousness of automaticities – some of which is cemented by trauma. But I think the construct of the Reactive Mind is false.

            1. Then how would you explain what dodobird1 wrote about the experience she of her shoulder being “numb” – until right after she ran an incident where she had been unconscious and the words “can’t feel it” were spoken, at which time the feeling in her shoulder came back?

              Any theory or construct to have validity would have to fit the observable data it is supposed explain. I have seen Book One pc’s have similar experiences to the above, who had no idea of the theory behind it. Does your theory explain that kind of observable data too?

              This isn’t a rhetorical question. I just have a hard time understanding why some people insist that the reactive mind doesn’t exist. Nevertheless, in a new unit of time, I’m open to an explanation for it.

            2. My explanation is in the answer above. I have explained it a number of times in other blog posts and answers herein. I won’t explain it again.

            3. Well then, I don’t see the difference between your idea of “automaticities” (which I gather come about as a result of associations) and the idea of “automatic reaction” (also brought about by associations – which is the basis of the reactive mind). Both concepts describe the stimulus-response nature of a part of the mind. And the handling of either the “stimulus-response automaticities” or “stimulus-response reactions” – whichever way you want to word it – brings about more awareness and a higher level of consiousness. Also with both, the thetan is the one who is creating all of it, albeit unknowingly.

            4. In other words, I can’t see what you’re objecting to when you say you don’t believe there exists a reactive mind. Maybe you can answer that in a brief and simple way.

            5. Hi Geir. Thank you for stating this view. Then perhaps you have a validated explanation on how hypnosis works? ie. Capable of literally over riding the conscious restraints / capabilities / inhibitions / beliefs of any given individual? I’m assuming that you have some working experience in hypnosis upon the “unconscious / reactive” mind and therefore look forward to your explanation of this “phenomenon”.

    1. As people “go Clear”, they get the “Clear cognition” that “they are creating it themselves”. But what is the “it” that they are creating? After all (according to me) we are creating Everything we experience (and not just the reactive mind according to Hubbard). The “it” that a person cognites that he is creating may vary widely from person to person. Some may cognite that they re creating their own personal present life situation, that they are creating their own past traumas in present time, their own misemotions or… God knows what they cognite on. But a realization that they are creating “it” is bound to raise their responsibility for “it” – which is good. The liability of Dianteics, however is that Hubbard tells you what he thinks you have (a reactive mind) which can urge you to believe that and start creating it. To then have the “cognition” that “I create this” is quite interesting. I do believe however that the person can cognite firther on stuff that he was creating even before Hubbard suggested “a reactive mind”. If a person cognites that he is in fact creating all his misemotions, he would have reached a higher responsibility for his misemotions (a very valuable state for most people).

      1. Geir – After the cognition (of whatever it was for that person) one could be in a higher state of awareness. But, that person could also have a new ability or an old ability recovered. I have usually thought of Clear as an state of awareness which included certain abilities.

        At times Clear has been a “state” and at times considered an “ability gained” or “inability lost”. Why it has changed I am not sure and haven’t tracked all the changes. But from a study point of view one would have to know what definition fits what is be talked about.

        When I came into this subject the following was the grade chart.

        Clear – Ability gained – ability to be at cause over mental matter, energy, space and time on the 1st dynamic (survival for self)
        Inability lost – freedom from inability to be at cause over mental matter, energy, space and time. “stops” being non survival on the 1st dynamic.

        Now, just because one has that ability may or not mean that the person will always exercise that ability. That wonders into the realm and concept of free will, which has not been removed or excised from the equation. I fully understand that now the state of “Clear” has been promoted to include godly powers. It has also had a variety of promotion in the past but my comment here is not to dig into that.

        I feel that the definition above (from the 1970 grade chart itself) is still consistant with your OP. Comments?

        1. I think different people gain different abilities through auditing. When a person experiences a sudden and marked raise in responsibility as he cognites he is creating his own shit (whatever that means to the person), he and the organization may deem it right to let him attest to a a state someone decided would be “Clear”.

            1. Hi Equilibrium,

              Thanks. I read the article and what I would say is that this was only one experiment, as the article itself admitted at the end and also said that “the negative results do not preclude success at another time.”

              There have been many instances of pc’s running engrams that were later verified as what had indeed occurred even though the pc had been unconscious. One that comes to mind is Marty Rathbun’s pre-natal incident in which his mother was administered electroshock. He later confirmed the details of it with an aunt. Here’s a quote from his book *Memoirs of a Scientology Warrior*:

              “My mother received multiple electro-convulsive shock therapy treatments while pregnant with me. I found that out through Scientology counseling which probes into pre-natal, and even previous lifetime, incidents of the being. I told my Scientology counselor that I recalled my mother being taken off to a private psychiatric facility while I resided in her womb. When she was hit with electro-convulsive shock I, the spirit, was hurtled out of the body and witnessed the rest of the ‘treatment’ from above looking down at the psychiatrist and his assistants and my mother’s body strapped to the table….When I was in my early thirties I told my aunt about these recollections and her jaw dropped. My descriptions of the facility and the surrounds and the event were accurate in all details.”

      2. Geir, what I don’t understand is that the “clear cognition“ is confidential.

        I read about it on the internet and how it is a back and forth if somebody reached the state or not, and if it was the EXACT wording (what about concepts ?!?!) – and all the dramas about the un-declares!
        I was thinking what is the big deal? It heard/read on the early lectures/references from LRH that a thetan “is creating his reactive mind” (this besides if it is true or not). Why would something what was already mentioned decades earlier be confidential? That doesn’t make any sense.

        Thanks for the article on your conclusion and the explanation. It gives a different perspective – I will contemplate about what you wrote.

      3. I believe there is a mechanism that can be called the reactive mind. That mechanism has become clearer to me in just the last while and especially after a recent post I made on Marty’s blog about it in relation to the postulate.

        The mechanism I proposed ties in with Geir’s idea of “will”, Ron’s idea of a reactive mind, and the structure of mest as we are gathering it to be defined by quantum mechanics.

        Since my own track on Scn spans the early 50’s and then again the 70’s and 80’s, I have a recall and viewpoint that has allowed me to make decent correlations with the data. Particularly relevant to the OP, when I Clear cogged in the early 80’s I was sure I’d only released as I’d had little auditing and I had the datum I couldn’t go Clear on training. I went in to a DCSI thinking I’d only released but there discovered it fit to call it Clear.

        Short story: I trained, I cogged, I blew out. Not just any cog. I immediately recognized it as the Clear cog.

        Now the long story.

        Even right after cogging and being so exterior that I was fully in contact with a space hundreds of times greater than my body – and fully aware of that space – I was certain that this would only be a temporary release and that my R6 case would eventually key it back in. I was also was quite sure that I was capable of a number of OT tricks in that state. I chose not to do any of those tricks (for several weeks) all the while continuing to cog and blow charge, but finally decided to do an OT thing to test the state as I needed some sort of feedback or confirmation of what was going on. (I’d told the C/S what was happening and only gotten an ack. There really wasn’t anything he could have said and I knew it. I was, however, bursting at the seams with energy. Almost more than a body could take.) So I did the OT thing and (with a sound like “Shooop”) I was back interior. That confirmed for me that I had just been in a state of release, not Clear.

        That feeling of being re-interiorized was actually harder on me than that bursting feeling I’d had while exterior. I felt far below my usual normal in tone. I went to exams a while later and told the examiner my story. I was quickly put on a DCSI and very quickly rehabbed. The most interesting thing about the DCSI was the date-locate. When I tried to date-locate the “release” (I kept telling the auditor and C/S it was just a release) to the cog point on training I got the most amazing sensation of mass. It was like a baseball sized mass (and heavy) that rolled around inside my head. My head actually wanted to tip in the direction of the mass as it rotated. My auditor quickly assessed and got a read on “wrong date” and indicated it. The mass blew on indication. I then looked earlier and earlier and popped up with a vivid, unmistakeable picture of time and location, LLT, that did bring in my indicators and re-release me to a point better than my previous normal but less than that OT high.

        I attested to Clear as the phenomena indicated, but as I was a trained auditor I knew it was unlikely I had run Dn LLT based on the date/locate point. That bothered me. I wondered how I could be Clear without having run engrams. But there were a few things I knew. I knew, for example, that I’d run out my LLT death when I was about four years old by confronting it in a dream. I knew I’d run out many, many other deaths by confronting them in dreams over the years until no more occurred. I knew that as a youngster and teen I had used the straight-wire technique that we’d used in the early 50’s to blow the charge I was experiencing as an adolescent. I’d essentially been soloing since I was four. I knew the vast amount of charge that I’d blown as an auditor in training (I’d read an auditing command or question on a list and some would run and blow charge) and I kew the amount of charge I’d blown sitting as an auditor, TR’s in, and having something run while the PC was also having something run. I knew the amount of charge I’d blown during sessions I’d received. Overall, I’d blown a lot of charge over the time I trained to Cl V. Lastly, after driving to the location I had come up with in date-locate I was utterly amazed to see how little it had changed from the time I had vividly recalled on the DCSI. All this gave me a solid confidence in the recognition that I had attained an ability to be at cause over mest in relation to the first dynamic.

        The same course of history gave me a very good reality on the thing LRH called the mind and the reactive mind. It is nothing to scoff at. When it is energized it has immense power. I have felt beams of energy literally crushing me that blew in an instant when a right indication occurred. Similarly with pains and emotions I have encountered things that would cave-in a person under normal circumstances and I’ve seen those things blow by inspection or indication. That kind of energy phenomena cannot be conscribed to an sleepy “gradient of consciousness”. It does, however, fit perfectly with the model of the thetan and the reactive mind and the postulate mechanism that I recently proposed.

        Further, that model also allowed me to fully understand how theta could be a static, even if abberated.

        Here is a bit of an expansion of the model:

        – the QM model of matter and energy defines elementary particles that go between a probabilistic state and a condensed state as a wave or a particle
        – the probabilistic state is not defined by form, shape or location
        – the probabilistic state is not defined by matter, energy, space or time
        – thus the QM probabilistic state could be called a static
        – the opposite side of the probabilistic state is the “condensed” state
        – in QM the condensed state is wave (energy) or particle (mass)
        – the two states – condensed and probabilistic can be thought of using the analogy of a tuning fork: striking either side of the fork causes the opposite side to go into a sympathetic vibration
        – theta is every bit the equivalent of the “probabilistic state” defined by QM
        – like a tuning fork, theta will respond to an external stimulus
        – theta retains a memory of past events an incidents which can be restimulated to produce a condensation of mass or energy
        – this mass or energy can be directed detrimentally back at the thetan and an associated body
        – when the energy is directed back on the theta, a reinforcement can occur as the memory continues to be restimulated
        – these memories can be keyed out at which time there is no longer the sensation of energy being directed onto the body or back at the thetan
        – restimulation is that reaction that occurs with the thetan when presented with conditions that approximate the memory or otherwise bring it to awareness
        – since the memories can be restimulated that cause a thetan discomfort, it is fair to call that set of memories a reactive mind
        – a primary component to the ability of the reactive mind to exert influence is the postulate
        – the postulate is the idea generated by the thetan that can hold a restimulated memory in the condensed state (in a state of energy or mass)
        – the postulate is the means that the thetan uses to create ANYTHING
        – the postulate can be generated ONLY by something that can exercise WILL
        – that factor is the factor that distinguishes theta from mest: theta can postulate, mest cannot
        – it is the quality of theta to as-is by duplication (or understanding, or observation) that allows theta to blow charge (condensed energy or mass)
        – in the LRH model of theta below the level of Clear, theta would react to external stimuli and re-create the energy picture as a condensation of energy or mass from the energy-less, mass-less recording stored in the probabilistic state (static). This would occur at a level below awareness.
        – in the LRH model of theta at Clear, theta is aware of the ability of the mind to restimulate and it is this awareness that allows as-isness of most restimulations as they occur. Thus theta at that level is not easily susceptible to the effects of previous moments of body unconsciousness.
        – abberated theta would then be theta with some amount of continuously re-created energy or mass about it
        – this energy or mass would give theta the apparency of no longer being a static
        – similar to the QM model, the condensed and probabilistic states are clearly separate
        – in the QM model, it is very likely that there is an oscillation between the probabilistic and condensed states
        – in the theta model there could be (and should be) a continuum of the probabilistic state i.e. no oscillation between probabilistic and condensed states
        – in the theta model, the condensed state about the thetan is whatever the thetan has set up by one means or another
        – the condensed state around theta may be enturbulative (abberated) or non-enturbulative (as in pleasure or aesthetics)
        – theta can set the state of condensation by postulate, good or not good
        – theta may or may not respond to external energies with condensations, depending on awareness
        – mest quanta predominantly alter the condensed state (from wave to particle or particle to wave) only in response to an environmental influence. Any other instance of change is a matter of probability
        – theta is capable of causing changes (mest condensations) by will

        1. I am starting to question the idea of a “mind” – something I think LRH took for granted. I see it now more as a gradient of creation from the ultra-conscious to the less conscious to oblivious. I can’t see a sharp boundary of the mind, let alone any “reactive mind”.

          1. Geir
            You have been producing here shifts after shifts these weeks. WHAT is that that underlies it? Also, how do you perceive the ‘physical universe’ (what is your perception of it)?

          2. Geir: “I am starting to question the idea of a “mind” – something I think LRH took for granted. I see it now more as a gradient of creation from the ultra-conscious to the less conscious to oblivious. I can’t see a sharp boundary of the mind, let alone any “reactive mind”.”

            I think if we are going to get anywhere on this question of the mind, we need a definition for what a mind is. I myself have yet to see a satisfactory definition of a mind.

            Hubbard’s definitions don’t seem to cut it, as evidenced by the simple fact that no-one has ever been shown to truly have attained any of the various objective definitions of Clear that have been around. This lends to the idea that the mind itself was poorly understood and so none of the mechanical techniques to deal with the mind worked properly and fully as designed.

            Other definitions describe a “stimulus-response mechanism that …”. Well, that’s not a definition either, it’s a description of an effect or possibly just a model. Either way it does not define a mind – either reactive or analytical.

            Which brings us back to the age-old question: what exactly is a mind anyway? If it truly exists as a “thing” then it must be objectively measurable and be falsifiable, which puts the subject into the arena of scientific testing.

            Or perhaps a “mind” is not a “thing” as such, perhaps it is a “quality” as nicely described in “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance” by Pirsig. That makes the mind a model.

            I’m tending towards the latter.

            Alan

          3. Geir: “I am starting to question the idea of a “mind” – something I think LRH took for granted.”

            Maybe LRH was speaking to the R of most people, and there also exists the limitations of language. However, you and LRH may actually be in agreement. Even though most of the 8 definitions of “mind” in the Tech Dictionary have to do with pictures/recordings, there are a few definitions that seem to be in line with what you are questioning about the actual existence of mind. The following definitions seem to consider “mind” as nothing more than the being/thetan:

            4 . the purpose of the mind is to pose and resolve problems relating to survival and to direct the effort of the organism according to these solutions. (Scn 0-8, p. 76) 5 . a natively self-determined computer which poses, observes and resolves problems to accomplish survival. It does its thinking with facsimiles of experience or facsimiles of synthetic experience. It is natively cause. It seeks to be minimally an effect. (HFP, p. 33) 6 . the human mind is an observer, postulator, creator and storage place of knowledge. (HFP, p. 163)

            1. Not quite. I wonder if “a mind” exists per se or if there is only a gradient of a beings creations – from conscious thoughts to less conscious thought to more and more solid stuff all the way down to particles. Maybe there is no compartmenting of these creations at all. Perhaps no mind. And certainly no compartmented reactive mind.

            2. 1) As I see it, some of a being’s creations have charge connected with them and are part of those creations, and others don’t. The charged ones are simply given a term by which to refer to them – and that term is “the reactive mind”.

              2) In your viewpoint, why are some thoughts more conscious than others?

            3. The concept of a scale of consciousness fits perfectly with the basic principles of Scientology on gradients and infinity valued logic and is the natural direction of improvement for the models of reactive and analytical mind, etc. everything becomes more fluid as it grows and more solid as it stops growing.

            4. Yes, Rafael, the principle of gradients fits the idea of a scale of consciousness and is already incorporated throughout the tech, both auditing and study tech. However, some gradients occur that are steeper than others. The kind of thing that Dan Koon described when he went Clear, and which others have similarly described, would be a rather steep gradient of improvement. I imagine that some people go Clear more gradiently than others – but with each one there comes the “gradient” of being able to handle their own pictures, not absolutely but relatively so. 😉

            5. There is another plus point to gradients, with fixed models you have fixed solutions, as your model becomes more fluid, your solutions become more diverse, you are looking at the problem from a higher perspective, from a freer, more pan-determined, more OT´ish level, if you wish. From my side of the true scotsman fallacy, a true OT wouldn´t be constrained by Scientology anymore:-)

            6. As I see it, as you move towards source, you also move towards freedom and creativity. The most valuable parts of any model, are those who guide you towards the source of whatever you are looking at, so you become source. Fixed models and fixed solutions exist on the mechanic side of things, on the effect´s side.
              And I´m sure you agree with me on this:-)

            7. Rafael, in your previous post, you said, “ From my side of the true scotsman fallacy, a true OT wouldn´t be constrained by Scientology anymore :)”

              At least you’re an aware true Scotsman. 🙂

              But seriously, I guess you have read where LRH basically said the same – that eventually we would leave Scientology behind. I’ve been trying to find the reference for you but couldn’t. In any case, this same idea has been stated by many other great philosophers as well.

              As for your last post just above, my sentiments were expressed beautifully by Sapere Aude on Geir’s blog post that follows this one. He wrote:

              “…Without some construct how would one learn to understand anything. I, personally, am not to the point of automatic knowing about anything and everything. Therefore, constructs help to view and understand. As long as we don’t forget they are but constructs. Sort of like forms for building concrete structures. After we have build it, can remove the forms and scaffolding and just have the end result.

              “Does it matter what one thinks of engrams, mental image recordings of painful events, etc – to actually experience a betterment once this is [no] longer a hidden/unobserved recording. Some word is going to be used. I feel the key is the increase of awareness, the waking up, as we progress on this flow. Whether by auditing, study, etc – does it really matter. It is the journey into increased awareness that is the enjoyment and result of moving on that journey. The end point probably doesn’t matter nearly as much as the journey. It could be that the journey IS the end point.” https://isene.me/2013/04/08/cognitive-dissonance/#comment-36507

              And I´m pretty sure you agree with me on this. 😀

            8. Yes, I am a true Scotsman!! An aware true Scotsman!! Ha ha!! 🙂

              This is the reference:
              Let’s take the subject of Scientology and let’s see if there’s any logic involved with it at all. There isn’t a mathematics that can embrace the subject of Scientology, because it is an invented mathematics. It’s an invented mathematics that accepts gradient scales and “absolutes are unobtainable”. And it is a method of thinking about things. And is just as true as it is workable. And no truer. And is not, in itself, an arbitrary, fascistic uh…police force to make sure that we all think right thoughts. It’s a servant of the mind, a servo-mechanism of the mind, it is not a master of the mind. Scientology will decline, and become useless to man, on the day when it becomes the master of thinking. Don’t think it won’t do that. It has every capability in it of doing that. – LRH, PDC #20

              And yes, we can use the model in fixed or fluid form as it will work best as long as we keep increasing awareness. At the level of mastery we can freely change our focus from fixed to fluid as needed, at robotic level we can use only fixed models and fixed solutions.

            9. LOL, I’ve quoted that same passage – more than once! 🙂 And of course the last couple sentences describe exactly what happened in the CoS.

              You also wrote: “At the level of mastery we can freely change our focus from fixed to fluid as needed, at robotic level we can use only fixed models and fixed solutions.”

              That is well expressed. Existing in the physical universe does require a fixed focus quite a bit of the time but playing the game well also requires fluidity – “as needed”, just as you wrote.

              And in case I haven’t already said this a thousand times 🙂 the main reason I keep “pushing” Scientology (in addition to the fact that I don’t agree that in its basic form it is truly a fixed method) is that I think it is more than likely true that the particular path it lays out is workable for most, or at least many, people. (How valuable is that?!) And furthermore, some people do need a path that is relatively fixed and structured – at least to start with.

              As always, great conversing with you, Rafael. 🙂

            10. Marildi: And furthermore, some people do need a path that is relatively fixed and structured – at least to start with.

              Chris: In your generality, are you referring to yourself?

            11. Hey Rafael, I thought you might like this, especially the part about “ability to act freely in the framework of mechanics”.

              “The basic theory in which the student is to be instructed is as follows: Considerations take rank over the mechanics of space, energy, and time and that these mechanics are the product of agreed-upon considerations which life mutually holds. That the mechanics have taken such precedent in man that they have become more important than the considerations and overpower his ability to act freely in the framework of mechanics, which is to say that the picture man presents is an inverted one. That the goal of processing is to bring an individual into such thorough communication with the physical universe that
              he can regain the power and ability of his own postulates.” (Creation of Human Ability)

            12. Hubbard: That the mechanics have taken such precedent in man that they have become more important than the considerations and overpower his ability to act freely in the framework of mechanics, which is to say that the picture man presents is an inverted one.

              Chris: You see how much is implied here? On its surface, this is a positive statement but how much raw opened-ended expectation does this statement really generate? He both says and implies that man can become a god of the physical universe like the gods of his imagination and that is just plain wrong.

            13. Isene: “I wonder if “a mind” exists per se or if there is only a gradient of a beings creations – from conscious thoughts to less conscious thought to more and more solid stuff all the way down to particles.”

              Somewhere along the line you need to nail down the concept of memory: is memory stored as pictures, thoughts, some other mechanism, all of the above?

              The reason you need to do that is if you have a concept of a multiple-lifetime being that you are going to deal with, then questions of memory, ability and means are all valid and necessary to ask. The body “mind” and the theta “mind” may be very different from the point of how memory is stored as perhaps body memory can have a biological component that can’t be carried life to life. A consequence of that limitation would be, for instance that we will be forced to re-learn mathematics in each life iteration, (or maybe not!).

              Here is a model of the theta-brain interface I came up with in my early Scio years modified by current considerations:

              – it has been formerly posited that problems with memory are problems of recall, not problems of storage
              – considering the brain as the storage medium of 3-D pictures would imply a physical limit to storage as the brain is a bounded structure
              – thus the brain would not be capable of infinite storage
              – all sensory input from the body is processed by electrical signal exchange in the brain
              – any unique 3-D sensory input would have a unique electrical pattern across the brain surface
              – that electrical pattern would be a composite of the sensory input and thought about that input
              – theta is said to be affected by electricity
              – theta itself may have a basic electric or electromagnetic nature
              – theta may act as a mirror (copy maker) of what it senses
              – it is possible, then, that the 3-D electrical pattern across the brain may be imprinted on theta
              – it is also possible, and likely, that theta responds to electrical / wave stimulation with a resonance action that reproduces a formerly recorded image
              – that recalled memory is capable of being recreated in the physical universe as a condensation of energy, possibly in a 3-D electrical pattern identical to the original recording
              – an infinite number of 3-D electrical patterns across the brain are possible
              – if a 3-D electrical pattern is able to impress on theta a recording, then theta is capable of an infinite number of recorded images
              – in the reactive mind model, it is “approximated environmental condition” that restimulates theta memory
              – this “approximated environmental condition” would set up an approximate 3-D electrical pattern on the brain
              – this electrical pattern would then resonate with theta, bringing the memory out of the probabilistic state and into PT action via the mechanism of energy condensation
              – this condensed energy pattern may be a replica of the energy patterns stored at the time of incident
              – the electrical pattern imposed on the brain by theta would have the same effects on body chemistry as the original electrical pattern resulting from original sensory input
              – thus a response to an engram
              – engramic response is a response that can demonstrate memory storage by strong initial electrical conditions
              – continued recording while the brain is unconscious must mean that the electrical interface is not wholly required
              – the electrical interface may be dominant while it is active (the brain is conscious) but theta perceptics may take over in moments of unconsciousness
              – recordings at the point of brain unconsciousness may only be as good as the direct theta-mest sensory ability
              – many conditions may dictate the quality of direct theta-mest sensory ability
              – thus, different subjects may have different recall abilities of moments of unconsciousness
              – for memories created by the conscious brain, the strength of storage and consequent ease of recall may be linked to the ease of re-creation of the initial electrical pattern that generated the memory
              – this could be why mnemonic tags are useful as triggers to a recall of difficult or complex memories: the mnemonic tag would generate a simple electrical pattern more easily imprinted on the brain as a biological memory which is then triggerable by the biological function of speech. This trigger would set up the base electrical 3-D pattern that would resonate with the more complete theta memory and bring it to awareness
              – to the degree that theta is dependent on this 3-D electrical restimulation / recall process, a person will have good or poor memory
              – the solution to memory may be the re-training of theta to not be dependent on the brain electrical interface for the recall of stored memory
              – there may also exist disabilities in the mechanism that are implanted impediments as these would be of electrical nature, also

              Going back to the earlier blog discussion on the memory capability of a Clear, it may be more germane to restate the question as “Is there a potential limit to the memory capacity of a thetan if the thetan is of the form of a probabilistic structure as we envision for the QM model of basic nature?”

              If we can speculate on the thetan as being essentially the same as this quantum model of the probabilistic state, then a whole new appreciation of the potential of the thetan opens up.

            14. 2x, there was a website that I found about a year ago that had all the chapters of a book called “The Magic of Quantum” by Phyllis Kirk. Unfortunately the site no longer has all the chapters, but I think it was in one of them that there was included a picture of an injured cell (maybe a kirlian photograph) that showed a specific energy pattern around the cell. I think LRH would have called that the entheta of the injury. Anyway, I wish I could have found it because I think it was relevant to your memory model. The site also has some interesting data about the wavelengths of emotions. http://www.themagicofquantum.com/review.php

              From a chapter of that book I found as a pdf document (without photos), here’s an paragraph about “memory patterns”,:

              “A living system is cognizant, knowing. It is aware of its environment. A living system has
              the ability to deal with information in a way that generates order and self-organization.
              Such a system knows what its purpose is. It makes itself based on the memory of its
              pattern even as various internal segments die, change or regenerate. The memories of
              the organism remain and are the known pattern around which the new segments form.” http://www.themagicofquantum.com/files/chapter_02.pdf

            15. That link is a statement of many of the conclusions I have also had. I’ll have to read the whole site. Thanks.

            16. 2x, glad to know my post finally got out of moderation (due to having links). I wrote it last night around midnight or so and earlier this morning I saw it was still was “awaiting moderation”.

              I remember now a question I had about your memory model, which has to do with this point: “theta itself may have a basic electric or electromagnetic nature”.

              Do you think that’s because of theta’s continuous “mirroring” of the passing moments of time in the physical universe, i.e. creating the energy pictures (which LRH appropriately called facsimiles), that gives it “a basic electric or electromagnetic nature”? Or would that conflict with the idea of theta ever being in a “probablistic state”?

              In other words, theta is supposed to be static, and that seems to conflict with “a basic electric or electromagnetic nature”.

            17. Marildi: “1) As I see it, some of a being’s creations have charge connected with them and are part of those creations, and others don’t. The charged ones are simply given a term by which to refer to them – and that term is “the reactive mind”.

              2) In your viewpoint, why are some thoughts more conscious than others?”

              Me: 1) I see all creations on a gradient scale of solidity and friction. The more solid (i.e. more in general agreement), the more frictious (you may call it charge). But I don’t see it as “either with charge or not”.

              2) Degree of responsibility for ownership.

            18. You’d be as correct in syaing “a being has no existence” as you’d be in saying “an electron has no existence”. So do electrons have no existence?

            19. @2x, Is it just me or is the highest degree of metaphor for this existence always a tautology? It’s like we’re standing on one foot with ankles crossed and our upper body leaning on one palm lying flat on the domed cover of the “Truman Show” while we discuss “it is what it is.”

            20. Chris: “….it is what it is.”

              Other than diving into the safe pool of denial I guess philosophical bombast is your other real safe retreat.

              Alanzo and others (including myself to a large degree) would have our philosophising shackled to scientific proof. I say “Great! Let’s take a look at the philosophical arguments that can be inferred from this study of science.”

              First, while science has maybe not proved the “probabilistic” state of quantum stuff, it seems generally considered to be the best answer to how stuff behaves. So while the idea of the probabilistic state may smack of a tautology, we hopefully can agree that it’s a generally agreed tautology.

              If you don’t want to agree with this tautology then we’re faced with this quandary – “the earth – sheeza flat”, “the earth – sheeza round” when dealing with quanta. The general consensus is “sheeza round” i.e. we have a probabilistic state to consider. If you wanna say “the eartha, sheeza flat”, then I’ll have to leave you to the other corner of the sandbox.

              Second, if it is given that we can talk about a probabilistic state of matter, then we should be able to talk about the probabilistic state of “existence”. Both should be at least equal probabilities, even if only very remote possibilities.

              What amazes me is when physicists like Lawrence Krause can stand up at the lecturn and state that the whole universe could have come from one quantum instability that just happened to be the right quantum instability to create the conditions of life as we know them BUT! at the same time say this idea of a quantum instability means that we can scrap any idea of a creator!

              Why is it that it is so easy to see a quantum instability as having arisen out of NOTHING when we can’t imagine an awareness arising out of nothing?

              So my argument is simply that If we can accept that an electron has a probabilistic state, then we should be able to accept the possibility that awareness could derive from a probabilistic state. Beyond that I’d say it is much more likely that “awareness”, through trial and error, could figure out how to make (create) a life-supporting universe than it is for one whoppersized quanta to have done it all on its own.

            21. 2x: Why is it that it is so easy to see a quantum instability as having arisen out of NOTHING when we can’t imagine an awareness arising out of nothing?

              Chris: Yes, I can see this. When I have been looking for my own fixed ideas, assumptions, etc., toward life and the meaning of my existence, I always come up with them, plenty of them.

              A tactic that I am finding useful is trying to be mindful to relax them. Soften them. This is creating the sensation of making my thinking more flexible. In this way, in this less absolute way than erasing my assumptions, it seems that I can still think over the top of having lots of contrary assumptions. I seem to be able to conjecture without hardening the conjectures into thought stoppers.

            22. 2x: So my argument is simply that If we can accept that an electron has a probabilistic state, then we should be able to accept the possibility that awareness could derive from a probabilistic state.

              Chris: This is a good way to state this. Why it dovetails with what I’m working on is because it seems to me that underpinning our personification of the gods lies an assumption that “god’s consciousness” is a consciousness like the one of our daily experience. I don’t think this model is laid out quite right.

            23. Personally, I like the the idea of “gross” thoughts and “subtle” thoughts vs. “conscious” thoughts and “unconscious” thoughts. Because the more focused you become, and the more aware you become of your own universe, less and less of you is ever “unconscious”.

              There is no inherent “unconscious” mind.

              An “unconscious” mind depends upon how “conscious” you are of it.

              And I’m just going to say this here – Scientology is not going to make you more conscious of yourself. It will only make you more of a Scientoilogist.

              Alanzo

            24. Alanzo: “An “unconscious” mind depends upon how “conscious” you are of it.”

              Are you conscious when you sleep?

            25. 2x: Are you conscious when you sleep?

              Chris: (jumping in) Only so much as I am and not more and no less! LOL!

              For me “consciousness” is analogous to the collapse of the wave function. And it takes energy to bring that about. For me, consciousness is that activity which brings about dimension. What do I mean by dimension? A quantifiable property which can increase or decrease. Therefore I seem multi-dimensions in simple terms, easy to grasp ideas about the quantifiable properties of matter, energy and space-time — not just space-time. I get a little tautological at this point, but I am endeavoring (without success?) not to.

            26. 2X: Are you conscious when you sleep?

              Chris: But really, no. Not so much. Like compared to normal “awake?” Big difference, just guessing at myself, order of magnitude of 10:10^ -3 power or something. But powerful (for me) processing occurs at some point for some duration – culminating with wakefulness. Maybe the calculation is instantaneous just at the cusp of waking, I’m not sure since I am asleep until I am awake.

              You?

            27. Chris: “I’m not sure since I am asleep until I am awake. You?”

              There are those moments when one composes the deathless prose, but in general I consider sleep to valuable to be wasted on conscious thought. 🙂

            28. 2x: but in general I consider sleep to valuable to be wasted on conscious thought. 🙂

              Chris: LOL. We agree on that! My experience of restful sleep is similar to what I observe my computer doing when I reboot it. It seems to sometimes get into a state of nonsense where it simply needs to stop. Reboot. Start over. Maybe this is all that is happening to my mind and upon waking I simply start fresh. No important process required.

            29. @Chris

              Thanks for you replies. Your method of re-thinking ideas is a definite nod to the plastic model of the brain (although I would extend that idea to the theta-brain-mind model). But very well done on developing that ability.

              Your idea of the reboot effect from sleep is also very sensible and workable sounding. It ties in with the 3-D electrical patterning that I was talking about in the memory model:

              With the computer, the reboot aids in cleaning up computer memory fragmentation that comes from starting and stopping programs.

              In the human brain model the 3-D patterns can set up loops (like an annoying bit of music) that can diminish the overall capacity for thought. Hence we have the saying “I need to clear my head.”

              Sleep would do this at the lowest level and it may be a time consuming task to remove all the loops of the day. That may be the primary reason why a perpetually sleep deprived body would end up with nearly un-eraseable loops; b-modded (behavior modified); (“brainwashed” in some vocabularies).

              (Al, you jes’ hesh now or momma gonna slap you upside da head.) 🙂

            30. Chris: It seems to sometimes get into a state of nonsense where it simply needs to stop. Reboot. Start over. Maybe this is all that is happening to my mind and upon waking I simply start fresh.

              Like your analogy. With me at times, I get awakened or can’t sleep because something is on my mind, then I get up, think about it or not, eat or not. Then it’s like a reboot for sleep. And yes, wake up and start fresh.

            31. You can be, if you develop your ability for “mindful sleeping”. But like you, I value sleep too much to ever want to do that.

            32. Alanzo: I like the the idea of “gross” thoughts and “subtle” thoughts vs. “conscious” thoughts and “unconscious” thoughts.

              Chris: I get you. There’s a lot of assumptions and lore connected with conscious and unconsciousness.

            33. Alanzo: Scientology is not going to make you more conscious of yourself. It will only make you more of a Scientoilogist.

              Interesting! Hadn’t seen it spelled like that before. Toil: hard work labor, move with difficulty, pain or weariness. Toil 2, net; snare: as caught in the toils of the …. noun.
              I suppose both def’s could apply eh? LOL at good one. 🙂

            34. deE, I think it was a typo but it worked didn’t it? Aside from that, Alanzo more than most have spelled out a lot of new ways of looking at things for me.

            35. Marildi: Hey Rafael, I thought you might like this, especially the part about “ability to act freely in the framework of mechanics”.

              R: I´d say it is absolutely marvelous, and exactly there you are touching the basic unproved assumption of Scientology:

              Considerations take rank over mechanics, thought above matter, Theta universe above Mest universe, etc. It creates a beautiful, wonderful, marvelous haven. But it is an absolute statement and remains a mirage to this day. And with this I mean specifically people who understand that statement as meaning they can directly break with their thoughts the rules that govern solid matter, energy, space and time.

              Some parts of Scientology (and other things) helped me marvelously to regain gradual control over my own thoughts, to move towards understanding, freedom, love, willingness to live, appreciation of life in itself, etc., and there seems to be a gradient between thought and matter, but once you are at the level of solid matter, hard mechanics, (not at the sub-atomic level) there is not much freedom of choice left.

              Probably and important component of sanity is to be able to recognize the actual areas of influence of thought. I deem delusional a person who considers he can bend the material universe at his will, specially since there is no proof whatsoever which he could submit for it.

              There might be infinite room to growth for thought following the natural evolution of the universe (which includes life itself) instead of trying to free ourselves from it, or bend it at will.

              “There are no short-cuts to infinity”

              (Ha ha ! I wanted to end this post with a dramatic statement Alanzo style and I liked this one!!!)

            36. Rafael: “Probably and important component of sanity is to be able to recognize the actual areas of influence of thought.”

              Chris: Awesome. Concise and precise.

            37. Rafael: There might be infinite room to growth for thought following the natural evolution of the universe (which includes life itself) instead of trying to free ourselves from it, or bend it at will.

              Chris: I am all about this concept.

            38. You can walk into the ocean inch by inch or dive in off the end of the pier. The intent and result are the same: getting wet. Totally your choice.

            39. 2x. Is there a reason it wouldn’t be?

              Chris: I’m seeing more models that allow for it not to be. This argument about determinism vs free will is seeming 2 dimensional to me. It needs more dimensions. Anyways, all I’m really trying to say is that I’ve a burr under my saddle about something to do with this subject of consciousness and free will and it doesn’t go away and I am not trusting the way it is laid out. That’s all I got. It will come up again.

            40. Chris: “Anyways, all I’m really trying to say is that I’ve a burr under my saddle about something to do with this subject of consciousness and free will and it doesn’t go away …”

              Well, Hoss, I guess that burr will just have to dig in until you can fetch it out. The rider might just have to get out of the saddle to do it.

            41. Rafael: “And with this I mean specifically people who understand that statement as meaning they can directly break with their thoughts the rules that govern solid matter, energy, space and time.”

              And that would be a misunderstanding, or at best a very incomplete and misleading understanding, of what LRH was saying. I think you have just expressed the main problem for people with Scn – they interpret statements without knowing enough about the context of the whole philosophy, and thus they MISinterpret. You should dig out your COHA or other Scn materials and review them from the high level of knowingness you now have.

              Btw, Geir – as an OT and as one who we all know doesn’t buy something just because LRH said it (in fact, it’s more like because of the fact that LRH said it he tries to see how it is NOT true) – also says that considerations are senior to mechanics, and that MEST itself is nothing more than agreed-upon considerations, as expressed in his article “On Will”. So I imagine LRH is in good company about this point, from the viewpoint of posters on this blog. 😉

              Sorry I can’t write more but I have lots of other fish to fry today. 😦 🙂

            42. Marildi: “Btw, Geir – as an OT and as one who we all know doesn’t buy something just because LRH said it (in fact, it’s more like because of the fact that LRH said it he tries to see how it is NOT true)”

              Wow – what a Straw Man. Marildi, your emotions are showing.

            43. “Wow – what a Straw Man. Marildi, your emotions are showing.”

              I thought it was sufficiently mitigated with “more like” (“in fact it’s more like…). Anyway, I was just stating my observations of many of your blog posts and comments. It might be that you are simply applying LRH’s study principle of “You are asked to examine the subject of Scientology on a critical basis—a very critical basis”, or you may have some other motivation – which only you would know, not me. Sorry if I offended you. But you are right that I find it annoying that you operate “on a critical basis” in what seems to me to be in a biased way, as I’ve said before. That is nothing new I’m saying.

            44. I have reiterated why I bring up my points that counter LRH so many times before that I am not going to do it yet another time here. But it would be good if you could drop the Straw Men.

            45. Exactly what you yourself said it was: “in fact, it’s more like because of the fact that LRH said it he tries to see how it is NOT true”

            46. Well, compared to buying something LRH said just because he said it, it IS “more like” you trying to see how it is NOT true just because LRH said it.

              And in any case, I don’t see what that has to do with Straw Man, which is basically to restate what a person says in a different way and them argue against that. What I did was to state an observation, no different from what you and others have done regarding me many times.

            47. Let’s call it instead a “biased and skillfull misrepresentation of another’s position in an attempt to generate an emotional response in another” rather than merely a Straw Man.

              Let’s keep to what my position actually is rather than your biased representation of it.

            48. Geir, I find it hard to believe that after all this time you don’t know me any better than that. It isn’t in my nature at all to intentionally misrepresent someone – for ANY reason, let alone for the purpose of getting an “emotional reaction” out of them, if by that you mean to “hit” them just to hurt them. If that’s what you’re saying, it really catches me by surprise. It may be that in my representations of you I have been mistaken, but it certainly wasn’t deliberately so – and never for the purpose of “hitting”. I just don’t operate like that.

              The various observations I’ve stated were done with the intention that you take a look at your bias and that is really no different from your intentions when you’ve tried to get me to see what you consider to be my bias – which I at least recognize is all you’re doing. If what you just stated is that, in so many words, I’m just trying to “hit”, that’s a pretty low opinion of me and I wouldn’t have believed you felt that way.

              I’ve been straightforwardly saying for some time that your views of Scientology seem rather inconsistent to me, and recently I even made the remark that such inconsistencies made me think maybe someone was in your ear. Now I’m wondering if there’s a 3rd party as regards me, because I find it hard to believe that your powers of observation could be that off.

              And as for this last comment of yours, I think it’s kind of strange that whereas you are criticizing me for representing you as biased, you feel it is perfectly okay for you to represent me as biased.

            49. Isene: Wow – what a Straw Man. Q. Do straw men eat fish? A. No, but they can make a good fire to fry them with. Tee hee! Nice ending to a delightful evening.

            50. Rafael, last night I posted that comment to you with the quote from COHA and just this morning Marty put out a new blog post quoting the same book and the same principle. but with more context. Do me a favor and check out his blog post, the quote and his own comments, and tell me if it does anything for you. You might also want to look over the thread comments as many of them are the kinds of points you have brought up.

              http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2013/04/10/why-learn-something-of-quantum-theory/

            51. Marildi: ” . . . last night I posted that comment to you with the quote from COHA and just this morning Marty put out a new blog post quoting the same book and the same principle.”

              Chris: No one seems to be moving toward Scientology — neither is Marty Rathbun. I am not “taking a win” on this, I am noticing it. As a person moves beyond Scientology, it seems to become less of a tool and more in the category of baggage. People seem to come to a moment when they notice this and they just lay it down then walk on.

            52. Rafael Wrote:

              (Ha ha ! I wanted to end this post with a dramatic statement Alanzo style and I liked this one!!!)

              Hey! My zingers are trademarked!

              Here’s a message to Rafael:

              Being There – The Rafael Sequence

              Alanzo

            53. “Considerations take rank over the mechanics of space, energy, and time”
              Marildi: I understand your position, but the problem I have with that statement is that it is open to be interpreted the way I did and Ron made statements exactly to that effect in many instances, for example about making actual pieces of Mest dissapear, making the hats fly off people´s heads, etc, etc, etc.

              I can understand it in a much more conservative way, but let´s face it:

              Ron meant it to be interpreted that way.

            54. Alanzo: Here is a message for Rafael

              Rafael: Here is a message for Alanzo:

              M*ther F*ker:
              I will cut your sorry-little-white ass to pieces with MY zingers !!!
              And then eat it with some mexican beans and a nice chianti !!!
              Just watch me:

            55. Rafael –

              Don’t look now, but you have sunk to communicating on a via.

              I don’t want to evaluate for you or anything, but your dwindling spiral began with the unauthorized use of Alanzo’s trademarks.

              I know. A correct indication can be a rocket-ride to OT.

              You’re welcome.

              Alanzo

            56. Ha ha ! I won´t fall with that banana peel:

              My knowingly and willingly selected via is Sir Anthony Hopkins and I´m very comfortable with it for the moment, Thank you.

              In appreciation to your rocket ride to OT indication I offer you this:

              You can keep your ass if I can keep my zingers

              Badass Rafael

            57. Since you emphasized “me”, who or what were you implying I was trying to hit?.

            58. I wasn’t implying that you attempted to hit anyone. You brought up the concept of “hitting”.

            59. Okay, thanks. But who did you think I was trying to emotionally influence? And how so, and why?

          1. Geir

            Do we want ‘cleared theta clears’? Let’s start it now! POSITION. Any kind of position implies
            space. And as we know from recent videos, mest space is CHARGED. So ‘hitting’ another’s
            position is most welcome as some charge will get released, or as-ised…

            1. Geir
              That ‘part’ of the viewPOINT, the Point, which positions the ‘viewing’ in space gets charged in
              the instant of positioning. Not to be charged means being free of all POINTS-of-views, in which case only VIEWING remains. It means being ready to be ‘kicked out of’ any positions, during which process any charge of any spaces will be released and as-is-ed….

        2. 2x
          Glad you are ‘back’ since you haven’t been posting for a while! Just thought yesterday that I had been missing you! What you write about your earlier cogs, release…rings some bells in me! Also, since the age of 4…..a very wild question: does one really need anything, just anything, any tool to ‘do’ what you were doing as a child?
          There are some videos on the soap-box thread. If you are interested and haven’t seen them yet, see them if you like.

          1. Marianne: “does one really need anything, just anything, any tool to ‘do’ what you were doing as a child?”

            All that was done was to confront and experience the deaths. I think it is common for children to have “bad dreams”. I had these and would wake up before the really bad thing happened. Uncomfortable and unpleasant. So I decided to see what would happen if I just let “it” happen. Contrary to myth that if you die in a dream you will die, my experience was nasty feelings that would then never re-occur. In essence, the memory had lost power over me. It got to be almost interesting to look objectively at the death occurring, feel a portion of it and occassionally get a thought from the time of the death. The LLT death was the first death I encountered.

          2. 2x
            Thanks for your answer.

            You write earlier:
            ‘The solution to memory may be the re-training of theta to not be dependant on the brain electrical interface for the recall of stored memory’.

            As to me thought seems to have electro-magnetic quality, can this re-training mean ‘neglecting’ thoughts and rather kind of ‘resting’ in the probabilistic state – seems to me there is direct knowingness in that ‘state’ without relying on ‘data’ of any kind…..

            1. Marianne: “seems to me there is direct knowingness in that ‘state’ without relying on ‘data’ of any kind…..”

              I think the state still relies on acquired data (experience) to solve “problems” (for want of a better word). If that were not the case then theta would have known what would happen to degrade it when it went down the path it took. It would have had to be insane in the first place to wish further degradation, and I don’t think that was the case. Thus I make my case that theta was not “all-knowing” although it had the potential of being all-knowing.

              This is similar to the parent-child model: the parent does not want its child to have to experience some of the things the parent had experienced. The child is capable of great potential knowingness; the parent has acquired great experiential knowingness.

            2. Marianne: “As to me thought seems to have electro-magnetic quality, can this re-training mean ‘neglecting’ thoughts and rather kind of ‘resting’ in the probabilistic state”

              I’m not sure yet how we can define the probabilistic state and the mechanic of picture sorage or memory storage.

              The electro-magnetic quality of the “space” created by theta may give an indication that there is some electro-magnetic quality to the probabilistic state, but that is actually counter indicated by the very definition of probabilistic. I would expect electromagnetic phenomena to be an outcome of theta action, and that action is more than likely the “flow” that you talk about. That and the ability of the thetan to create space.

              If the “flow” was a “learned” action of theta – after the initial awakening theta “learned” to extend / probe / whatever (again we are missing a word that is suitable to describe a dimension zero action), then it could learn a way to make a copy. I still think that the action and ability of making a copy is an intrinsic quality of theta and that something like surprise could have triggered the ability into action.

              If flow could be learned from the the consideration of the action of copying, then the qualities of flow could be improved (by learning from acquired experience) and directed by theta.

        3. 2ndxmr, what a captivating and inspiring story about your personal experiences with regard to Scn and auditing – experiences from two distinctly different eras of Scn, the 50’s of your LLT (last lifetime) and the 80’s experiences of this lifetime. I have the idea from LRH writings and from what your wrote that the auditing of the 50’s could make Clears who in fact fit the same definition that LRH ultimately decided (which he stated fit all Clears) but who (the Clears of the 50’s) attained additional abilities due to the fact that the processes were different in the 50’s and likely ran “deeper”.

          The second half of your post, in which you described your model of both the physical and theta universes as related to the state of Clear was highly coherent and great food for thought. For one thing, you wrote what seemed to me to be in fact a precise definition of Clear, one in which you (like LRH) indicate that Clear is a distinct ability although not an absolute one. I think yours was the type of definition LRH called a Descriptive definition (“one which classifies by characteristics, by describing existing states of being” – Logic 5) and the fact that it was more explicitly descriptive I think was an improvement on LRH’s definition (although yours entirely aligned with his and his writings in general). You wrote:

          “- in the LRH model of theta at Clear, theta is aware of the ability of the mind to restimulate and it is this awareness that allows as-isness of most restimulations as they occur. Thus theta at that level is not easily susceptible to the effects of previous moments of body unconsciousness”.

          And you further clarified the meaning of Clear with what LRH called a Differentiative definition (“one which compares unlikeness to existing states of being or not being” [Logic 5]) where you wrote:

          “- in the LRH model of theta below the level of Clear, theta would react to external stimuli and re-create the energy picture as a condensation of energy or mass from the energy-less, mass-less recording stored in the probabilistic state (static). This would occur at a level below awareness.”

          Incidentally, just to clarify, where you wrote about your personal experiences in the first half of your post, you said “All this gave me a solid confidence in the recognition that I had attained an ability to be at cause over mest in relation to the first dynamic.”, I assume you meant cause over MENTAL mest; specifically, your own mental mest.

          1. p.s. I thought your tuning fork analogy of theta and “memories” aligned perfectly with physics theories as I understand them, and it is worth repeating for the possible interest of those who may not have taken the time to read your whole long post. Here’s that part again:
            ——————————————–
            – theta is every bit the equivalent of the “probabilistic state” defined by QM
            – like a tuning fork, theta will respond to an external stimulus
            – theta retains a memory of past events and incidents which can be restimulated to produce a condensation of mass or energy
            – this mass or energy can be directed detrimentally back at the thetan and an associated body
            – when the energy is directed back on the theta, a reinforcement can occur as the memory continues to be restimulated
            – these memories can be keyed out at which time there is no longer the sensation of energy being directed onto the body or back at the thetan
            – restimulation is that reaction that occurs with the thetan when presented with conditions that approximate the memory or otherwise bring it to awareness
            – since the memories can be restimulated that cause a thetan discomfort, it is fair to call that set of memories a reactive mind
            ———————————————-

        1. The Right on…! Reply got way out of place and it was meant for…

          Isenes post: “I create this” is quite interesting. I do believe however that the person can cognite firther on stuff that he was creating even before Hubbard suggested “a reactive mind”. If a person cognites that he is in fact creating all his misemotions, he would have reached a higher responsibility for his misemotions (a very valuable state for most people).”

  2. Geir, you COULD also say that, that which you keep ‘under’ your consciousness is the subconscious…

    1. Yes. But that would invoke a serious redefinition of the common word “unconsciousness”. Also, I don’t see a hard line between the conscious and the unconscious – as this varies from hour to hour.

    2. Per: Geir, you COULD also say that, that which you keep ‘under’ your consciousness is the subconscious…

      Chris: Using the analogy of personal computing, if you were looking for a consciousness and found random access memory, would it look the same? And if you were looking for a subconscious, and found a hard drive, would it look the same?

  3. As for the idea of “no such thing as a reactive mind”, you can’t deny what people actually experience, described well by Maria in a recent post:

    “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…” https://isene.me/2013/03/28/create-the-problem-or-chill/#comment-35883

    1. Generally; I don’t contend that there are traumas from a person’s past that can affect the person today. I do contend the model of “the reactive mind”.

    2. Marildi: “As for the idea of “no such thing as a reactive mind”, you can’t deny what people actually experience, described well by Maria in a recent post:. . . ”

      Chris: You must not be reading this blog, since no one on any side of any fence is denying what people are experiencing. Attempts to explain what and why people are experiencing are being laid out. And conjectures about how to widen one’s ability to experience are being laid out. You can stay with last years blogs explaining and justifying Hubbard, or you can catch up. I say catch up because we could use you.

      1. Chris: “You can stay with last years blogs explaining and justifying Hubbard, or you can catch up.”

        The subject of the OP happens to be the subject of Hubbard and that’s why most of the posts, including mine, are about Hubbard. Aside from that, you seem to easily forget that I also have entered into discussions about “widening one’s ability to experience”, such as with Marianne, for example.

        Aren’t you ever going to flatten the button on the fact that I continue to see Hubbard’s models as workable? You still react to that even though I have stated many times that the tech can and should be refined and expanded upon.

        But thanks for where you said “we could use you”.

        1. Marildi: Aren’t you ever going to flatten the button on the fact that I continue to see Hubbard’s models as workable?

          Chris: You aren’t understanding that I understand your points and agree with them. I just don’t agree with your context. It is too broad. The more succinctly we look at and the more precisely we discuss Hubbard, the more inconsistent his work becomes. Do you wonder why the writers here drift away rather than toward Scientology? It is because of the inconsistencies that are dredged by the continual scrutinization. I don’t have a problem with your positive opinion of Scientology as this is not affecting me. I do wonder why if it is so workable that you don’t work it but again, that is your business not mine. But here in this public forum, if you want to discuss then be prepared for counter-opinions.

  4. “…there are traumas from a person’s past that can affect the person today.”

    How does the above and Maria’s and others’ description of actual experiences people have differ from “the model of the reactive mind”?

    1. Hi Marildi,

      A model is just that – a model. It doesn’t have to be true or even make sense, it’s just a description of something that hopefully assists you to make sense of it and understand it. I’ll give you two examples:

      We use models in science all the time, take for example batteries. They have a plus end and a minus end and we teach kids in school that electricity goes from the plus to the minus, and this makes radios work. Now look at the design diagram for a radio – the plus of the battery is always at the top and minus at the bottom. Every description that every radio technican reads of a radio is built on this assumption. And yet, it’s all hopelessly wrong – electricity just does not work that way. It also does not work the way Hubbard says it works in 8-80 (or maybe it was 8-8008) either. But we still use this convention and technicians still repair radios successfully. The model, even though it is wrong, still gives predictable results and therefore “works”.

      DMSMH itself declares that the entire model of a reactive mind, engrams and file clerk is just that – a model, that could be wrong. It’s somewhere in the first 50 pages or so. Previously I would have made the effort to cite him but I have lost my taste for reading Hubbard so please forgive me for expecting you to do the heavy lifting yourself if you want to read it 🙂

      I think it;s perfectly reasonable that someone could have an experience in life, any experience, that changes their outlook on life. Enjoyable experiences with happy outcomes probably give a positive outlook, the reverse for experiences the person considers “bad”.

      The idea of a “thing” called a “reactive mind” that contains other “things” called “engrams, locks and secondaries” might be useful in aiding understanding of people’s reactions and outlook, but that doesn’t mean these things must necessarily exist. Quite the contrary actually.

      I see no reason to doubt Maria’s descriptions. I also see no reason to conclude that they must be “in” something called a “reactive mind”.

      Alan

        1. Hey dude,

          Now that you mention it, I don’t really have a use for them. I have the full set of green OEC vols (0-7 plus the 3-part mgmt series) and R&D vols 1-6. But no red tech vols.

      1. Thanks, Splog. Yes, it’s a model – and the model fits the data amazingly well. The reactive bank is a “stimulus-response machine of considerable magnitude”, per LRH, and the nature of that machine – and its reality – has even been “tested” and proven in physical universe terms by the e-meter. Of course it all boils down to considerations – but so does the physical universe itself, according to not just LRH but many others.

        1. Marildi: “The reactive bank is a “stimulus-response machine of considerable magnitude”, per LRH, and the nature of that machine – and its reality – has even been “tested” and proven in physical universe terms by the e-meter.”

          Me: Sorry, but the e-meter proves no such thing. It only proves that the e-meter reacts the way Hubbard say it would react. We haven’t even reached general consensus on what the e-meter is measuring. We know what it doesn’t measure – “galvanic skin response” – simply because the needle reacts faster than the changes in the skin. We don’t even need to get into the details of Theta Bops, FNs and rock-slams (skin response can’t explain those either).

          The truth from where I see it is – no-one knows what the e-meter actually does. But that’s OK, there’s lots of things we have no real clue about. Like Gravity. No-one really knows what gravity is either 🙂

          Anyway, what’s your position on the reactive mind model? Do you believe it really exists as described in books and HCOBs?

          1. Splog: “Anyway, what’s your position on the reactive mind model? Do you believe it really exists as described in books and HCOBs?”

            I think it’s a model that thoroughly describes observable stimulus-response phenomena involving charge (energy), i.e. phenomena that can be observed objectively – objectively by the e-meter, as that is an instrument that measures charge/energy in the physical universe and does so in a way that precisely fits the model. The other objective observation is the type Maria described in the Book 1 seminar (quoted in my other post). And not just in sessions but in life we’ve all observed the stimulus-response mechanism in individuals at times – even in ourselves sometimes. And thus it seems to me that this model is no less a model than the models of the physical universe – and to that degree, yes, it “really exists”. Btw, I am all in favor of improving or fine-tuning models, including both LRH’s and those of the physical universe.

            1. I just had a thought, it’s nothing especially new, and this is probably a good place to put it.

              “Being Clear” is like “being healthy”, it’s a gradient and not a state. No-one is ever completely healthy or complete ill, but we do have this ill-defined thing called “able to function” and we all intuitively understand what that means. More to the point, when ill-health starts to encroach on health, we have ways to improve the balance – we have doctors, we have better food, exercise plans, there’s a huge variety of options.

              I see “reactivity” like that – better or less suited to dealing with what is going on right now.

            2. Splog, I’ll draw a similar analogy but one that is more the way I see it. I would say that Clears are like people who once had an autoimmune disease – which is an illness that occurs when the body tissues are attacked by its own immune system. Such an illness can get handled through a “tech” that includes a healthy diet, exercise, etc., after which the person no longer has the autoimmune disease. The result for some of these people is that they feel a tremendous difference in their health and are now in excellent condition. Others may also feel a noticeable improvement but still do not feel perfectly healthy as they have other “conditions” that need to be handled.

              People differ and, as with your analogy, there are indeed gradients of improvement (which may be sudden or gradual), but in the case of an autoimmune disease there is more to it than simply a matter of one degree or another in improved health – such as what occurs for anybody with improved diet and exercise. Rather, there is a specific change in the functioning of the body, from “irrational” to “rational” as regards attack of its own tissues. In the case of Clears, there is also a specific change, which occurs with regard to a specific functioning of the mind – from irrational to rational responses to environmental stimuli. In this analogy, most if not all, people have this “autoimmune” disease called the reactive mind, which in a sense attacks itself.

    2. That something exists, and the explanation for why it exists, are two very different and separate things.

      Maria’s story about running dianetics seminars doesn’t prove that a reactive mind exists. Her story is not even evidence for a reactive mind existing. Her story is simply evidence that people remember the bad things that happen to them, and that those bad things still bother them for years afterward. Sometimes, those bad things bother them all their lives.

      This doesn’t mean that the reactive mind, as defined by L Ron Hubbard, exists as a concrete reality. That would be a reification, Marildi, one that you keep insisting upon.

      There was a great show on Animal Planet called “Escape to Chimp Eden”, where a wealthy Internet tycoon created a haven for abused chimpanzees and made a reality show out of it. The thing about the show was how much you can learn about human beings by simply watching chimps.

      This show was much more profound for me, and gave me much more understanding of my fellow human beings, than anything I ever studied in Scientology.

      http://animal.discovery.com/tv-shows/other/videos/escape-to-chimp-eden-videos.htm

      In Scientology, all I ever got was more Scientology. Escape to Chimp Eden, and other studies along those lines, gave me an understanding of Man with no ideological agenda.

      Alanzo

      1. Alanzo said: Maria’s story about running dianetics seminars doesn’t prove that a reactive mind exists. Her story is not even evidence for a reactive mind existing. Her story is simply evidence that people remember the bad things that happen to them, and that those bad things still bother them for years afterward. Sometimes, those bad things bother them all their lives. This doesn’t mean that the reactive mind, as defined by L Ron Hubbard, exists as a concrete reality.

        Yes Alanzo, you have accurately described what I was trying to convey.

      2. Alanzo: “Her story is simply evidence that people remember the bad things that happen to them, and that those bad things still bother them for years afterward.”

        No, Al, Maria’s story is not about simple “remembering”. Her description demonstrates that the principle of stimulus-response exists as a reality for people, and is different from other kinds of “memories”. In auditing, the command itself is the stimulus that restimulates the experience and causes the specific responses that are part of that experience. This purposeful restimulation enables the pc to view the experience and thereby discharge the emotional charge in it.

        Aside from auditing, something in life that is similar to a painful experience can restimulate that experience and cause the responses that are part of it. These things are empirical facts and are as concrete as observations of various physical laws that comprise physical universe models. That’s why I say the reactive mind model is not at all unlike models of the physical universe – both fit observable data. See more on that in my other post at 2013-04-07 at 23:16

        1. Marildi –

          If L Ron Hubbard’s model for the mind was correct, then after 60 years of applying it to 100s of thousands of people, we would have a “Clear” by now.

          Yet we don’t.

          Instead, we have what we have: An organization in ruins, run by David Miscavige, no clears, delusional OTs, some of whom have committed murder, ponzi schemes, gone insane, and a very large percentage of whom have declared bankruptcy, ruined their families, and destroyed their own and others’ lives.

          Some Clears and OTs are “well and happy human beings” – depending on how deeply involved they got in the organization and how strongly they identified with Hubbard’s ideology. Those who did not get too involved, and those who did not too strongly identify with Scientology, are generally better off than those who did get too involved and too strongly identified.

          From many years now of reports of the results of the tech, that is the general trend we see.

          Therefore, we can make at least one conclusion:

          Hubbard’s model for the mind is not correct.

          Can you find anything wrong with my argument here?

          Alanzo

          1. Alanzo: “Therefore, we can make at least one conclusion:
            Hubbard’s model for the mind is not correct.
            Can you find anything wrong with my argument here?”

            As Devil’s advocate? Sure, I’ll bite:

            Your data leads to the conclusion that Hubbard’s model for producing the state of Clear is not correct, not his definition of a mind.

            1. Splog:

              Model for the Mind, Splog my boy – not definition for the mind.

              Clear was definitely part of his model, as presented from the very beginning. All Broad Public Issue explanations for auditing are based on Hubbard’s model for the mind as publicly presented in 1948-1951.

              Reactive Mind + Analytical Mind + Somatic Mind, + Auditing leads to “erasure” of the contents of the reactive mind reaching the state of all “held down 7s” being released which is the state of Clear.

              This is the model Hubbard operated on publicly.

              Given its results, that model has proven false.

              As an imperfect analogy because I am no physicist: If the model for the atom was as incorrect as Hubbard’s model for the mind was, then the subject of physics would be stuck WAAAY BACK.

              In fact, studying the model for the atom, and its refinements over the years, is a good way to do a parallel study for Hubbard’s model for the mind and its lack of refinements over the years.

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

              Alanzo

            2. Guys (Alan & Alan); This here makes me proud of hosting a blog like this. This discussion is breaking ground at least for me. Way to go.

  5. Michael Moore We are trying to describe something that has never happened before and no philosophy or technology of application has achieved so much. So it is no surprise that such states are difficult to describe. LRTH spent some time getting to grips with it. It is like a blind person, who has no knowledge of colors suddenly able to see and then has to describe those colors to a blind man. What does he say?

    I disagree Geir in that I also have gone Clear and the moment it happened was a completesuprise due to the unexpectedness of it. I agree with Pat (on your FB Posting) that it is a definite state of being and one in which one can be very certain about.

    Again while you are perfectly entitiled to your considerations and free to write upon the considerations of others, to covertly imply that others have NOT gone Clear is highly invalidative of the certainty of others. Clear has been established. Perhaps it is more the quality of Clear you are trying to establish.

    1. Michael, great that you post your comment also here (not just on FB) as it makes for easier discussions 🙂

      Here’s a snippet from my answer to you on FB:

      “I have NO DOUBT that people get better from their auditing or that they reach higher levels of responsibility and clarity and that they reach plateaus of spirituality that they never dreamed of before.”

      For my other views on this, I believe I already answered earlier on this thread.

    2. MM: “We are trying to describe something that has never happened before and no philosophy or technology of application has achieved so much.”

      Chris: Truly? Is that really so? What was achieved? What was superior to what has been achieved countless times by philosophers throughout the ages?

      1. @ Chris 2013-04-08 6:42

        MM: “We are trying to describe something that has never happened before and no philosophy or technology of application has achieved so much.”

        Chris: Truly? Is that really so? What was achieved? What was superior to what has been achieved countless times by philosophers throughout the ages?

        2x. Chris, I think the main thing that has been achieved is the ability for the common man to gain the kind of spiritual awareness in a relatively short time that it took earlier philosophers a lifetime to find, if and when they did.

        The evidence of that gain is the number of people replying here with reality on past life auditing. You may say there is no evidence they actually had past life auditing but my guess is many could provide it. You, yourself have indicated an awareness of it, if memory serves.

        If you really don’t think it is superior that in the space of a few tens of hours an ordinary man could gain a spiritual awareness that would carry over to a new lifetime, then I’d really like to hear what you think IS superior to that. I’d want some of it.

        1. Where to start? It could have been a fun game but unknown to me I was participating in what Ron Hubbard calls a “games condition” and the fix was in from the beginning.

          From 2005 to present I spent more time sorting myself out from Scientology than enjoying any previous wins that I took from it. You’ve seen some of that here on this blog.

          For the 15 years before that I spent reconstructing a middle class life that Ron found so disgusting and distasteful that in 1984, he helped relieve me of that. I kept my head down, nose to grindstone, kept the secrets of Scientology that I was supposed to and continued to consider myself a Scientology over the top of that group’s excommunication of me and my oldest daughter. Was that a gain or win? Not so much.

          Before that I was a young man with curiosity and a penchant for asking questions and learning. Now I am an older man with curiosity and a penchant for learning. My years in the Sea Org were spent slaving for free and being indoctrinated into why slaving and giving up my family life and sacrificing my daughter’s care, well being, and education were a good idea. Am I better off for having found, learned, and practiced Scientology? All learning is valuable, even when the grifter teaches one to hold their cards close to their chest. Can you cheat an honest man? I guess if I hadn’t been so very ambitious as to believe and desire the promises of Scientology’s Bridge to TOTAL Freedom (Marildi, this is your queue to redefine total into something other than total) then I wouldn’t feel as cheated by Scientology.

          Basically, in few words, I consider my experience to have been a distraction and a detour from actual valuable learning about life. I’ve learned, yes, but I learned lessons because I meant to and not because Scientology taught me. I’ve unlearned Scientology as well.

          Today, and by today I mean today, I continue to receive phone calls, letters from the letter reg at ASHO, and my last communication with the IJC concerning my ruined family life, career in Scientology, and disconnection involved that person attempting to sell me books.

        2. 2X, You write, “I think the main thing that has been achieved is the ability for the common man to gain the kind of spiritual awareness in a relatively short time that it took earlier philosophers a lifetime to find, if and when they did. The evidence of that gain is the number of people replying here with reality on past life auditing.”

          Chris: Though I enjoy your many fine comments on this blog, this particular type of bombast is wasted on me. I’m not a piker when it comes to Scientology, as I threw my hat completely in the ring and abandoned everything including my common sense with regards to joining with Scientology. I like and respect your many good comments here but in light of my own education and experience in the subject, to your comment I have to say “balderdash.” I like your ideas about physics and its fun to read your experiences but on this one you missed and I’m throwing this one in the OSA party line/trolling pile.

          1. Wowee zowee, Batman. Kapow and ooomph! One on the chin that felt below the belt! I’m gonna need to go home with my OSA buddies and get some ice to soothe that one. …

            I’ll just have to send that to the “beyond reality” pile where agree-to-disagree is the only common reality. I can respect all the reasons you gave for answering as you did. Call me a piker, if you like, but after the sharks at the table took my money I didn’t gamble my soul card. I used to wonder at those who did. The org-staff life was enough of a meat grinder. The SO life was the mother of all meat grinders. I really feel for all those who were trapped in that life and all those who still are. I’m glad you had the sense to finally get out when and how you did. None of that, though, changes my own answer to your question “What was superior to what has been achieved countless times by philosophers throughout the ages?” But I’m not going to argue it further. I’ll just take my commendation chit from OSA and go get that ice. 🙂

  6. Hi. I just wrote this as a “reply” but I don’t see it posted here. So I will copy:

    While you certainly have a right to your opinion, I went clear in 1958 on Step Six. What does that make me, dog meat?

    I have not agreed with David Mayo on this one point of harmonics of clear. Nor do I agree with your conclusion.

    The state of clear I reached was very stable. LRH gave me my clear checkout. Qual did the testing that required an I.Q of at least 135 and a decent APA (OCA for you who came later). I had a clear bracelet (about 15 or 16 of us made it). What I noticed is that I could think any thought and never get an automatic counter intention. I went over 50 years without a cold. I am still clear. Life has had its ups and downs, case did cave in on me (before we had the upper sections) but it never invalidated my state of clear. I could differenciate between case and myself and certainly knew whatever was happening it was “not me”and not my case.

    I do not believe in harmonics of clear, but I do believe there are different states of clear. I know that per a more recent HCOB clear=clear=clear but that is for the purposes of getting clears through the no-interference area. Clear 1 is not the same as Clear 2. First of all we had MEST clears, who were clear of their this lifetime engrams. They were a Dianetic Clear–we had them in the 50’s–they did not go clear on any Scientology process. They were not tested for I.Q and a Dianetic Clear today, inspite of the LRH HCOB stating clear=clear=clear they are not treated the same. A Dianetic Clear is not the same as a Scientology Clear and if you read C/S Series 73RB you will see that the handling is different for them.

    Think of all the different states of clear that were acknowledged at one time or another–and they are still valid. They are not “old and not used anymore”. A MEST clear or Dianetic Clear is clear of this lifetime engrams, a Goals Clear is clear of one or more goals to do with GPMs, a theta clear is stable outside his body, A Clearing course clear is clear of certain implants. One can be clear, then more clear because he is cleared of different areas. Maybe this was what Mayo was looking at when he said “harmonic of clear” but harmonics of clear is truly misworded.

    Truly I am biased on how to go clear. I loved the Step-Six method, but LRH dropped it out because half the class didn’t make it and some of those had the bank go more solid. What a shame. Think of those who didn’t make it–some were resistive cases (not known about at that time) some hadn’t had a lot of auditing, or their auditing was poor quality and their cases were a mess. Who is to say how well Step Six would work on everyone if everyone had the resistiveness removed from their cases, had adequate auditing and were good releases? LRH was still researching in 1958; he may have thrown a baby out with the bathwater.

    Clear is a state of beingness, the person is “clear”. That means he is 1) in valence 2) knows he is clear 3) free of his own case 4) has an ability to comfortably hold his position
    and can postulate and use live communication to change conditions in the world around him. He is not effect of himself. Those are my words, not Ron’s, but I have met many, many Clears.

    So perhaps one Clear isn’t as able as another, or doesn’t have as wide a field of influence as some other Clear, and some Clears are more OT than others depending on amount/type of auditing received, but clear exists. It is an isness. A reality. You don’t have to agree Geir, but I’m here and others are too. And I want to be the clearest clear anyone ever met. OT–kind of nebulous as it assumes abilities–but Clear, more clear, clear of more area of life, that is attainable, and the OT abilities come with training and skill following one’s interest line.

    An OT does something–he is operating. He is doing something in life and being effective.

    Pat Krenik

    1. Pat
      I totally get what you are writing about. You write: ..”clear exists. It is an
      isness.”
      Axiom 11. (c) is-ness is an apparency of existence brought about by the continuous alteration of an as-is-ness. This is called, when agreed upon, reality.
      Axiom 29. …….Any space, energy, form, individual, or physical universe condition can exist only when an alteration has occured of the original as-is-ness so as to prevent a casual view from vanishing it. In other words, anything which is persisting must contain a “lie”, so that the original consideration is not completely duplicated.

      In my understanding it means, that the state of Clear is an “apparency”, it has no “existence” as such, only by the person’s continuous creation of this “state”. Yes, it can be continuously created – as it is a “desirable” condition.

      In my reading, there is Truth and there is Creation (or lack of it). There are different levels of “awakeness”, as Geir writes.

      It is not meant as a devaluation of any is-ness, as neither is Geir’s post with a correct reading.

          1. Would like to add: I used to “hold my position in space” and the rest of the stuff. It’s wonderful – looks to be “cause”. But it’s a “trap” – by this Space is continuously being created…also, there is a sense of fixedness, which is less reaching, less moving, less perceiving, less experience. It’s due to the created ME ‘valence’. With a deeper ‘look’, there is no ‘ I ‘.
            LIFE, without KNOWING that one is this or that, is a Live Perceiving and Communicating (rather than willingly postulating) Flow.

            1. Oh f..k! So the original definition of Clear is BS and the modern definition of Clear is so limiting. Maybe my reaction has been “reactive”, but first I cogged and then I became sick… I still am.

            2. Vitek: …first I cogged and then I became sick… I still am.

              SP: Out of my recent experience with that churchie friend of mine, I figured out that an SP doesn’t only talk ‘bad’ to suppress another. He can also inhibit one from talking, so he wont find something out (cog), which is also very harsh.

              Just saying….because what you wrote reminded me of her…

    2. Pat: I went clear in 1958 on Step Six.

      Spyros: Lucky you. Although I haven’t had any, I can imagine SCN creative processing was nice and fun. I drool over the 8-8008 techniques in particular.

  7. When we attempt to talk about the state of clear, we are wrestling with a paradox..

    Ron Hubbard stated that absolutes are unattainable. And yet, the notion of “clear” is an absolute.

    In my 37 years in Scientology, I have not encountered one Clear or OT including myself who was free of aberrations. On the other hand, I have encountered many who achieved mastery over themselves and were able to act rationally in almost every situation they faced. I have also encountered many people who were able to handle the material of Scientology’s OT levels long before they were adjudicated as being clear, which is the church’s mandatory requirement for running the OT levels.

    I feel that the importance of Ron Hubbard’s State of Clear has been vastly overrated, since all of the existing tests CCRD, DCSI. etc, are notoriously unreliable and invalidative.

    When I encounter a new pc, we can generally clean up any uncertainty about his state of case in a single session and then we get on to the good stuff, which is what did he want to handle by becoming a Scientologist.

    1. David, LRH didn’t actually call Clear an absolute, just “close”, as per HCOB 14 Dec 81 “The State of Clear”:

      “There has been some confusion lately on exactly what is the state of Clear.

      “The confusion was introduced by a statement, not mine, that the state of Clear had harmonics, which is to say there were different states of Clear.

      “This is not true. Although it is quite impossible to obtain an absolute in this universe, the state of Clear is, actually, about as close as one can come to it.”

  8. Another point: No reactive mind? Then how come I was having trouble reading books and my eyes would go out of focus but when I read Dianetics and cognited on how the reactive mind worked, my eyes cleared up. Explain that if you will.

    1. As I said – I have no doubt that people can handle unwanted reactions, inabilities etc. through auditing.

      Are you upset by my blog post?

    2. Pat,

      It could easily just mean you figured something out and it was no longer a problem for you. Humans have been doing this for 1000s of years – figuring stuff out and making life better thereby.

      You should not automatically conclude though that Hubbard’s explanation of reactive minds and their content therefore must be true. In fact, making that conclusion is highly illogical.

      I’m not saying your eyesight changes did not happen. I’m saying there does not have be a reactive mind to explain why. Besides, can you conclusively prove that your brain didn’t just rewire itself at that exact moment to take the “make-your-vision-go-fuzzy” nuerons out of circuit? That’s just as valid a model for explanation as Hubbard’s reactive mind.

      Alan

  9. G-man, well, what you say may be true but something sure happened to me one day in July 1974 after 250 hours on the Clearing Course. A week before cracks began to appear in the physical universe and I had an incipient feeling of joy in the center of my chest. I kept doing my sessions and then near the beginning of a session I had handled an item marking the reads, etc. and was looking down at my platens and whooooosh, something broke up and vanished and it was like I stepped forward into the present. 10 or 15 minutes later I began to feel these strange pressures on my nose. I had no idea what they were, though I did find out later. At any rate, I experienced a state where just being in the environment was sufficient communication for me. Since it aligned with what LRH said would happen and from later materials I read that said what had happened, I call that going Clear. It was certainly more than I bargained for.

    1. Sure. And I had crazy-good stuff happening at many levels on the Bridge. Real, tangible gains. But that is not a proof of either a reactive mind per se or any “State of Clear”.

      1. Except it walked like a duck and quacked like a duck. In other words, if one followed the exercises LRH developed he said that one would attain a state labeled Clear, which is just a significance. Of course he pumped up the state with all manner of hype and descriptions. Clear and the reactive mind are concepts to describe phenomena that exist whether or not the significances exist. Why not take on more fundamental axioms of the subject such as “Life is basically a static” or “The static can consider, postulate and perceive.” C’mon, let’s get some real debate going here!

        1. All right! Let’s do, Dan!!!

          How come Melanie Murray is not credited with writing “What is a Course?” HCOB any more?

          What was the decision-making at RTRC that led Scientologists to believe that L Ron Hubbard wrote all the HCOBs and HCOPLs in the tech and admin vols?

          And was there ever a version of OT 8 that included a reference to Christ being a “lover of men and boys” and Lucifer as a “Bringer of Light”?

          You’re a Big OT, Dan. Surely you can confront those little questions and not run and hide from them, and go natter about me on other boards!

          Let’s really discuss something REAL!!

          Alanzo

          1. Marildi –

            As a Scientologist who used to work of staff in course rooms, did you know that LRH did not originally write the HCOB “What is a Course?”, for instance. As you know, that HCOB now says at the bottom “L Ron Hubbard, Founder”.

            But long ago, before the RTRC was created, it used to have Melanie Seidler Murray’s initials at the bottom of it “MSM”. But sometime in the early 1980’s, it was decided that this evidence for how the tech was actually developed would be erased, and Scientologists would be deceived as to who wrote the HCOBs and HCOPLs and never told the true story of how the tech was actually developed.

            Dan Koon was a part of that deception. But as you can see, with so many of these Int Base guys who deceived Scientologists in so many ways for so many years, he seems to feel no responsibility to the Scientologists he deceived to now stop deceiving them. When asked direct, specific questions about the decision-making at the RTRC which led to Scientologists being deceived, Dan disappears.

            And he even goes over to Marty’s blog and natters about me for asking him the question, as if I am missing his withhold or something.

            What I have generally found is that these guys from Int Base, after deceiving Scientologists for so many decades, are having a hard time coming to terms with the magnitude of what they have done. And they are gathering together outside the church and not really getting each others’ ethics in over it. Some of them are even continuing to have the same sneering and degrading attitudes towards Scientologists outside the Church that they must have had towards them inside the Church.

            Because after all, there is no way you can knowingly and willingly deceive someone for so many years, and end up having any respect for them. Right?

            When you think about it, this would be a difficult thing to confront. I just don’t think the deception of Scientologists should continue. And therefore, I don’t think anyone should sit around being so polite that they let decades-long deceptions just sit there, with nothing being done about it.

            Do you agree with me on this?

            Or do you think I’m just being an “SP”?

            Alanzo

            1. Al, the fact that things went off the rails in many ways in Scientology has been well established, whether the specific details are agreed upon or not. I’ve heard enough about various criticisms of LRH and Scientology, from a variety of viewpoints, to know that continuing to discuss them doesn’t interest me as the basic point has been made long since. And thus, as I see it, there are better things to discuss.

              The main reason for this viewpoint is that, in spite of any and all wrongnesses of LRH and Scientology, I still see the philosophy and tech as having the potential for a tremendous amount of good. You, on the other hand, have just the opposite opinion – you primarily see Scientology as having the potential for bad. And it’s probably for that reason that you think it’s important to continue to discuss all the various wrongnesses.

              My basic interest at this point is to discuss Scientology with those who are interested in discussing it from the same starting point as mine, i.e. its potential for good. Likewise, you and others have the right to decide your own starting points and premises, and whatever contribution you believe is right to make. In Science of Survival LRH wrote:

              “Anything which raises a person’s tone can be considered legitimate processing. This includes, of course, nutrition, environment, and education, as well as processing. Simply taking the person to see a movie he wants to see may raise his tone.”

              You probably consider that what you are doing falls under education, although I know you wouldn’t call it raising tone. Others here are raising their own and other people’s tone (or whatever way they would express helping others) in a variety of ways other than Scientology. All to the good.

              Just wanted you to know where I’m coming from at this point. Hope you understand.

            2. Marildi: You probably consider that what you are doing falls under education, although I know you wouldn’t call it raising tone.

              Chris: Do you mean that Alanzo’s discourses do not raise tone? Or do you mean that Alanzo wouldn’t refer to it as raising tone?

            3. Marildi: . . . And thus, as I see it, there are better things to discuss. . . The main reason for this viewpoint is that, in spite of any and all wrongnesses of LRH and Scientology, I still see the philosophy and tech as having the potential for a tremendous amount of good. You, on the other hand, have just the opposite opinion – you primarily see Scientology as having the potential for bad. And it’s probably for that reason that you think it’s important to continue to discuss all the various wrongnesses.

              Chris: To discuss something else, all you have to do is drop the Scientology proselytizing and discuss something else. I didn’t copy your entire comment, but even in this snippet I think you might be able to see how you imply that you are aware of and concede “wrongnesses,” but do so insincerely since you follow it up with what I understand to be a call to positive thinking toward Scientology rather than the negative thinking of criticizing Scientology. I don’t trust you on this point so am not letting down my guard until I see that you see that Scientology is not “benign at worst.” It is quite destructive on an escalating scale at worst. There is no reason or evidence to believe that if Scientology had more sphere of influence that it wouldn’t make living conditions worse still. Criticising a negative results in a positive and in my own case, an improved and more understanding disposition. Giving Al’s well thought out and well composed criticisms of Scientology the Frenchman’s wave and stating that “the good far outweighs the bad” is inadequate to call off the dogs from the hot trail of Scientology. I hope you understand.

            4. Chris: “I don’t trust you on this point so am not letting down my guard until I see that you see that Scientology is not ‘benign at worst’.”

              First of all my comment was not at all intended as the Frenchman’s wave, as you interpreted it. It was an attempt to “live and let live” and, to his credit, Alanzo duplicated that. Secondly, I really don’t care whether you “trust” me or not. Your agenda, as you now openly admit in the above statement, just adds to the reason why I have no interest in discussing Scientology with you. But basically, as I explained to Alanzo, you have your own considerations and I have mine, and a blog discussion isn’t going to change either.

              You also said, “To discuss something else, all you have to do is drop the Scientology proselytizing and discuss something else.”

              What’s really weird is that when I do make comments about other subjects than Scientology, you rarely ever reply to them. I think you should look at why you are so obsessive about both Scientology and me. I don’t know whether to be insulted or flattered. by the obsession. 🙂

            5. Marildi: Your agenda, as you now openly admit in the above statement, just adds to the reason why I have no interest in discussing Scientology with you.

              Chris: I’m sorry you feel that way. Regarding discussing Scientology, across my varied and somewhat diverse life, I rarely discuss Scientology at all. Hardly anyone in the universe is discussing Scientology as it never became the indispensable subject that it claims to be. I discuss Scientology here to obtain new understandings of it, its mechanic, structure. I don’t either particularly wish to rehash what I already know about it. Without a belief (wish), and faith-based approach, the religion of Scientology now looks archaic and a little bit quaint.

              Regarding my agenda, I took an important detour in the middle of my adult life in order to participate in and to contribute to Scientology. I wouldn’t call my motivation run by an agenda so much as a firm personal policy that I am never duped in just the same way as I was by Scientology. If you truly have a different interest, one that involves promoting L Ron Hubbard and his Scientology, you would get better mileage talking to raw meat street people who aren’t already possessing of college degree level of understanding of Scientology as are the people you are blogging with here. Bending every discussion point so that it will pair with an LRH quote is tiresome to read. When you sometimes get a negative reaction to your quoting LRH comments, I think this might be why.

            6. Marildi: I don’t know whether to be insulted or flattered. by the obsession. 🙂

              Chris: Writing that I am obsessed with you might be a little strong. As long as you write here, you can plan on me writing back. When Geir wrote that you had hardly changed during your time of writing here, I didn’t say but I didn’t agree. You have changed. You used to work to keep the peace and to be the self-appointed mediator when you perceived the reasons for emotional misunderstandings between writers. You could use that ability now if you wanted to apply it to this situation between you and me and you and others.

              My perception of your writing is that you won’t come off your opinions at all. This is a mistake. Especially a social mistake. These are just opinions. Sometimes I write my own just to see how they look to me when I read them. Scientology teaches us to “hold our position in space” and I believe this is a mistake as well. It really closes the door to understanding one another.

            7. Chris: “Scientology teaches us to “hold our position in space” and I believe this is a mistake as well. It really closes the door to understanding one another.”

              Hmm… interesting catch. When I was in India, I talked to a very wise man about the Indian history. That country has been invaded lots of times and several cultures and religions have tried to convert the Hindu society. But to no avail. Because, as he said, we are not like a tree in the storm, we are like grass. The tree breaks as it tries to hold its position in space. Aikido may be the better way, methinks.

            8. Thank you. I stumbled on that by understanding that nothing holds its position in space. And I stumbled on that from modeling present time from fractal iterations. Or expressed as a truth I would write that holding one’s position in space is conditioned, relative, and impermanent. …I would like to have a coffee with that old man.

            9. Geir: Because, as he said, we are not like a tree in the storm, we are like grass. The tree breaks as it tries to hold its position in space.

              Chris: Oh, and I forgot. I went down that trail as a vector off your “tolerance” post.

            10. Marildi –

              I understand why you don’t want to communicate with me on Scientology any more.

              But in this instance, I am not criticizing Scientology. I’m exposing a part of DM’s reign over Scientology, and the role of one of his henchmen, Dan Koon, who has avoided coming clean regarding the deceptions that he ran on Scientologists as an executive for RTRC.

              When LRH was around, the bottom of each HCOB and HCOPL contained all the people who contributed to the writing and development of that issue. David Miscavige and Dan Koon worked to erase that and to deceive Scientologists on the development of the tech of Dianetics and Scientology – making it all appear as if to come solely and only from LRH.

              Now that Dan is out of the Church, he has done some good, such as creating checksheets for free independent application and other things. But for some reason, he wishes to continue the deception that he and DM worked on against Scientologists and continues to hide the true story of the development of the tech.

              Don’t you think that ALL the deceptions that DM and the rest of his Int Base henchmen created and ran on Scientologists should be exposed so that Scientologists can finally know the truth about their own religion?

              Alanzo

            11. Al, I don’t have all the data and don’t know all the surrounding circumstances, but I do know that others have different versions than yours of what occurred, and why. Some people are interested in digging into those kinds of things. My interests are different. I seriously wonder if all the facts can ever be sorted out. But go for it. Just find yourself other people who also interested and count me out. You’ll have more satisfaction that way.

            12. Marildi: My interests are different. I seriously wonder if all the facts can ever be sorted out.

              Chris: Yes, this seems to be the situation. Sorting out facts is going to take some sorting and not ignoring. I have previously been extremely uncomfortable sticking my toe in the waters of the unclean heretics of Scientology. Yet, having done so my iteration simply continues. Though I may have thought that something even more painful than my initial disconnection from my family was awaiting me if I continued down that road of the damned, there was not. There was only more abundant life.

            13. By the way, here is a definition and study of the word “henchman”, in case you were wondering why I picked that particular term to describe the people who did David Miscavige’s bidding and forwarded the deceptions of Scientology for more than 25 years from Int Base.

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

              Alanzo

            14. Marildi wrote:

              Al, I don’t have all the data and don’t know all the surrounding circumstances, but I do know that others have different versions than yours of what occurred, and why.

              Yes. That’s why I have been asking Dan these questions, in order to get his version of events. Because he was there and I wasn’t.

              But he won’t answer.

              He runs away like a little school girl.

              Again, another disappointing example of an Int Base “leader” that I used to look up to because of their position in the Church. And I even let them run my life for me while a staff member working for free for 7.5 years.

              And this is how they act.

              Oh well, what can you expect from people who lied to people for so many years? Think of how many lives these guys have ruined, how many bankruptcies they have caused. How many broken families they have ordered. Like I said, it would probably be very hard to confront.

              But they can begin, just by answering questions, and correcting their lies.

              But they won’t. Because just like sneering teenagers, they don’t care about the people they lied to.

              Otherwise, they would not have lied so long to them, would they?

              Alanzo

            15. This is how I feel about Marty Rathbun. I don’t know him. Met him once but he wouldn’t remember, no reason for him to. Does he care what I think? — No. But he is a symbol to me. A symbol of an oppressive regime which has been balked from becoming more oppressive only because its power peaked and is now in decline. It is hard for me to maintain a vigilant and critical eye and ear for it is my natural inclination to forgive and forget. But what about Marty? Do I really spend any time thinking about him or hating him? No. Plus I’ve seen the vector that he is on. Veering off into the infinity of coordinates away from the set of coordinates which are Scientology. I hope that my perception of him today is correct, that like the rest of us he is still decompressing from his Scientology experience. Possibly the good reasons and motivations which attracted or drove him there in the first place have floated to the forefront and he has become that person again. We will see. Meanwhile, I would feel remiss if I didn’t remain vigilant.

              Alanzo, Do many of us reading here agree with the things you write and front up to this festering mess, but hold our tongues and wince at the bluntness of your attack? I think so. I was going to read and move on but thought, “Why should Alanzo be the only one saddled with asking hard questions?”

            16. Chris: “Why should Alanzo be the only one saddled with asking hard questions?”

              Yet another saddle metaphor all burnished up and ready to be mounted. I think, instead, I’ll think about Attilla’s tongue tenderizing technique and keep a bit of distance from the saddle.

              I will say something about you and Al, though. As much as I may often disagree with your interpretation of the usefulness, I value your critical observation as a way of keeping a reality check on things as they progress. And things will progress. Marty is at point on that but I would like to think that others are going to be able to contribute to strengthening and extending the knowledge set LRH collated and developed. So go ahead, keep your pistol loaded and fire away. My hide is pretty thick, but if something does get through it will probably be something I need to look at, anyhow.

              On another note, I highly value Marildi’s input at finding LRH references that corroborate the positive path we are on. These may have been references that I have read in the past and forgotten after making my own, or, on occasion, some nugget I’d never heard, but the value I see is that new cognitions and progress are still in alignment with what LRH had either achieved or thought he could achieve.

              Personally I also maintain a concern that we not go onto a path that leads to a trap. But I think it is necessary that we explore the distant path and make it broadly known in order to keep it out of hands that would make it unknown or limit its access to members of a cult.

            17. 2ndxmr, thank you for understanding my purposes as I see them myself: “finding LRH references that corroborate the positive path we are on”. And it won’t surprise anybody that I agree with your comment that “new cognitions and progress are still in alignment with what LRH had either achieved or thought he could achieve.” My interest too is in exploring the things he thought he could achieve by looking at other sources of wisdom, as can be seen by the various links and videos I have been studying and posting for the last year or more.

              In turn, 2x, what I value in you and would like to learn from you is your ability to have a tough hide while carrying on with a critical but open mind, and at the same time working to strengthen and extend “the knowledge set LRH collated and developed”. Your post was just what the doctor ordered today. 🙂

            18. I really wish I knew how Marildi is able to place a later reply prior to earlier replies.

              She’s so smart!

              But I’ll never find out, because like the shrinking violet, Dan Koon, she won’t talk to me.

              Alanzo

            19. Chris:These are just opinions. Sometimes I write my own just to see how they look to me when I read them. Scientology teaches us to “hold our position in space” and I believe this is a mistake as well. It really closes the door to understanding one another.

              Rafael: So very true.

            20. Chris
              ‘I would like to have a coffee with that old man’. HaHa…can you stop creating you are old?

              To hold one’s position in space. Hm.
              Who creates the space?
              Who creates the position?
              Who holds it?
              Who is the one?
              Who would like a coffee?
              In a kind of Geir style: will you answer with a one word answer?

            21. Chris wrote: Alanzo, Do many of us reading here agree with the things you write and front up to this festering mess, but hold our tongues and wince at the bluntness of your attack? I think so.

              I write: Yeah, the bluntness with Dan came from a couple of months of politely asking him questions here and then having him ignore me. And then his going over to Marty’s blog and nattering about me.

              I’ve asked questions of other Int Base people, and every time I am given an attitude as if I am a nuisance to them, or that the question is a worthless one, as if it is “Dev-T” for them to have to bother with answering about things they have been lying about to the world about for so long.

              But with Dan’s outright ignoring of these questions, there is a little more to the story. There are a lot of secrets being held here. He knows, or I believe he knows, the answers to my questions, and those answers change what Scientologists have been told about the Tech.

              See, as you can see in Marildi’s reply to me, it is totally fine with her that she has been lied to about the development of Scientology tech because every Scientologist knows that they do not have a right to the truth about Scientology. They accept that they needed to be lied to from time to time and they are fine with that because the lies they have been told about their religion are none of their business.

              There are even Scientologist who do not want to know the truth, and do not want anyone else to be told the truth, because they had a lot of wins in Scientology and they want others to have those same wins, and others might not get a chance to have those wins if everyone knew the truth about Scientology.

              So they would rather that the lies and the deceptions of Scientology stay right where they are.

              What’s funny is that this goes against “Seek to Live With the Truth”. But you learn to propitiate in Scientology because your freedom depends on other trained Scientologists to give you your wins and your freedoms. So you shut your mouth and you want others to shut their mouths, too.

              And you want the lies and the deceptions to continue.

              I was a Scientologist for 16 years, and I never signed up to be lied to.

              Ever.

              So when I asked repeated questions of Dan Koon, and he behaves as irresponsibly as he has, then he is going to get some of the same Sea Org action back at him that his fellow Sea Orgers gave to me, as I worked for them for free, as they lied to my face for 16 years as a Scientologist.

              And that, is the un-varnished truth, from Alanzo.

              Perhaps Dan Koon can give some un-varnished truth of his own back to me.

              And perhaps he can’t.

              Alanzo

            22. Alanzo: “I was a Scientologist for 16 years, and I never signed up to be lied to.

              Perhaps Dan Koon can give some un-varnished truth of his own back to me.
              And perhaps he can’t.” How many years has he been in/out?

              I too put in many years and thought all was truth. Then I stuck my head in the sand, ignoring for many more years. Maybe it’s as you say, “perhaps he can’t.” yet.

              I appreciate your bravery in speaking your mind about the truth. Not many can do that or are interested in it. You do it so very well and I thank you. 🙂

            23. Alanzo: I was a Scientologist for 16 years, and I never signed up to be lied to.

              Chris: That I bought into and justified these lies and lying is my own greatest personal failure that I would like to not repeat.

            24. Alanzo: See, as you can see in Marildi’s reply to me, it is totally fine with her that she has been lied to about the development of Scientology tech because every Scientologist knows that they do not have a right to the truth about Scientology.

              Chris: It seems this is the nature of and attraction of religion. First the structure is comforting. In a roiling universe of change, believing in stability is a plus if one’s goal is to become a solid citizen. I am fairly convinced that the content of any doctrine is irrelevant as long as there is a repeating duplicatable pattern which feigns unchanging stability. For instance, the doctrine of workability has been fairly falsified by being shown to be contrary and inconsistent but does that make any important difference to a true believer? -No. Whenever and wherever a pleasing result is produced, the true believer thanks Ron for “true Scientology.” Whenever and wherever a less than perfect result is obtained, the practitioner is challenged. If the practitioner can pass the buck off onto the PC, then the PC is declared illegal and the workable tech marches on. And Clears? That there is no one anywhere (except for me) who can match up to the DMSMH description of a Clear is somehow ignored by thousands for decades. Similarly, in other religions when trying to understand God’s Will, one simply bends one’s perception of reality until it fits any doctrine.

              I sure have changed my mind about whether Scientology is a religion. When the idea of it being religion was sold to me, I had to bend my own perception of religion around to match with Scientology’s self proclaimed scientific processes, but no more. I really get it and agree that Scientology is a religion in the greatest traditions of religion.

            25. Chris: I sure have changed my mind about whether Scientology is a religion. When the idea of it being religion was sold to me, I had to bend my own perception of religion around to match with Scientology’s self proclaimed scientific processes”

              Me too! Though it still doesn’t fit in with most of the popular prayer religions but it definitely is a belief system imo. Nuts to have once thought it was really scientific. Boy was I naive’.

              Chris: Especially when every answer can easily be demonstrated to be grossly inconsistent.”

              Right!

            26. Oh big deal. You ignore the positive statements of those who say they have received benefit from various scientology services, and Dan ignores your negatives. So what?

              Maybe you both need to start using macroscopes instead of microscopes, or maybe one of you does……

              I suspect that one or both of you do it deliberately. As for the wah-wah about “I didn’t signup for this”, where’s my mini-violin?

            27. Valkov: Maybe you both need to start using macroscopes instead of microscopes, or maybe one of you does……

              Chris: That’s a good point. If we use the macroscope we can see all the good, er, uh, well “Clears!” er, uh, I mean well, the church is expanding greatly, I mean, OT’s are being made, uh, training is . . . maybe the macroscope isn’t such a good idea . . .

            28. Valkov: Dan ignores your negatives. So what?

              Chris: What I read was a call for debate from Dan Koon, who then immediately disappeared when asked questions about his involvement in the various Scientology cover ups. You didn’t like the questions either?

            29. Valkov –

              Dan is not ignoring a negative statement about Scientology.

              He is ignoring questions I asked him that he would know about on his post as an exec at RTRC. Here he has a chance to set the record straight, and he does not.

              That is the outpoint of omitted data.

              What we would expect to see, if Dan is really who he says he is, is the pluspoint of “All Relevant Data Presented”.

              Right?

              I think that if you look around Dan’s communications, you will find other outpoints, and pluspoints, as well. Maybe he just hasn’t realized yet that the people he lied to shouldn’t have been. And that the people he lied to are real, live humans beings, just like him. And maybe he can begin to see that he has a responsibility to these formerly “clubbed seals” to clear these things up.

              I think that Karen DLC is beginning to see this responsibility. And I believe that even Marty is starting to see it, too.

              Maybe Dan will begin to see his responsibility to others in this area, too.

              But so far I have not seen that from him.

              Alanzo

            30. Also – notice about Valkov’s portion of his post, where he presented the Linda Rondstat video:

              He is saying that as a Scientologist, it is none of Valkov’s business if he was lied to about the development of his own religion, and it should be no one else’s business if they were lied to, either. They are just being “victims” by insisting they not be lied to any more.

              Talk about being a “clubbed seal”!

              Alanzo

            31. Al, I posted that song because I see it as one of your recurring theme songs. I shoulda made that clear in the post. It is true that LRH said “a thetan can do anything forever”, so I guess you can continue to play victim forever. But I find it disingenuous for you to do so. I perceive you as play-acting, as pandering to some fancied readers out there. It has nothing to do with whether or not it is OK for CoSers to lie to people.

              The reason I continue to view you as being dumb as a brick is because you always end up resorting to ad-hom towards me, as when you state scientology is ‘his religion’. Scientology has never been my religion. Saying so is, as Vinnie would say, your ‘dub-in’, which I see you as doing for your own ideological/political reasons.

              And you, Chris, are you saying you received no knowledge of benefit from scientology? No tool(s) you have been able to use that has been of any positive benefit? I guess you would advocate that I forget pursuing any acquisition of the tech for myself, then?

            32. Valkov: I guess you would advocate that I forget pursuing any acquisition of the tech for myself, then?

              Chris: No sir. I recommend you follow the path of your own predilection. That is all any man can ever do. As for me, I’ve done what I’ve done and I am who I am. In a tautological universe, that’s all any man can ever be.

            33. OK Chris, so you go from posting this as your summation of scientology: Chris: “That’s a good point. If we use the macroscope we can see all the good, er, uh, well “Clears!” er, uh, I mean well, the church is expanding greatly, I mean, OT’s are being made, uh, training is . . . maybe the macroscope isn’t such a good idea . . .”

              If that’s how you sum up scientology, I guess we’re not using the same kind of scope, because you dismiss or overlook, for example, any ‘gains’ such as Geir claims he got from doing the Bridge, or anyone else claims they got from doing any scientology.

              So you go from that summation, to the Popeye song, ‘I am what I am and I done what I done’, without actually stating one single thing you’ve done.

              Thanks for the non-statement of your non-position. Have a nice life.

            34. Valkov: If that’s how you sum up scientology

              Chris: How I sum up Scientology is that it is a closed belief system. If you need and want that, then participate. If you just need and want religion, there are better ones. If you are waiting for the nod from me to start, then consider yourself nodded. Trolling this blog is not a step on the BRIDGE TO “TOTAL” FREEDOM unless it is a new addition — maybe OSA has a rail to total freedom now which is traversed by clinging to the church party line! — in which case continue! Oh, and one last thing there are no Clears and check with Marildi for an alternate definition for “total.”

            35. Chris, I guess I’m totally bogged on the term ‘belief system’. It simply doesn’t compute for me, like a fake word for something like, say, a ‘reactive mind’, which doesn’t really exist as such. The term ‘belief system’ is like ‘frumious bandersnatch’. For me, it points to nothing at all.

              Might as well say pouring concrete is a belief system. Which in a way could be true; after all, you have to perform the correct ritual in the correct way, in order to pour concrete or accomplish anything at all – pour concrete, start and drive a car, cook a meal etc.

              If anything and everything is belief systems, it is meaningless to refer to belief systems because there is no datum of comparable magnitude. Perhaps this is why you find yourself thinking of tautologies. However the definition I know for ‘tautology’ is something else than what you seem to mean by it. Perhaps by ‘belief system’ you mean ‘mockup’?

            36. When you believe in things you don’t understand you discover, superstition ain’t the way. — Stevie Wonder

              If we lump well worked out industrial trades together with belief systems, it seems we would get a mixed bag of results. It is interesting to consider. LRH did believe that he could consider people a raw material that could be assembly line modified into better people. We can believe anything at all about pouring concrete and if that belief doesn’t agree with the chemistry it won’t matter, will it?

              The KKK is a belief system that caught fire and was very popular. In its heyday, it was much larger in the United States than Scientology ever got close to. It flourished in an absence of understanding and a plethora of bias. Its seed iteration was germinated in an atmosphere of suppression after our Civil War, somewhat like a diminutive version of independent Scientology’s inception. The KKK burned brightly and then has all but burned itself out. Educated people tend away from it as they seem to do all religions. Religions are full of interesting assertions. Their paths littered with interesting sights and sounds and relationships. But does the way out lead the way of any religion? Is there a way out? Is there something we need to be out of?

              Don’t worry too much about my rants about tautology as it’s just a hobby horse of my own. Just an irony that I think I see. I don’t know if it has any particular value. Maybe I think it’s a glitch in the Matrix. Who knows. It’s just that when we run out of language, it is our culture to say something tautological and then pretend we’ve said something profound. We usually accompany these statements with knowing and meaningful looks for emphasis. Does this social and philosophical tendency of ours to make tautological statements point toward some similar but actual mechanics in the physics of the universe?

              I’m trying to go with you on this. Have I?

            37. No, I don’t think you got my point, at least the point about rituals. However, it sounds like by ‘belief system’ you mean a systematized set of delusions or postulated realities that pretends to reflect reality but actually does not.

            38. Not bad. One caveat would be that a person might believe in something (I believe I’ll have another beer) that does reflect reality but that person may not understand why his belief is correct. (Like “Just because I’m paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t all trying to get me.”)

            39. Valkov: ” ‘I am what I am and I done what I done’, without actually stating one single thing you’ve done.”

              Chris: It’s tautology. Think about it.

            40. Valkov wrote:

              The reason I continue to view you as being dumb as a brick is because you always end up resorting to ad-hom towards me, as when you state scientology is ‘his religion’. Scientology has never been my religion.

              LOL!

              Valkov is back.

              Alanzo

            41. Chris: If using square wheels is your idea of rolling!

              LOL! “-)

            42. Valkov wrote:

              Chris, I guess I’m totally bogged on the term ‘belief system’. It simply doesn’t compute for me, like a fake word for something like, say, a ‘reactive mind’, which doesn’t really exist as such. The term ‘belief system’ is like ‘frumious bandersnatch’. For me, it points to nothing at all.

              Wow! A crashing MU!! Maybe this has been the problem the whole time!

              A “belief system” is a cognitive structure, a way to see the world where your moral choices, your attitudes, and your feelings, are all pre-wired and structured ahead of time for you.

              Here’s a made-up example of a belief system I will create for you as an example: “Reaganism”.

              The Axioms of “Reaganism”:

              1. The government destroys everything it touches. Any time the government gets involved, whatever activity was supposed to happen that was useful becomes corrupted, over-priced and useless after the government gets done with it.

              2. Private enterprise can always do a better job of anything than the government can. The attempt to turn a profit always makes an activity more efficient and productive for everyone.

              3. Therefore, government should be run by businesses because businesses can always do a better job at anything than the government can.

              So when you adopt Reaganism as your belief system and become a Reaganologist, you look out onto the infinitely big, wide world that actually exists out there, and you have the pre-wiring and the cognitive structures of Reaganism interpret and categorize the infinity of all you see into simple little chunks for you.

              Government run road projects are filled with people who just stand around all day and never get any work done. Even though you are driving on a road ( a road built by a government run road project) you never notice that. You sneer and become resentful at all these lazy bums working on this road. Your belief structure has filtered out some things that do not conform to it and accepted others that do conform to it, and given you attitudes and emotions to feel per its dictates.

              The Titans of Industry are heros to you, because they embody all the values that you have adopted as a Reaganologist, You swell with pride every time you see a CEO of Goldmann Sachs on TV and you can’t believe that any government bureaucrat at the SEC would ever question his business practices. Government oversight is criminal in your mind, and suppressive to the upstats in society.

              As a Reaganologist, you see the world in the way that Reaganism dictates.

              The advantage of a belief system, or an ideology, is that it takes the infinite world around you and breaks it up into bite-size chunks, with all of it pre-understood ahead of time. It makes things simpler.

              This, once you have adopted a belief system, is also its disadvantage. You don’t see the world as it is any more. You see it only as your ideology dictates that you see it.

              No ideology can match the infinity of life, or the infinity of you. The stronger you hold on to an ideology, the smaller, and more fixed, you become.

              As more and more of the infinities of life hit you that do not fit into your ideological helmet, the more tightly you pull it down onto your self. Until at last, you become fixed and pinheaded.

              This is the problem with belief systems.

              I hope that clears it up for you, Valkov.

              Alanzo

            43. It doesn’t really clear much up, Al. Why? Because – people here and elsewhere talk about ‘belief systems’ and ‘beliefs’ as though they can tell the difference. Perhaps you only believe you can tell the difference. A ‘belief’ is opposed to – what? ‘Reality’? LOL.

              I think your definition of belief is a bit off. Actually, I might define a ‘belief’ as ‘a mental construct that is a substitute for perceiving things as they really are’. A belief is a failure to perceive accurately, it is not an aid to perceiving. It is actually a delusion. Thus anything you state that I perceive differently from the way you perceive it, I am liable to label as ‘your belief’, not necessarily a statement of reality. And vice-versa.

              Of course if you don’t like the way I view what you state to be the case, you can go off into ‘poliitcs’, and invalidate me as ‘deviant’, ‘a deluded scientologist’, an SP, etc etc.

              R.D.Laing covered all that in his book “The Politics of Experience”. The CoS plays that shit all the time, and so do you.

            44. Do you know what a fact is then, Valkov?

              Most Scientologists don’t because Hubbard told them that things they saw in their minds were facts.

              A good rule of thumb for a person critically damaged in this way by Scientology is, “If you can see it only in your mind, then it is not a fact.”

              So do you know what a fact is, Valkov?

              Alanzo

            45. Al, here are the definitions I go by. They do slide off a bit into “something believed to be true or real”, see #4. Your ‘belief’ that something is a ‘fact’, does not make it so.

              fact (fkt)
              n.
              1. 1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.
              2.
              a. 2. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: “Genetic engineering is now a fact.” “That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.”
              b. 3. A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.
              c. 4. Something believed to be true or real: “a document laced with mistaken facts.”
              3. 5. A thing that has been done, especially a crime: “an accessory before the fact.”
              4. 6. Law The aspect of a case at law comprising events determined by evidence: “The jury made a finding of fact.”

              Any ‘belief’ has no more reality, is no more a ‘fact’, than the ‘reactive mind’. That includes all your opinions.

            46. Valkov wrote:

              Any ‘belief’ has no more reality, is no more a ‘fact’, than the ‘reactive mind’. That includes all your opinions.

              Well obviously you have out-smarted me again, Valkov. Because I have no idea what point you are making now,.

              Please walk me through it like a little toddler and don’t use any big words:

              What is your point?

              Alanzo

        2. Dan: “C’mon, let’s get some real debate going here!”

          Great idea! One fundamental you mentioned that could be taken on was “The static can consider, postulate and perceive.”

          I thought that 2ndxmr’s post was a good start for such a discussion. He describes his “model of the thetan and the reactive mind and the postulate mechanism” and adds “that model also allowed me to fully understand how theta could be a static, even if abberated.” I’ll quote below part of what he wrote, which may inspire you or others to “get some real debate going here!” 🙂

          ——————————————————–
          – a primary component to the ability of the reactive mind to exert influence is the postulate

          – the postulate is the idea generated by the thetan that can hold a restimulated memory in the condensed state (in a state of energy or mass) [my comment: a corollary would be “postulate off equals erasure”]

          – the postulate is the means that the thetan uses to create ANYTHING

          – the postulate can be generated ONLY by something that can exercise WILL

          – that factor is the factor that distinguishes theta from mest: theta can postulate, mest cannot

          – it is the quality of theta to as-is by duplication (or understanding, or observation)
          [my addition to this would be – or by ceasing the continuous creation, which is a continuing postulate, which is the definition of a consideration) that allows theta to blow charge (condensed energy or mass)
          ——————————————————–

          The full post is above at 2013-04-08 at 10:57.

          1. 2x:- it is the quality of theta to as-is by duplication (or understanding, or observation)

            Marildi:” [my addition to this would be – or by ceasing the continuous creation, which is a continuing postulate, which is the definition of a consideration) that allows theta to blow charge (condensed energy or mass)”

            2x. That addition (ceasing the continuous creation) is a first-rate point to consider. It goes to the point of changing one’s mind, which is something alluded to directly or indirectly by Geir, Marianne and Spyros and possibly others that I’ve missed. There is the phenomena of “first postulate, second postulate” to consider, but a stong second postulate (for ex., “That’s it, I’m quitting smoking!”) can be entirely effective in establishing new behavior. The new behavior doesn’t necessarilly mean an eradication of drive towards old behavior, however.

            1. 2x, actually, the credit goes to you for interpreting what I said in that way. I was only considering what LRH talks about in FOT as regards the actual cycle of action, which begins with “create, create-create-create” and ends with “no creation” and aligns with the idea of as-isness as perfect duplication and thus a ceasing of creation.

              Do you think what you are referring to is what LRH meant by “necessity level”? From the Tech Dict:

              NECESSITY LEVEL, 1. that amount of urgency or commotion necessary in the environment to extrovert the individual and put him into motion in present time. (5501C14) 2 . a sudden heightened willingness which untaps a tremendous amount of ability. (PAB 129) 3 . the emergency factor. A sudden increase of randomity to a sufficiency that the individual makes a momentary adjustment to it. In other words, it momentarily increases his tolerance for unexpected motion. (Abil 56)

  10. I did not say there is no state of clear. I feel there are many states of spiritual enlightenment and that none of them are more significant than any other. When the person is communicating with his OT case and changing his life in the process, he can put any concern about being clear behind him.

    As for using what Ron said to prove a point, he said so many contradictory things that any one can prove anything using one of his quotes. I will pay more attention to what you have seen and experienced than to anything Ron claimed. If you say you are clear or feel you are clear, that is good enough for me and we get on with the business of auditing whatever you want to handle. 🙂

    1. David, if you are alluding to my comment, thanks for the clarification. I had misunderstood that you were implying LRH called the state of Clear an absolute.

  11. Hi Isene,
    Interesting how your heading contradicts your discourse about impossibilities. Isn’t your statement “There are no Clears” an impossibility plus a generality on the other side of the spectrum?
    Wolfgang

  12. Since I’m not Clear, I am not an authority on this matter at all. Coming out of MANY sessions, I felt like what could be described as clear. Sometimes it lasted minutes, sometimes days, and sometimes it lasted for weeks.

    But if we are gauging Clear by LRH’s defintion in Dianetics, then I would agree there are no Clears–at least by those I’ve known and witnessed only.

    But feeling whatever the gains, wins, releases, etc were in session…and reading that Clear was possible, it was the greatest motivation I ever had. I wanted that feeling all the time.

    Geir, your opinion on the “Criminal Time Track” from year 2000? You may have openly discussed this in the past but I’d love your viewpoint on it.

    http://www.newsfrombree.co.uk/stolgy_26.htm

  13. IMHO –
    – Clear is knowing that You create or Hold in place what is in you that you are not in knowing control or aware off.
    – OT is knowing that you create or Hold in place an agreement or agreements with other view points.
    – Bringing into knowing or awareness what you create unknowingly or unconsciously increases your awareness of what you can view consciously.
    – As your awareness increases you FEEL that there is more of you. This is called the SPIRIT or SOUL. But there is not MORE of you. You are you. It is your focus or awareness of YOU that is lacking. Scientology, Psychology, Philosophy, religions of all sorts and any mental and spiritual works try to have you increase your knowing of YOU, when practiced with care and love.
    – The word Clear is what confuses people as if it is a definitive mental position/state. It was sold that way, it was just marketing. But it is not an end but just a state of awareness. A stepping stone towards more Awareness and Knowing. The state called CLEAR should be changed to CLEARER. An increased awareness / Knowing or Sate of CLEARER understanding of an aspect of oneself. Because it is only an Aspect of only one part of YOU.
    – I was told you increase in size as you go up the Bridge but I found my MIND (what ever that is) getting smaller and leaving me more space to be me FREE. Less mind is more freeing. That is why we first realize we are creating IT. As we KNOW we are CREATING more and more things inside of us there is less creating unconsciously and so less mind and more of you feeling FREE. Its like cleaning up your room. Even though you have not thrown anything out, it still feels good and more spacious in the room after you have cleaned and put things in there place. But before you cleaned it, there was the illusion of less space or mess or thickness. This is the same in you. As you clean and file and put things into your awareness you have more of you here and now. So you feel free or larger but really you have less mind and more you in the here and now to BE.
    Scientology is a tool if you understand what the beginnings of it were. But what it turned out to become is a cluttered MIND that is in a downward spiral.
    The speed of change in Scientology left it very cluttered and so made it hard to move. Instead of slowing down and cleaning up the clutter of constant change and so called faster processing. Ron kept adding new processes and making changes after changes. This caused too much clutter (Old Processes) to be left unfinished which added to the MIND called Scientology. End result is just like everyone else. A downward spiral to an endless cluttering of ones space that looks thicker and more prison like.
    – The solution is to do what YOU feel is moving you in the direction you wish to go. If it is more FREEING to do a certain action then it is the correct action for you. If you feel less trapped and more Able, then this is the correct path for you. When it no longer feels FREEING then it is time to leave and move elsewhere. Which is what used to happen in the Beginning with Dianetics and Scientology. People came and went and then came back after awhile and welcomed with open arms. And then sometime after 1960 maybe even about 1958 something happened to Ron`s awareness of his original purpose and he went into another direction. What that is I don’t know. I have some ideas but that is for another day.
    There is too much talk about if Scientology works or not. This thought process can be put into any therapy out there. Does it work or not can be measured only by YOU with the RESULTS you get. You must focus on the results. And when there is no results on the area that you are in, or, if the PROMISED result is not achieved, it is time to leave and do something else. It is NOT time to go up to the next level. That is an ERROR. It is the same as not cleaning up your room and just leaving things unfinished. It gets cluttered in the room. Does not feel good. An area that needs to be clean or cleared should not be passed. It should be cleared completely or it will hinder any future results by always leaving an unwanted feeling in your MIND/SPACE…….
    This is my 2 cents. This is how I see things. I hope it helps someone here to see things differently. Nothing is good or bad. It just IS……..

    Love being associated with everyone here……

    Eric

    1. Wow, you made some really great points. Thank you so much for your contribution.

      Also, you said, “And then sometime after 1960 maybe even about 1958 something happened to Ron`s awareness of his original purpose and he went into another direction. What that is I don’t know. I have some ideas but that is for another day.”

      This is another day! Just sayin’. 🙂 Anyway, I would be keenly interested in your ideas whenever the spirit moves you. Others have also mentioned the year of ’58 as being the turning point.

      You ended with “Love being associated with everyone here……”

      Very theta – and I feel the same in return. 🙂

    2. Eric, Bravo, excellanti! Where have you been? Seriously, oh no, really just luv your analogy. 🙂

      Reminded me of way back when, I heard that all members of SO had to be Clear (not by case level) in performing duties 24/7. Now couple years ago I found out that they all have to be OT’s. Also in trying to get you, whoever to do something, like money or work, they refer to your OT abilities no matter where you are on the bridge. So really forget Clear, it seems, as they are now addressing your OT abilities to get something done. I was quite surprised at the change of handling people after 30 years away. Something to think about, like smart huh? and money in any form is more important, because you’re already OT.

  14. I always considered what Scn calls “going clear” is what usually is seen as “spiritual enlightenment”. The reason, course and deepness of such an event or process is as variable as the individual experiencing it.
    Best seems to me to view it as gift. Not sure if really inducable by will. Felt like talking about it is “lying” or betrayal to the experience. Felt like selling it (as Scn seems to do) is a “sin” -> reason for my opposition to Scn.
    Love and luck to everybody, enjoy life!

  15. I uderstand that those of you who think that SCN is the only way, will not quite believe me, and that’s fine by me. I’m saying it anyway. I ‘went Clear’ with spiritologie processing, although we don’t call it ‘Clear’. At which point I realised I was creating that thing that I previously called a ‘reactive mind’. I also realised that I never was a ‘preclear’ except from the times that I created so (or ‘thought so’ or ‘considered so’ –it’s the same thing.) I personally don’t think anyone is a preclear, but one can think himself to be a preclear, and so be a preclear. Just like he can think anything and experience it. The more aware you are of this ability -that you can create something with thought and experience it- the closer to ‘OT’, in my opinion. The ‘nothing can happen to you unless you postulate it” applies to everything –preclears included. No state is attained. One is completely free and able unless he thinks otherwise. You just ‘change your mind’ about things and change your ‘perspective’. If you think that you can’t, then you can’t. Or if you -for example- think that past experiences can have an effect on you, or on another, then so it is for you, for as long as you think so. Or if you view life from a human perspective, then don’t complain that you may not have the spiritual abilities and flexibility and freedom you might like to have. If people didn’t create their trouble, they wouldn’t be able to uncreate them. Fortunately, we create them, and so we can (on our own self-determinism) make auditing and spiritologie and other stuff ‘work’.

    So, although a agree with Geir, I say that ‘preclear’ doesn’t exist, unless you think so. And that ‘Clear’ is closer to what I would call ‘native state’ of a thetan –truth.

    1. And by the way, because some may think that fascimiles are fascimiles, and mental mass exists. YES it does –for as long as you put it there. YOU put it there, if you do. You put there a valence, a somatic, a sad effect, a ‘can’t’ etc. So, when you know that you can or not put it there, you no longer have to do it. It’s very simple.

      Book 1 wasn’t that simple. But book 1 wasn’t addressed to people that considered themselves thetans that can postulate and experience.

  16. My answer from a FB group where someone seemed quite upset about this blog post and asked “What, specifically is your conclusion?” – whereupon I answered:

    “That Mind is a gradient and has no definite boundaries, that Consciousness is a gradient, that one can regain on a gradient increasingly more awareness, control and “awakenness”. And that there is no distinct “reactive mind” and thus no “State of Clear” – only more or less clear. From Totally dim to less dim to somewhat foggy, somewhat clear, rather clear, very clear, clear-cut, clear as glass, clear as air, loud and clear, totally fuckin’ clear, etc. And sometimes this happens in leaps and the person gets a portion of huge gains. And it happens as the person realizes he is himself fully responsible for that part of his creations and thus stop creating that “shit”. But it never stops. One can always be more in control by regaining more responsibility until one realizes fully that one is indeed creating every part of one’s experiences. A so called Clear has, from evidence, plenty of unconscious creations going on all the time. One will, by awakening further realize that he is creating also these and so on and so forth. Boundless spiritual progress through increased responsibility for own creations. Am I making myself Clear?”

    1. Geir: Boundless spiritual progress through increased responsibility for own creations.

      SP: :)))))))))))))))))))))))))

      Geir: From Totally dim to less dim to somewhat foggy, somewhat clear, rather clear, very clear, clear-cut, clear as glass, clear as air, loud and clear, totally fuckin’ clear, etc.

      SP: This reminds me of the times when there were ‘Mest Clears’, ‘Theta Clears’ and ‘Cleared Theta Clears’.

    2. Geir
      Yes, totally Clear. And fascinating what you are writing about! There is one part only that I see a little differently, but it may be just the wording.
      “more awareness and control”
      Control=start, change, stop. For me grasping = holding, a kind of stop. When one starts to communicate=create consciously so far half-hidden stuff, then one is coming out of the reverse of ‘control’ that is coming out of the ‘illusion’ of control. So: communicate=change,
      which when is done continuously will result in tone 40, which is a complete loss of the “grasp=me controlling=false illusion”. This is when one as Life and also Life as One has true Control. Something will maniest itself in the physical universe which is the exact product
      of the free will of the person and Free Will as Life. That will be the product of the Flow, the Tao. And there is a Life at Tone 40 and beyond….

    3. Yes, you are making yourself Clear!

      I do think that there are definite states of performance or awareness that are recognizable. As an example, athletes speak of the “zone” or “peak experience” states. The characteristics can be described sufficiently that others can recognize them in themselves and learn to enter or act in those states. Altered states of consciousness are another example — LSD has a characteristic shift, as does cocaine. Eastern spiritual practices have named states that cannot be proven to exist but can be recognized as attained. I think the same is true of the states resulting from Scientology auditing. Are they identical person to person? I don’t see how that is possible, but I do see that there can be predominating characteristics or prevailing conditions that can be recognized and acknowledged.

        1. Cool link Maria. Echoes of Gurdjieff’s model of “centers” of the various functions of a person’s “common presence” and the lack of harmony between them that usually obtains. LRH was one who more sharply delineated the difference between thetan and mest and put a high stress on the reality of theta.

          1. Val, I haven’t seen you posting here or at Marty’s lately. Good to see you back. 🙂

            1. Thanks marildi.

              I have spent the past 4+ weeks dwelling in what I have come to call “Shingles Hell Motel”. Shingles is a nerve disorder caused by the chickenpox virus. The virus goes dormant in a person’s nervous system after causing chickenpox; then decades later it can reactivate in some random nerves and wreak havoc.

              I can only recommend that everyone old enough to get the vaccine, get it! Usually they will administer it to folks who are 50-55+ years old.

              I can tell you you don’t want to have shingles, because it can go away, or, it can not go away and can cause permanent nerve damage as well as recurrences. And it looks like I might be living in that “motel” for the rest of my life. Hopefully with manageable pain. Oh, for that dianetics case completion I never bothered to get…..!

              As you can imagine, airy-fairy discussions about how many engrams can dance on the head of a pin have seemed rather irrelevant.

            2. Valkov: As you can imagine, airy-fairy discussions about how many engrams can dance on the head of a pin have seemed rather irrelevant.

              Chris: I am sorry to hear of this misery but send good will and best airy fairy wishes your way. Have you considered not having shingles? (joking in poor taste)

            3. Valkov, I knew something was up and I was very close to writing an email and having Geir forward it it to you. Wow. “Shingles Hell Motel”. Well, here’s to your “comeback”!

              I know you like Elvis too and this is a video of his comeback in ‘68 where he sings, of all things – “Heartbreak Hotel”. You can tell that he was making a sort of “slow comeback” but it was still great – so I hope you take things on a gradient yourself and find for yourself just the right piece of philosophical wisdom, of which you have learned so much. 😉

            4. Valkov
              Glad you are back! I posted videos and a link concerning health issues to Anette on the Ultimate trap…thread. You will find them at about two-third if you roll down….see them, if you like! Also read my comments above and under….

            5. Thanks for the head’s up on this, Val.

              I had a patch of shingles once, believe it or not, when I was 17. I do not want those coming back. I will look into the vaccine that you mentioned, as I am in its target age group.

              It’s good to have you back.

              Believe it or not, I missed your intelligence and your humor!

              Now tell me this: Why has life been so much more pleasurable for me on this blog while you were in so much pain?

              It’s odd, don’t you think?

              Alanzo :>

  17. Another comment I made on a FB group:

    “Reviewing the threads here, on the FZ mailing list, on my blog and on ESMB: The discussion here and on the FZ list are very similar – marked by heat and emotions and some knee-jerk reactions. And comments serving to remove or close the discussion. On ESMB it is not much interest, really. On my blog there is interesting explorations on the topic (like a recent comment by 2ndxmr regarding Clear, Theta and MEST) making for a more fruitful discussion. I do find these learning experiences interesting.”

  18. Thanks! I have successfully avoided it so far…don’t think it will be otherwise in the future.
    It’s a personal choice on my part…live as simply as possible.

  19. Yeah I used to dislike it too. Then I stopped creating the things that I disliked about it, and it’s fine now. 🙂

    1. Spyros
      It is not like-dislike. Won’t go into it, don’t feel like it now. I can go anywhere, actually went to
      ESBM, Facebook…can go there any time..but why?

      1. I use it mostly because most of my friends use it. And it’s a nice platform afterall. Not only you can post in groups like this blog. But you can determine which guys can see each one of your posts and also chat privately.

  20. Radical. I don’t normally comment as I majorly agree with the posts and with the comments by others but this post doesn’t ring true and not just because I am a Clear and have my experiences and know what I know. I went Clear last life-time but the state was never acknowledged and I never attested. So here we have an interesting experiment. I didn’t have the reactive mind but I thought I did so I created it to be like everybody else and did I create it! I piled it on with a shovel. But the darn thing wouldn’t stay unless I was heavily suppressed. I grew up in a very suppressive \environment in the Soviet Union so that was convenient. The immigration to the US was one hell of an ordeal so that was alright. Then life went kind of soft on me so I joined the Sea Org. But I couldn’t run engrams. So I kept on creating my reactive bank thinking I was so crazy that my tone level was so embarrassingly low that I couldn’t even run engrams as per the Science of Survival. I had a great production level and incredible production and accomplishments in my 18 years in the Sea Org with I could never reconcile with my catastrophic tone level.

    After 18 years in the Sea Org I finally chilled out and got some real auditing in the field, needed a review where some lists were run. Finally I was acknowledged as a Clear. It was the most powerful key-out I ever experienced this life-time, I was blown out for a long time. Pretty definite and noticeable reaction to something that doesn’t exist. But it was more than just a key-out. I saw the bank as a curved sheet of energy, very pretty, and I saw that I was creating it much like an electronics man creates a circuit board only easier. I also saw that I could stop creating it and I could actively obliterate it at will by breaking some of the +/- connections which would turn the sheet milky white.

    I just wanted to share this because I am sure that reactive mind is real, we create it compulsively, we can increase awareness and reality on it with Dianetics to the point that one cognites that he or she had been creating it forever and (A) stop creating it and/or (B) destroy it at will.

    1. Michael: “I saw the bank as a curved sheet of energy, very pretty, and I saw that I was creating it much like an electronics man creates a circuit board only easier.”

      That sounds very much like how LRH defines “reactive bank: a stimulus-response MACHINE [my caps] of considerable magnitude”.

      My own observations on different flows is that the reactive mind is indeed an energy/charge entity which, as I said in a previous post, “really exists” and that its existence is as real as the energy of the physical universe. Thanks for the corroboration!

      1. Your mention of the sheet of energy being “curved” reminded me of a video Geir posted one time and some of the comments in that thread, including this one of Maria’s:

        “…I have experienced the images seen in the relativity video – it was VERY confusing but I concluded that I might actually be seeing things that were real – its nice to see a video that shows such similar images – its nice to have a bit of feedback! I recall that LRH discussed at one point that trying to get an individual to see everything as is in body is a very poor idea because everything is not as is in body – depending on the individual. That’s been my experience. Things do not look the same to me, and yet its hard for me to deny the reality of the experience I have. No real way to show it to anyone else either, perhaps other than telepathy. The images show up in my artwork frequently though!” http://isene.me /2011/10/19/speed-of-light/#comment-9653 (I put an intentional space after isene.me so this post doesn’t go into moderation, hopefully)

    2. Michael: (A) stop creating it and/or (B) destroy it at will.

      Thank you for sharing your beautiful story, and I enjoyed it. Looks like you got it down and I’m happy to hear all is well. 🙂

    3. Michael, I’m not going to speak on behalf of Geir, but because me and him agree that one creates what he perceives, I’d like to just write about my point of view.

      I believe one can (potentialy) be a Clear and a preclear alike, and it solely depends on what he creates himself to be. A Clear has this under control, so he can create, conserve, destroy reactive minds at will. Maybe this creation is not just a single thought but thoughts and masses –many creations. I don’t want to make any evaluations. I have heard and read success stories from Clears and they talk about different cogs very often.

      I believe Geir does not invalidate the state of not creating a reactive mind, but invalidates the status and the fact that the mind is considered reality –namely in scientologese, an is-ness. For something to exist in time, there must be a lie or lies. So could it be true that reactive minds are real? If one knew the truth about them, there wouldn’t be any. I believe Geir has this point of view, with which I agree.

      Isn’t that portion of of the bank over which people agree a ‘bank agreement’? Isn’t the ‘subconscious’ or in scientologese ‘reactive mind’ such a thing?

      In my opinion LRH talked about it as an isness as he considered that others considered it an isness too. So he put some ARC there about it, and wrote and talked about how to resolve it.

      I’m glad that you have gone Clear and the same for myself and others. I think to be able to uncreate other’s reactive mind too, is a great ability as well. 🙂

      1. Spyros: I believe Geir does not invalidate the state of not creating a reactive mind, but invalidates the status and the fact that the mind is considered reality –namely in scientologese, an is-ness. For something to exist in time, there must be a lie or lies. So could it be true that reactive minds are real? If one knew the truth about them, there wouldn’t be any. I believe Geir has this point of view, with which I agree.

        Me: That’s the same view I hold too. A reactive mind is juts a model, it doesn’t actually exist in the form most folk consider it to have. Similar to an atom – the description in high school science books is nothing like the reailty, but it’s good enough to get an idea across and works fine for most folks. A particle physicist needs a different model; and Geir is being the particle physicist right now.

        As for Clear, I doubt that exists as a defined state either. Apparently I achieved some or other state of Clear sometime, but I’ve seldom paid much attention to that. To me it feels like the effect you get from having a gigantic “A-ha!” moment, one that makes a big difference in your life. Or to put it another way, perhaps Clear is what you get when you finally realize you have some control over your life and know it.

        1. Yeah, I think to put borders around yourself (“I am Clear or preclear or blah, so I am and can do this and that”) is a limitation of potential anyway.

          Interesting what you said about the atom. Tell me more? I’ll read tomorrow. Off to sleep now. Ciao!

          1. Spyros: Yeah, I think to put borders around yourself (“I am Clear or preclear or blah, so I am and can do this and that”) is a limitation of potential anyway.

            Interesting what you said about the atom. Tell me more? I’ll read tomorrow. Off to sleep now. Ciao!

            Me: Indeed. Clear is no more a exact state than being healthy or being in love with one’s spouse 🙂

            On the atom: If you think back to your high school science days, the teacher described atoms as being little tiny things made up of tinier things in the middle and hugely tinier than that things spining around the middle. Well, that’s not how it works 🙂

            An electron is probably best described as “an area in which some electric charge is likely to show up some time real soon now”. Yes, I’m being facetious and poking a little fun at physics. But it goes to show that particle physics is a truly bizarre subject that seems to make no sense at all. People need simpler models to be able to think with such things. And the “reactive mind” is the same.

            A true cynic might also claim that reactive minds make a nice convenient package that one can box up and sell (calling it the bridge) whereas the reality is not really something you can stick a label and a price tag on.

            1. I see. I always wondered how come things were like that when teachers explained physics to us in school. I couldn’t quite grasp it. You can say that I just parroted it. I guess that tendency of mine to search for the primary cause of everything is what lead me to get into SCN and the rest (the christian God was just too to be believed).

              When I talked about the reactive mind to others, I was just convinced about it. I could experience it (much more than I experienced it before I had read DMSMH). But yeah I agree that one can use it (or other case-solving) to make money or to put himself above you (be your Messiah or something). It is a possibility. If somebody doesn’t create much of a reactive mind in the first place, it is really bad to convince him that he has one.

              🙂

            2. Spyros: “I see. I always wondered how come things were like that when teachers explained physics to us in school. I couldn’t quite grasp it. You can say that I just parroted it. I guess that tendency of mine to search for the primary cause of everything is what lead me to get into SCN and the rest (the christian God was just too to be believed).”

              Me: 🙂 Yes, that’s how it works at school. Teaching is a tricky subject, I’ve done quite a lot of it myself giving technical IT training. Here’s the kicker:

              The person receiving the information always knows less about it than you do.
              So you /have/ to dumb it down somehow just to get the point across initially.
              This is an alter-isness 🙂

              There’s a wonderful book out there that describes this in the best possible way: “The Science of Discworld” by Pratchett, Stewart & Cohen. It’s part of the Discworld series and incredibly funny too (if you like off-the-wall humour).

              Discworld has wizards, and they are kinda stupid. There’s a computer in this world that is kinda smart and the computer has learned that the only way to get the wizards to accept its output is if it lies. Lies to Wizards 🙂

              The book then describes how we have to “lie” to school kids to get ideas across, then reveal the truth when they get to university level.

              Ron’s mistake is that he started with a model, never clarified it, got into lying and just carried on lying to greater or lesser degree forever after.

            3. Splog, I’ve heard of the discworld series and I’ve also played a computer game ‘discworld’ that came after the books. It is higly praised by many.

              Yeah I think Ron altered for the purpose you mentioned –to get understood. In some points in SCN lectures he mentions some such instances.

              I think generally, it cannot work out perfectly to put MESTless stuff like ‘Static’ in a science. Science measures MEST. But I think Ron wanted to approach people’s point of view. So he made it both a science and a religion. If he was in Greece, he wouldn’t even think about to make it a religion. Whomever isn’t either a christian or an atheist, is considered a very dark, black sheep here. But this wasn’t the case in the USA, I suppose.

            4. Spyros: ” If he was in Greece, he wouldn’t even think about to make it a religion. Whomever isn’t either a christian or an atheist, is considered a very dark, black sheep here.”

              Me: Tell me more about how that works in Greece please 🙂

              My girlfriend is half-Greek from her mother’s side and like me tends toward atheism. The Greek side of her family is all rather staunchly Orthodox. Same with the vast majority of ex-pat Greeks I’ve met – there’s a large such community here in South Africa.

              Alan

            5. It makes sense that the generations that migrated some 70 years ago or so, are more old fashioned. And greeks have a tendency to take some pride over this ancient history and choose to remain greeks even long after they migrate.

              Latter generations lean more towards atheism, or they are typically christians but dont do much about it. Generally, we don’t have any hardcore religious front here anymore. It has lost it’s credit, mostly because some religious leaders here are way too wealthy. Actually, there is a kind of a Vatican here in Greece. It is one of the most beautiful parts of the country –fully green and surrounded by sea. Monks go live there or religious leaders build their villas there 😛 Many protest against the greek Churche’s fortune.

              However, still other religions=eviiiiil

          2. Hey, I hope you don’t think that you have to be effect of what I described to you about greeks, with your girlfriend.

            It was just my point of view, you don’t have to experience all that yourself 😛 Besides, what matters -in this 2d case- is the girl. Parents are former 2d 😛

            1. Spyros: “Hey, I hope you don’t think that you have to be effect of what I described to you about greeks, with your girlfriend.”

              No worries, I like to gather opinions about what people think of cultures. It comes from living in South Africa – around here we have many thriving communities from many different cultures. To navigate that it helps to know something about each culture you encounter.

              Thanks for the reply 🙂

  21. Some points about Clear:

    One does not become a different person after he stops to think up, create, mock up, imagine a reactive mind. He is always the same. The basic being never changes. He changes (or not) his thought(s).

    There is no reason why a preclear cannot do what a Clear can do.

    There is no reason why one should dramatise anything.

    One is not a preclear. He becomes the moment he creates it. Thinking of yourself as a preclear, or that fascimiles are there and influence you are good ways to become one.

    Life isn’t basically a preclear, but a static, according to the axioms.

    Static is never attained, it is ‘Basic Truth’. No matter what it creates, static is static. Being a preclear or Clear or this or that are case evaluations, also lies.

    I never speak the truth. If I could, it would as-is the #%#$% out of you –me too.

  22. I found a good way to ‘explain’ Static to myself. The analogy between Static and the rest of the Dyanmics is similar to the analogy between a dreamer and a dream. The dreamer is like Static the dream is the rest of the Dynamics.

    Somewhere (I can’t recall where) in my Dianetics course it was stated that one cannot as-is if he is not in his own valence.

    Who is the ‘dreamer’?

    1. Spyros
      Only by perfect duplication of ‘another’s’ universe can the illusion of ‘separate’ universes disappear. It includes the ‘duplication’ of another’s ‘valence’ too. Who is the duplicator?

      1. Seperation and connection are alike considerations. How to connect or seperate from that which is not a consideration?

            1. Spyros
              Who the hell told you that after the as-isness game there were no more ‘games’…no more PERCEIVABLE but UNKNOWABLE only BY the MIND ‘reality’?

            2. Nobody. I was just kidding. All can be as-ised and re-created, and even more than what was there before 🙂

    2. Spyros: Who is the ‘dreamer’?

      Chris: oh fuck it. That is unknowable. Vin, are you out there listening? Chris definition for unknowable: Can’t be manifested in any usual MEST way.

          1. Chris
            No assumption. The ‘who’ is just a word used for ‘turning’ attention to the ‘source’ where the word ‘arises’ from. To the ‘creator’.

            1. “Source” and “creator” are assumptions or conjectures. The deepest you will reach on this track is first your basic construct of the self and after that? A more basic construct of the self. We have to let that go and become at peace with that. “Who” is creating is an assumption. The harder we try and make that stick, the further we get. The further we get? The further we get. This is the merry go round if you will, except that the dialogue doesn’t turn back on itself precisely but in a recursive and self similar way balloons into an expanding sphere of considerations forever.

            2. Axiom 44
              Theta, the static, has no location in matter, energy, space or time, but is capable of consideration.

              Axiom 45
              Theta can consider itself to be placed, at which moment it becomes placed, and to that degree a problem.

              Axiom 46
              Theta can become a problem by its considerations, but then becomes MEST.
              MEST is that form of theta which is a problem.

              (that’s about why I disagree with the ‘life energy’ to be same as ‘source’)

            3. Ok, guys. ‘Where’ did the words in your answers arise ‘from’? How? As words, are they different in their ‘material’ as the ‘material’ of the source?

              Can it be that theta and MEST are the same, just the two ‘sides’ of the same coin?
              Can it be that theta as ‘having no location IN ‘ means exactly the above?

              Can it be that the one looking for an answer is the answer itself?

            4. Marianne:”Can it be that theta and MEST are the same, just the two ‘sides’ of the same coin?”

              I wouldn’t quite say that. I can see theta creating mest pretty much as an image of itself, but a lifeless image. By that I mean the model I see for theta is a “probabilistic”, static state which is aware, and can create energy by spacation (like mest energy, but without permanence).

              Mest I see as a product of the collective spacation efforts of thetans and configured in a way to give it permanence. Mest, however, was not imbued with the ability to be self aware.

            5. I’m trying to stay with you on this. When I suspect you are constructing any type of supreme self and assigning it to be an immortal infinite spiritual entity that is the Source of things, I balk. Your use lots of words to describe an intangible is inconsistent to me. Nevertheless, we share our realities and that is a good thing.

            6. Marianne: Ok, guys. ‘Where’ did the words in your answers arise ‘from’? How? As words, are they different in their ‘material’ as the ‘material’ of the source?

              Can it be that theta and MEST are the same, just the two ‘sides’ of the same coin?

              Can it be that theta as ‘having no location IN ‘ means exactly the above?

              Can it be that the one looking for an answer is the answer itself?

              SP: Yes, infinite potential to be, would mean that it can be anything –from a spirit to an armchair. When I talk about basic ‘static’ or ‘theta’ or something, I mean that from which this ‘being’ ‘stems’ –which is not a thing itself. I can imagine an elephant and I can imagine that I am the elephant, but the elephant wouldn’t be the basic ‘me’. See what I mean? I am the creator of the elephant. I ‘be’ the elephant. But the elephant is not the basic self. I couldn’t easily as-is that imagination by perceiving as an elephant either, as if I thought that the basic ‘me’ is the elephant, it would be alteration.

            7. 2x
              ‘lifeless image’
              The ‘image’ has to be the same ‘material’, otherwise perfect duplication and as-is-ness wouldn’t work. The duplicator and the duplicated have to be the same. Which is Life. Mest thus looks to be lifeless, but being continuously created by life as an ‘image’, is itself Life.

            8. Marianne: “The ‘image’ has to be the same ‘material’, otherwise perfect duplication and as-is-ness wouldn’t work. The duplicator and the duplicated have to be the same. Which is Life. Mest thus looks to be lifeless, but being continuously created by life as an ‘image’, is itself Life.”

              Themest image is of the same material (which I believe is space – an electromagnetic quality) and has two states (probabilistic and condensed) just as I see theta. The difference is, mest doesn’t change on its own, or rarely does (an electron stays an electron even though it may condense as either a particle or a wave) but theta can “change” (it is capable of re-condensing matter and energy into a form of its chhoosing – an electron can’t).

              The ability to change the condensed form of mest (any theta condensation whether energy or mass is the equivalent of mest) is an ability that theta has but mest does not. Theta has life as a quality, mest is a creation of theta without the ability to create theta or other mest.

            9. Marianne: “Mest thus looks to be lifeless, but being continuously created by life as an ‘image’, is itself Life.”

              I think if mest were actually being created CONTINUALLY by life that we would be seeing a lot more chaos in mest as most of the “life” inhabiting this universe is pretty messed up, at least here on Earth.

              Some theta may occassionally make some small modifications to mest that causes mest to alter a bit. This is a relatively rare effect, as evidenced by the slowness of evolution – not saying that evolutionary changes could not also have been due to some amount of random change.

              The greatest evidence of “life” making changes to mest is seen in the field of epigenetics where genetic changes have been proven within one lifetime. However, as far as theta continually creating mest, I disagree. If that were so everyone would be an alchemist, and that is provably not so. There may have been alchemists, magi, sorcerers and such but they have never been common and I doubt anyone here would make such a claim about creation and control of mest.

              Consider for a moment a tennis court. It was built by a builder who then went off to do something else. The rest of us can now go and play tennis on that court but we don’t have to continuously build the court. We just play in it and keep it tidy.

              My point is, theta should have the potential of that potential (to create mest) but that will be a re-learned ability and is not a currently manifested ability. So that is why I disagree with the premise that mest is “continuously created by life as an image (of Life).

            10. 2ndxmr: “I think if mest were actually being created CONTINUALLY by life that we would be seeing a lot more chaos in mest as most of the “life” inhabiting this universe is pretty messed up, at least here on Earth.”

              That would make sense if there in fact do not exist agreements among thetans that are “deeper” and more fundamental than the current messed up considerations and condition of “life”.

              As for epigenetics, that seems to me to be an area of existence that involves a much more direct connection to “life” or theta than strictly physical universe manifestations.

            11. Marildi: “That would make sense if there in fact do not exist agreements among thetans that are “deeper” and more fundamental than the current messed up considerations and condition of “life”. ”

              Those agreements may exist. LRH said they did. Geir has said the same. I have no personal reality on that and may be entirely wrong. I simply believe that the universe has been made in a way that doesn’t require those agreements to be in place and that the universe could carry on quite nicely without us continually creating it.

            12. 2x, I’ve looked at it that way too and way back on Geir’s “A radical new view…” thread I proposed a way that the continuous creation could be “built in”. And not too long ago Ferenc posted Ken Ogger’s (The Pilot) theory of “theta machines” doing the continuous creation. But after that I read some of LRH’s research that seemed to prove his theory. I’ll try to find that reference and post it so we can debate it further, but it might not be until later some time.

            13. 2x, this was the best I could find in relation to the physical universe being continually created, part of which I think I quoted not long ago:
              ————————————————————-
              “In truth, all sensation which he [the preclear] believes to come from these masses of illusory energy known as the MEST universe, are first implanted through agreement upon what he is to perceive and then perceived again by himself, with the step hidden that he has extended his own sensation to be felt and perceived by himself. He is fully convinced that the MEST universe itself has sensation which it can deliver to him, whereas all the MEST universe has is an enforced agreement, which though of no substance, yet by a gradient scale came to be an illusion which seems very masterful to a preclear.

              “To undo this state of affairs it is only necessary to rehabilitate the awareness of the preclear that he himself is capable of creating illusions. As he rehabilitates this faculty, the preclear, without any coaching or evaluation on the part of the auditor, begins to recognize that his viewpoint is expanding and that he is becoming all-pervasive, but that he can collect his awareness at any point, and that the ‘brutal reality’ all around him is continuously manufactured by himself out of agreements and association with other viewpoints.

              “So long as he is fixed in a condition where he is in agreement with all spaces and viewpoints, he sees and feels automatically with all other such viewpoints. He is above the level of energy, if one can use the term, ‘on the same wavelength’ with all other beingness, a condition which does not permit differentiation. As he rehabilitates his abilities in independent creation, he can change this ‘wavelength’ at will, and can go into or out of agreement with all other points of beingness.

              “The matter of perceiving, then, becomes entirely a matter of self-choice. It is, for instance, quite startling of a preclear to discover that as soon as he is free of the ridges of the body (which is to say, when he has discovered he can change his viewpoint) that he is already partly out of agreement with other viewpoints, and that the MEST universe becomes slightly jumbled. He is apt to be very anxious about this, for it is in conflict with the agreements to which he is subject. He immediately may struggle very hard to regain a state of affairs whereby he can view the MEST universe as everyone else views it.”

              [Scientology 8-8008]

            14. p.s. As regards the last paragraph in the above excerpt, having to do with the MEST universe becoming jumbled for pc’s, not too long ago Elizabeth posted a comment about that exact thing happening to her after a particular session. Additionally, people like Tom Campbell and many others (possibly including Marianne or others here) have related their own paranormal experiences of direct perception that would seem to corroborate LRH’s research findings.

              Also, the following link showing a kirlian photograph that displays how the “energies” of people can combine or overlap is just one indicator of how there can be a non-physical connection among beings. http://forum.philboxing.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=84842

              BUT, having said all that, IMHO the current topic of discussion doesn’t actually require that we know for sure or even agree about whether or not the physical universe is being continuously created, especially if you consider the following as being relevant:

              “That the goal of processing is to bring an individual into such thorough communication with the physical universe that he can regain the power and ability of his own postulates.” (Creation of Human Ability)

              In any case, it seems to me that we’re on the right track just to aim for a greater understanding of the physical universe, which would come down to being in more thorough communication with it.

            15. Chris: I’m trying to stay with you on this. When I suspect you are constructing any type of supreme self and assigning it to be an immortal infinite spiritual entity that is the Source of things, I balk. Your use lots of words to describe an intangible is inconsistent to me.

              SP: It certainly isn’t an entity, being, awareness of awareness etc. But it can BECOME such a thing, just like it can become anything. I see it as potential for creation, but not a self in the sense of a unit. Well….infinite potential….:)

              Yes, words cannot describe it adequately, not even thoughts. As we use those to describe creations. And this no-thing is not a creation.

            16. SP: Yes, words cannot describe it adequately, not even thoughts. As we use those to describe creations. And this no-thing is not a creation.

              Chris: Good. If it is a no-thing, and it wasn’t created, and we can’t name it then by the time we have a thought about it, it is no longer what it wasn’t. Then if its nameless and we know it, maybe we should then be honest about this and stop pretending to say it. If we use Godel’s incompleteness and Heisenberg’s uncertainty it seems we might begin to point to a path that might add dimension to our understanding of this paradox which halts us from naming the nameless thing which isn’t anything.

            17. I think the problem with spirituality, religion, philosophy is that it has been maybe one of the most effective methods of control. Especially things that are related to infinity…God…The assumption of an almighty being for example, or that everything is God’s (another’s) creation, or or or…

              It may just take just a tiny bitty misconception to really lose it all.

              I think deep down, one knows. If he thinks he doesn’t know, it may be because he abandoned his knowledge in exchange for the knowledge of another, and he lost the privilege of his own knowledge. I think we are basically not stupid, but being stupid is a hell lotta fun.

              My tip regarding philosophical quests is that everything is ‘inside’ you. Of course you have no ‘inside’ nor ‘outside’, I mean it metaphorically. 🙂

            18. Chris: Good. If it is a no-thing, and it wasn’t created, and we can’t name it then by the time we have a thought about it, it is no longer what it wasn’t.

              SP: LOL yes

              Chris: Then if its nameless and we know it, maybe we should then be honest about this and stop pretending to say it. If we use Godel’s incompleteness and Heisenberg’s uncertainty it seems we might begin to point to a path that might add dimension to our understanding of this paradox which halts us from naming the nameless thing which isn’t anything.

              SP: Yes, I agree with what you said. I don’t want to make or enchance somebelief system. I wish I could write down words to explain this no-thing. I think I wont be able to. But maybe I can just approximate it just a little bit. Just to point out what it is not. Nevertheless, like we agreed, one can know by himself only. And I made a commited a crime yesterday –I said that one naturally ‘knows’, and I hope nobody believed me. I meant to say ‘he’ knows if there is something to know, so that is only potential ‘know’ — in other words, he can know for ‘him’self.

            19. Spyros: I wish I could write down words to explain this no-thing. I think I wont be able to. But maybe I can just approximate it just a little bit.

              Chris: LOL! It is comical how we grind on something so unyielding! First we define what it is not, then we turn around and say that it is what we just said it isn’t! hahaha For me, if I can understand that what I can know is what I manifest, then I can relax and understand that I’ve made a conjecture that is inconsistent and utterly illogical within its own language when I say that something is not something. I think its fine to put a place marker just there and tell myself to be mindful to watch for new understandings of new dimensions to arise. But the reverberation of fixating on my own conjecture that there is something which I cannot know is similar to a thermal runaway, and it is self defeating. This is the free-wheeling that LRH both warned us not to do and which it seems that he did a lot of. And no wonder! He had stuck his neck way way out and made promises about his own conjectures that he had no way to deliver. It is quite the trap; however, I feel that it is also easy to avoid if we pull back when the reverb begins to screech and not drive ourselves crazy by sticking. 🙂

    1. MA: Who is the duplicator?

      Chris: Well, for starters it is not a who. Who is personification that will not stand up to this discussion. I see many of us getting trapped by this and then start theta-bopping between selves because none of these constructs, and they are all constructs, stand up to the question “before the beginning was what?” And that goes for static as well.

            1. Spyros
              HaHa..It’s totally fine! I am not after secrets! This secret is especially valuable, so if you want to keep it, do that!

            2. Spyros: I’m not telling you. It’s a secret 😛

              Good answer and like. There are people who like to stay in the question or stay open, rather than try to settle on an answer. To be OK with Not Knowing! 🙂
              They can remain curious of course and not settle on an answer, just keep asking questions. Nice to enjoy the wonder and mystery of life unfolding every minute.

            3. deE: There are people who like to stay in the question or stay open, rather than try to settle on an answer.

              Chris: Especially when every answer can easily be demonstrated to be grossly inconsistent.

            4. deElizabethan, I agree it can be such a bliss to not think all the time that “there is something I don’t know”. We have been told to wonder all the time by our slavemasters themselves. And they call that cleverness. Yes, if I make myself stupid (be in mystery) it’s very clever. Then somebody can come along and give me the answers that I need –you know, like go read the newspapers and get more ‘clever’.

            5. No, being ignorant, or an all-knower, or a smartass, are not the only alternatives to wondering. One can sinply know or not-know at will. That’s control over his own knowing. To not-know a reactive mind doesn’t mean to ignore it nor to ‘not be aware of it’. Before you can ignore or not be aware of something, you have to put it there, as a something, as knowledge! 😛

    2. Marianne: Who is the duplicator?

      Chris: And let me mitigate the frustration that peaked out in my comment – that was not about you or your comment, it was about this festering thing about manifest and unmanifest to which I traditionally write EVERYTHING IS MANIFESTED AND NOTHING IS UNMANIFESTED.

        1. I understand Marianne. Your point is well taken and classic. I can tell you the answer that you want me to say which is “myself.” That is the correct answer to the quiz. A short time ago, I would have thought that got down to it, to the root of it, but I no longer think that. That you think that you’ve put your finger on the static is where we part.

          1. Chris
            ‘ I can tell you the answer that you want me to say which is ‘myself’. No, Chris….to understand this ‘no’ , please listen to this, if you like…it has a second part too, you will find it on the Net.

            1. Marianne, you me and Chris agree, we just use different words. Me and Chris say that we cannot call it a ‘Who’ nor a ‘What’, as it is not a person nor a thing. As per definition, static is nothing. In spiritologie we say ‘zero’ or ‘infinity’ or ‘infinite’ potential.

              Nevertheless, what you mentioned is a great process, and it’s similar to our ‘zero perception’ and to this axiom:

              “Axiom 29

              In order to cause an as-isness to persist, one must assign other authorship to the creation than his own. Otherwise, his view of it would cause its vanishment.”

            2. I didn’t repply below the message that I should but nevermind, you got the point 😛

  23. I thought it was a rhetorical question. The duplicator is the ‘dreamer’ I mentioned before.

          1. Spyros
            Wow! Thaaanks! I have listened to it…love it! Your ‘devilish’ part is coming out of ‘hiding’!
            It’s just great!
            I’m a little SAD, though…you have diverted our talk…well, I understand that. Last time I did it with Vin he said he was scared of me. You were not…HaHa…

            1. Spyros
              AAAAA ! I’ve been pretty fine for a long time not being aware of something in my ‘space’ which has been there. AND due to our talk yesterday, more especially having listened to this
              Massive Attack music – a huge lump of energy blew!! You know what I have been unwilling to use for a long time? The ‘Sword’! Now I feel that it’s in my hands, I can and I am willing to use it any time to hit anyone’s Ego to build it down if I see that it is the proper action to do!
              With this I can face and create ‘force’, ‘dark’….whatever comes with it!
              Spyros ! That’s really something how you have helped me to this realization! Huge, just huge! Thaaanks!

            2. Hey Marianne, why be sad, do you consider you can ARC break? You can decide you no longer have to. If I think that it can happen, I bet that it can happen to me.

              Yesterday I really really needed to go at that point, not only because it was bed-time. And also, I thought that the answer to all our “Who”s would be the same, so I would repeat mysef.

              (By the way, WHO diverted our talk? 😛 )

              I never got scared of you 😛 I can perceive the serene energies you talk about, and I can just let you play with it. I’m fine with it. 🙂

              The song is a bit darky indeed, but not as much as other stuff I may listen to. This is actually mainstream for me 😛 I don’t intend to post the really ‘bad’ stuff yet. By the way, I’m not influenced ‘badly’ by ‘dark’ music. Nor am I hateful or anything. It is just a taste in sound that I have. I like it. I’m glad you liked it too 🙂

              And yes, I think it is good to be able to use or otherwise experience the sword, without this meaning that you have to use or experience it. More ability=more freedom.

            3. Spyros
              It’s not only ability and freedom with that ‘sword’. Tons of accumulated charge gone which have affected the body too…it got physically revitalized…not to mention the clarity of mind.
              Won’t go into details now, I have known that it was a 7th dynamics incident but only with
              the charge gone could I experience its huge impact on life.

            4. Marianne, I’ve been thoroughly enjoying the exchange between you and Spyros and wanted to share a video I watched recently that I think you’ll really like (Spyros too :P), especially since you consider that the best route to knowledge and knowingness is by direct perception rather than through the “filter” of the brain and all the personal and cultural beliefs people have.

              Tom Campbell is a physicist/philosopher who has been experimenting with out-of-body-experiences (exteriorization) for thirty-some years. In those experiences he found himself to be “outside of time”, and as a result was able to directly view (among many other things) the past – including the evolution of the universe. In this particular video, he describes the specific evolution of male and female roles and relationships, and explains why the usual ego-based relationships don’t succeed, and then describes how a love-based relationship actually works and why it is so much more fulfilling and doesn’t lose its “life”. If you don’t have time to watch the whole video, starting at about 42:00 is where he pretty succinctly explains the whole idea in about 15 minutes of listening. Hope you like it! 🙂

              For anyone interested, starting at about 17:00 Campbell talks about other physical matter realities (which he abbreviates as PMR’s) that exist besides our own physical universe. And then, at about 27:00, he talks about the existence of non-physical matter realities (NPMR’s) and his own visits to some of the other PMR’s as well as NPMR’s. In this section of the video he also describes what the universe was like before there were any PMR’s, i.e. when only NPMR existed and when “procreation” was a matter of beings creating other beings through mere intention. It was only after many beings had been created that there came about the creation of physical matter reality, which gave beings a more effective “learning lab” for their spiritual growth. IMO, what he describes is data of comparable magnitude to The Factors as well as our own 2ndxmr’s model of creation that he posted not long ago.

            5. Marianne: It’s not only ability and freedom with that ‘sword’. Tons of accumulated charge gone which have affected the body too…it got physically revitalized…not to mention the clarity of mind.
              Won’t go into details now, I have known that it was a 7th dynamics incident but only with

              SP: Cooool I’m really glad 😉

            6. Marildi: Marianne, I’ve been thoroughly enjoying the exchange between you and Spyros and wanted to share a video I watched recently that I think you’ll really like (Spyros too ), especially since you consider that the best route to knowledge and knowingness is by direct perception rather than through the “filter” of the brain and all the personal and cultural beliefs people have.

              Looks interesting. I’m goin to check it out. Thanx!!

            7. Marildi

              Thank you….I like the interview very much. I may add some insights later.
              Geir, speaking from ‘truth’ has been communicating some of what Tom says….even more.
              Geir, where are you?

            1. Great! When are you going to write a new post? I am just wondering about what has been
              happening to you these days. You have been almost continuously posting shift after shift.
              What is this ‘stop’ about?

            2. Geir
              Thanks! I was of course a little nosey, which I tend to be sometimes. My excuse is that I am enjoying your shifts and posts very much and you are very fast. That other interests grab your attention is fully understandable – as fully as the infinite wonders of life each day.
              There have been some videos posted during the past two weeks – there seem to be some other guys who are also after that which we are here. I don’t know if you saw any of them,
              if you did/do, it would be interesting to see your view which would help further ‘progress’. Of course it’s time, which I understand.

  24. Damn it’s hard to use words about this. ‘He’ just sounds so wrong. It means a person…a male one too!

  25. Geir, you started an interesting topic 🙂

    Again here is my Rant on this subject

    This is an interesting topic that goes into many different directions. Each person has their own thoughts on this matter that can differ widely from each other. And everyone is correct in what they say.

    What is true for you is only true for you.

    As John Rafanello says “If YOU say so”

    I came to a conclusion last life that the so called reactive mind is not ONLY pain and unconsciousness. It does not react to past pain points only. Restimulation of past pains can effect you and yes you can work on them as described by Ron and other practices. But I have realized that positive past moments are also restimulated and it also affects you. This is an area not talked about much.
    Take everything that is mentioned about the reactive mind ( Pain and Unconsciousness’ etc )and you can also have it work the same for uplifting, enlightening AHA moments. To a greater or lesser degree you can work the same model with anything in the mind.
    RON did not see this or ignored this part and only focused on one side of the MIND. He looked at it from the view point, you have a part of you stuck in a past upset, pain or unconsciousness and if you clear it there is more of you here in present time. Which works fine and is a valid method. But it is lacking in that it leaves out the other side of the spectrum.
    And that is, that a moment that has you feeling enlightened, extra happy, bliss, god like etc is also holding a part of you in the past. It is a past moment that gets restimulated by the A = A = A calculation of the so called reactive mind. Anything in the PAST is reactive in the present if you have your focus on it —> Consciously or Unconsciously ONE <— AGAIN
    All that IS was once ONE and TRUE improvement in each of these separated parts need to work on bringing all back to BEING ONE.

    RON around 1958 lost his balance of life and became separated deeper and deeper from the original path he started from. His aim was to provide an improved methodology of a workable applicable process to help all beings better themselves. And to let them know he was the creator of this methodology ( EGO ). Going in one direction only, that being the pain or negative side of the MIND. He started to look at the exterior life experience as Negative and degrading and eventually against him. The deeper he looked into the one side of the mind he could not separate the external from the internal. So, he improved himself to see things better and understand better the negative aspects of life. And Scientology went down this road of attack and protect and crush the negative so the positive can exist.
    The more he focussed on the wrong things the more he noticed the wrong things in normal society. And then within the scientology practitioners. DM is now dramatizing what RON created.
    It is sad that all this happened but at the same time life always finds a balance in everything. Look at all of us here. We are communicating. The fact that we are communicating freely is a beautiful thing. I thank RON for his efforts and I thank everyone who held onto his original Plan.
    Currently there is outside forces that have scientology in control. No need to get into it. DM has lost his path the same as Ron did. Maybe, soon there will be an opportunity to recreate the original dream and we can all put our energies into creating a better world.
    Remember, to be ONE in all dynamics is TRUE improvement.

    As Buddha said

    "“Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe simply because it has been handed down for many generations. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken of and rumoured by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is written in Holy Scriptures. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of teachers, elders or wise men.

    Believe only after careful observation and analysis, and when you find that it agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.”

    Shakyamuni Buddha

    I Love all of YOU

    1. Hi Eric, I really love this quote.

      My evaluation which is based on what I’ve read by him, is that he wanted to make SCN orgs survivable in the hands of others, and that’s what his trouble was. I don’t think he was much influenced as Ron by what happened to the orgs. The putting himself as the sole source of tech was to avoid what eventually happened with DM etc –this alteration of tech which made it a tool of domination.

      Ron was the first guy from whom I read about being ‘other’ dynamics. This is not a sign of any great ego for me.

      If Ron considered that there is an ‘outside world’ and that it is evil, better scrap all SCN now as it is no good. From my view it is the Church who 3rd parties ‘the bad people out there’. In KSW it is written that sh1t happens to ‘us’ if we don’t do our jobs, not because there are bad people out there.

      Yes, he wrote bad things about psychologists and he defended SCN orgs too against ‘SP’s, and yeah I bet he could fight less. But still I don’t think he did it for himself, I think he was trying to protect the group.

      That’s just a point of view, and no invalidation towards yours is intended 🙂

    2. Good post Eric. In fact it used to be known and appreciated that a person could be ‘stuck in a win’, just as much as he could be ‘stuck in a loss’.

  26. Very nice post, Eric. However, as for positive processing, there is a whole section in Science of Survival on “Positive Processing”:

    “Pleasure moments are, one could say, deposits of theta. Such deposits assist the conversion of entheta to theta. The running of pleasure moments then materially assists the raising of tone. One can use this in many ways and all these ways could be grouped under ‘positive processing.’ There are probably innumerable variations of positive processing. The running of a pleasure moment just as though it were an engram, until all perceptics are recovered, is just one instance of positive processing. The scanning of chains of pleasure moments is another variation. The running of ‘future pleasure moments’ ties in the imagination but is just another variation of positive processing. …”

    Also, from what I’ve read, the original OT Levels were not negative gain auditing, but were aimed at the positive gains to be had from drilling OT abilities. Later, however, LRH discovered the NOTs case, which was more negative gain processing but did need to be handled. And it’s apparently debatable that LRH ever cancelled the original OT Levels. Also, as for OT VIII, there seems to be a big question as to whether the version being delivered in the CoS is the one LRH developed.

    Sending love back to you. 🙂

      1. Chris wrote: “deposits of theta” = inconsistent and contrary statement.

        Excellent catch, Chris!

        In fact, Axiom 1 proves Hubbard himself wrong.

        Axiom 1 Life is basically a static.

        DEFINITION: A life static has no mass, no motion, no wavelength, no location in space or in time. It has the ability to postulate and to perceive.

        Hubbard rode this contradiction all the way into the OT Levels when he said that body thetans stick to a thetan because they are of a “similar wavelength to the thetan”.

        If something has no mass, no motion, no wavelength, and no location in space or in time, then how can anything stick to it?

        A person gets the most case gain from Scientology when he spots its contradictions.

        Alanzo

    1. Marildi: the original OT Levels were not negative gain auditing, but were aimed at the positive gains to be had from drilling OT abilities.

      Chris: None of this drilling resulted in OT’s anymore than the death scene resulted in “Renewals” in Logan’s Run.

    2. Marildi: Also, as for OT VIII, there seems to be a big question as to whether the version being delivered in the CoS is the one LRH developed.

      Chris: The authorship of all things LRH are called into question. Nothing short of a 3rd party audit of all LRH originals could possibly sort this out. And the next layer would be to sort out any plagiarism out of the original LRH works. But will that happen and if it did would I trust it? No. Does that matter? No.

  27. Yes you are correct about positive processing.
    But the focus was on the negative and not balanced with the positive from around 1958 to present time. One must balance each side all the way up the bridge. Otherwise you feel not complete and limited in BEING OT…
    In the early years it was fun and enjoyable. One wanted to be there because it was a very theta environment. It felt good being there. It was energetic and very motivational. Hence the speed of growth. And talking about OT levels were not as tight as today. You would talk and answer what ever question was asked. So as to not affect a preclears case you would answer in a diplomatic manner that answered enough of the question that it was satisfactory to the preclear. You were not told to NOT talk about it. The focus was on not influencing another’s case, that’s all.
    But from around 1958 the slowing down and then reversing of the theta environment started. And IMHO it is because the balance between negative and positive processing was lost.
    I believe it was all down hill from there.
    At the moment the focus is not on you but on what you can pay.
    Back then it was “how can we help you?” with a smile that was real. No pressure sales, no tactics used to get you to pay. You moved freely and happy to be there.

    Anyway, that is my rant 🙂

    It is the past and when the opportunity soon comes to make a change. I hope there is enough theta around to rebuild what was started in the early 50`s

    🙂

  28. Eric, what exactly happened in 1958? A couple other people whose posts I’ve read have brought up that year too as the turning point (one said between ’58 and ’61). You say there were changes in the balance between negative and positive processing. Do you know what got changed as regards the specific processes being used before and after?

    1. Marildi –

      LRH bought Saint Hill in late 58 and moved in around 1959, and began developing The Bridge and the idea of “standard”, conveyor belt to spiritual freedom, Scientology.

      1959 is when the first policy letters began to emerge, as well.

      Prior to this time in Scientology technology, there was no standard “Bridge to Total Freedom”.

      The development of the Bridge is a tectonic shift in Scientology technology. All you have to do is imagine a Scientology with no Bridge in it and how a Scientology with no Bridge in it would be delivered.

      Go ahead. Imagine a Scientology with no Bridge in it. That was Scientology for the first decade of its existence, when LRH was writing all the books with all the ideals of FREEDOM in them.

      Then put a Bridge to Total Freedom there with the idea that each person’s “case” is the same as everybody else’s, and the people who believe that their case does not fit on a Henry Ford conveyor belt to spiritual freedom are “ONLY ONES” (the true origination of that standard “make-wrong” of the critics of that time).

      But don’t take my word for it. Examine the timeline of the development of Scientology for yourself. There’s a lot to learn there.

      Alanzo

    2. marildi: “Eric, what exactly happened in 1958? A couple other people whose posts I’ve read have brought up that year too as the turning point (one said between ’58 and ’61). You say there were changes in the balance between negative and positive processing. Do you know what got changed as regards the specific processes being used before and after?”

      Me: Phil Speckler is of the opinion that it started with falling out with Nibs circa Nov 1957. There’s a series of videos on the net filmed by Tatiana, IIRC the youtube link was posted on Marty’s site a fortnight or so ago.

      The timing is right – a supposed (imagined?) betrayal by the eldest son – that’s a big deal. Or there was a substantial earlier-similar.

      Alan

      1. Hi Alan,

        As regards the Phil Spickler videos, I saw that post of Tatiana’s and I myself posted (both on Marty’s blog and here) the specific video where he describes the falling out of LRH and Nibs and the drastic changes he observed in LRH from that point forward. Phil’s observations are an interesting part of the huge spectrum of speculations about LRH. Here’s the link to my post if you want to watch the video (it’s under 10 minutes in length): https://isene.me/2013/03/21/invalidation/#comment-35677

        1. Marildi: “As regards the Phil Spickler videos,”

          Me: I thought it might have been you would posted it 🙂

          I did watch that video back then but I haven’t made the time yet to watch the other 5. It’s on my todo list

    3. In 1958 the IRS sent the Church a letter withdrawing their tax-exempt status on the ground that the exposition and propagation of “tenets set forth in the books of L. Ron Hubbard, and related instruments of instruction relative to ‘Scientology’ in training courses, clinical courses and otherwise” did not constitute an exclusively religious or educational activity.

      You can read about the entire episode here: http://www.freezone.org/timetrack/data/Hidden_Story/chapter8.htm#178

      Early in 1959, LRH created the Hubbard Communications Office and he wrote the confidential HCO Manual of Justice. It is very obvious that he is responding to various government and media actions taken against the Church of Scientology and very obvious that he sees a need to standardize everything to reduce or limit the possibility of being harassed for organization misbehavior or inadequate results. He absolutely refused to acknowledge his own role in creating the problems in the first place — he had made radical and disparaging comments during the Hoover / McCarthy era and deliberately used his religious groups position to urge members not to vote for Nixon. Instead he stepped up the castigation and identified these groups as suppressive, not trustworthy, and in the case of the psychiatric industry, completley and irreversibly inimical to the interests of spiritual beings every where.

      You can speculate on his intentions on all this all day long and really its no longer relevant. What is relevant is that he introduced a philosophy of addressing such problems that I believe to be the very downfall of the entire organization, a philosophy that was completely opposed to the original philosophy upon which the Church was initially founded.

      I think that philosophy could be neatly summed up as: “getting rid of negative/inimical mind, spirits, and people” one way or another as impediments to one’s freedom.

      1. Maria wrote:

        You can speculate on his intentions on all this all day long and really its no longer relevant. What is relevant is that he introduced a philosophy of addressing such problems that I believe to be the very downfall of the entire organization, a philosophy that was completely opposed to the original philosophy upon which the Church was initially founded.

        I think that philosophy could be neatly summed up as: “getting rid of negative/inimical mind, spirits, and people” one way or another as impediments to one’s freedom.

        In 1965 he expressed his new philosophy on the tape “Org Board and Livingness” this way:

        Livingness is going along a certain course, impelled by a purpose and with some place to arrive.

        It consists mostly of removing the barriers in the channel, holding the edges firm, ignoring the distractions and reinforcing and reimpelling one’s progress along the channel. That’s life and that’s this org board. —L. Ron Hubbard

        Alanzo

      2. And also Maria –

        Let me just say one thing about LRH’s intentions.

        Intentions are proven every day throughout the world in court rooms during criminal and civil cases.

        You can demonstrate, and perceive, intent.

        I believe that decade’s long behavior of doing things over and over, and never correcting them, and even continually refining an activity to make it even stronger, demonstrates intent.

        If a person throws a baseball and breaks the neighbor’s window once, then it could be unintended. If on the next day he does it again, then yes, even then it could be an accident – unintended.

        But if a person throws a baseball and breaks his neighbor’s window every day for 36 years straight, and even develops ways to train others to break his neighbors window, and even creates ways to automate the breaking of the window, then we are watching an intent to break the window.

        There is a lot to be seen in LRH’s long term behavior, with the direction he took Scientology in, which shows intent.

        Just sayin.

        Alanzo

        1. Alanzo: There is a lot to be seen in LRH’s long term behavior, with the direction he took Scientology in, which shows intent.

          Luv metaphors and this is good one showing intent.

      3. Maria: “You can speculate on his intentions on all this all day long and really its no longer relevant.”

        That’s my viewpoint too. There is a wide spectrum of speculations and I haven’t seen that anyone has proven (and maybe there is no one who really knows) LRH’s actual intentions, particularly if you consider not just his immediate but ultimate purposes – misguided or not, as the case may be. But, as you say, it isn’t relevant anyway.

        You also wrote, “What is relevant is that he introduced a philosophy of addressing such problems that I believe to be the very downfall of the entire organization, a philosophy that was completely opposed to the original philosophy upon which the Church was initially founded.

        Be that as it may, from my viewpoint you leave out the most important relevance, which is that there yet exists an invaluable philosophy and tech at the core of Scientology. Marty and others still deliver the whole Bridge – while recognizing and avoiding the wrong turns that were made, regardless of the intention behind them.

        1. Marildi: Be that as it may, you are the one who asked about the NEGATIVE shift that happened in the late 50s, or early 60s. I responded to THAT. I have made ONE response in several days and your comment is that I don’t recognize the most important relevance?? This is ridiculous.

          Alanzo: You really have to understand that I absolutely do not care what LRH’s intentions were. He is dead and gone. I care about the consequences and impact of accepting and carrying forward what he left behind, the intention and attitudes that produces and the behavior and direction that results from utilizing it. For me, any use of it means it has to be isolated from the original materials — LRH just could not keep his opinions, bragging, hostilities and personality out of the picture and unfortunately people do learn through mimicry and copying others they admire or think are smarter or stronger.

          1. Maria, I didn’t say you don’t recognize it, I just said you left it out.

            I appreciated your data about what happened, but you did take it beyond that to your own opinion of what is relevant – as well as your opinion about how the philosophy could be summed up, which is quite different from mine and seems to indicate you don’t feel the same way I do about what is most relevant. Maybe I got that wrong.

          2. All right Maria –

            But I think intentions do make a difference in your guru, and the writings and the technology he left behind for his followers to apply in the here and now, standardly and to the letter – as he instructed – do matter.

            I believe that the “LRH’s body is dead and gone” argument is an irrelevant, thought-stopping, red herring. It attempts to get someone to completely ignore the Scientology that Scientologists are applying right now – way after LRH has died.

            L Ron Hubbard wrote and spoke his intentions into his books, tapes, policies and technology. These exist right now and people are reading them and applying them right now, too. Writing and speaking and putting these in objects that would outlast the life of his body was LRH’s way of seeing that his intentions were manifested into the future by his followers.

            And, as we can see today – right here and now – they are being manifested.

            To this day.

            So, for those who would become a follower of LRH, his intentions still matter.

            Alanzo

            1. Yep. That’s what I said alright — the intentions (whether accurately interpreted or not) are indeed written into the materials. That is why I suggest that what is useful will have to be extracted and presented in a new framework.

            2. Here Al, I’ll throw you a bone.

              Yours is a relatively accurate view. LRH did write and speak, weave, his own opinions and intentions through out his writings and lectures. He actually pointed this out himself and cautioned that folks would need to sort thjs chaff out.

              I guess folks forgot to do so. That’s not to say he himself didn’t make it harder and harder to do so, as time went on.

              Thus I don’t think it’s true we cannot even guess at his “intentions”. He was pretty overt about it. There were two phases; 1. Develop and codify a mass-marketable tech for raising awareness, and 2. create and establish long-lasting organizations for the transmission of this tech in unaltered form. That’s why scientology, and LRH, have had two faces. And he said he set about #2 by using a basic organizational pattern that had already proven itself to persist for millions of years, according to his recollection of it.

              Once he felt he had enough of #1. established, I don’t think he had any scruples at all about trying to get #2. implemented, except for roughly following the rule of ‘minimum destruction necessary’.

            3. Valkov wrote:

              Thus I don’t think it’s true we cannot even guess at his “intentions”. He was pretty overt about it. There were two phases; 1. Develop and codify a mass-marketable tech for raising awareness, and 2. create and establish long-lasting organizations for the transmission of this tech in unaltered form. That’s why scientology, and LRH, have had two faces.

              That is an interesting explanation for why LRH was two-faced. But I think it oversimplifies things, and it leaves a few things out.

              This was one of the things that we saw a few years ago from Jim Logan, The Independent’s “Master of Qual” who wrote his Big Tome on Disconnection using only references that were “BPI” or “Broad Public Issue” from the Tech Volumes and OEC Vols. What Jim apparently failed to grasp was that there are MANY more references and orders and “Advices” written by LRH which are NOT BPI, and which have his intentions written into them.

              So to only take his public writings as evidence for his intentions is to miss most of what L Ron Hubbard was really about.

              A good quick overview of these things that you left out, Val, can be found here:

              http://forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?1462-The-Scientological-Onion&p=19183#post19183

              Alanzo

              PS, I had a really good zinger for the end of this post, but I left it out. I’m trying desperately to make it into Buddhist Heaven, and even though I’m sure that The Buddha would not mind if I left Val with a really good zinger here, I need all the Good Karma I can get. I can feel my Buddhist halo brightening already!

            4. Al, that thread is mostly fluff. It is largely Veda’s fanciful take on things without a lot of supporting ‘facts’. That is what we’re talking about,’facts’, isn’t it?

              As far as my post being ‘simplistic’, of course it is! Anything that does not come straight from your own mouth is ‘simplistic’ by comparison, right? That’s understood by already all readers here.

          3. Maria:” …and unfortunately people do learn through mimicry and copying others they admire or think are smarter or stronger.”

            And that is the unfortunate truth of the events.

            Few people managed to not fall into that valence and trap. Speaking for myself, I saw that trap sitting there but I saw many fall into it. It starts with the commision of an overt of hostility towards someone else in order to get YOUR (one’s own) product.

            Like all overts, after the first time it gets easier… and easier… and finally you need a conscience like Alanzo to rub your nose in it – over and over – to either pop out of it, blow from the restim, or really, really work that ser fac up into a lather worthy of the dim one. (The “dim one”, the diminutive madman, dm himself.)

  29. Sorry I don’t know the exact details of what was changed or exactly what happened but that is the approximate start of the downward spiral.

    1. Got it. Well, I thought maybe if you had been around at the time you would not only have perceived a change but also have been aware of changes in the tech.

      Btw, as regards your earlier comment, I for one believe there will be enough theta to rebuild. 🙂

      1. Marildi: “…enough theta to rebuild.”

        Chris: We should explore that. Without talking about the COS we should explore theta. How much would be required? Would it be in a battle with entheta? Is entheta truly enturbulated theta that would be un-enturbulated theta if it could? Or is entheta the polar opposite of theta like matter and anti-matter? Can a “tiny little bit of theta” do anything? Or does there need to be a commensurate amount of theta to balance with the size of task?

        1. Chris – “entheta” as defined by the person who coined the word is “enturbulated” theta. The polar opposite would more correctly be termed “anti-theta. Un-enturbulated is in essence a double negative so would be theta (that in the past had been enturbulated and now returned to a normal, non enturbulated state.

          The amount of theta necessary to make the intentions manifest against the push back (from physical barriers, other intentions, counter intentions, or agreed upon inadequate intentions) – that would be the answer enough theta to rebuild whatever is in the discussion. IMO.

          1. Thank you. When theta becomes enturbulated, what would have been stirred? Amounts of theta? Then MEST is made of the same matter as theta? I cannot reconcile this language.

            1. Chris: “When theta becomes enturbulated, what would have been stirred? Amounts of theta? Then MEST is made of the same matter as theta? ”

              Good questions. I’d be interested in hearing more on that.

            2. From Science of Survival:

              “There is something everywhere coexistent about theta, and perhaps there are various forms and types of it, all having more or less the same basic components, just as there is a great difference in quality amongst ideas, which seem to be the matter of theta. From 2.0 up on the tone scale, the theta is less and less dissonant, or more and more compatible in its three components of affinity, reality and communication, but this does not mean that 4.0 is perfection of theta. Theta contained in organisms, from one organism to another, seems to have at least some of its factors more refined, and theta appears to assume other qualities above 4.0. Exactly how high these qualities go, whether or not the 2.0 to 4.0 range is highly personalized, where the band of true free theta is, if there is increasing power above these levels, are all questions subject at this time to considerable speculation. Only enough data exists to make it fairly certain that with the theta
              theory we are dealing with something much closer to natural law than man has widely accepted before in his attempts to understand life, human behavior and the humanities in general. Thus, it may be that as one proceeds on up the tone scale one discovers progressive advances in theta. MEST is considerably easier to understand, being an old idea which has been worked over by several generations, to say the least, of physical-universe-minded individuals” (SOS)
              .

              Also, check out the first page of Chapter Eleven of Scn 8-80, which ends with this sentence: “This is a gradient scale of beingness, from the zero-infinity of theta to the solidity of matter.”

              http://vinaire.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/scientology_8_80.pdf

            3. My ex mother in law used to write volumes of pages and pages of Bible quotes beginning with only “Dear Chris” and ending with “mother” as her only non-parroting communication. The thing is I am aware of these inconsistent things that Hubbard wrote, having spent years reading and studying it. This was the reason for my question: How can the language be reconciled? Surely not by restating it until I give up? Or you’ve given up?

            4. You originally asked, “When theta becomes enturbulated, what would have been stirred? Amounts of theta? Then MEST is made of the same matter as theta? I cannot reconcile this language.”

              I thought maybe that sentence I quoted from from 8-80 (“This is a gradient scale of beingness, from the zero-infinity of theta to the solidity of matter”) might have related to your question, at least to some degree.

              And also the following part of the SOS passage that I quoted I hoped you might see as relevant (caps are mine)————————:

              “…perhaps there are VARIOUS FORMS AND TYPES OF IT [theta], all having more or less the same basic components … WHERE THE BAND OF TRUE FREE THETA IS… are all questions subject at this time to considerable speculation.”

              If you already knew that data, or even if you didn’t, and it doesn’t answer your question – then fine. In any case, as I’ve said before, I no longer consider that this kind of discussion is going to change anybody’s mind about their basic viewpoint of Scientology. I just tried to give you some possibly missing data that you seemed at first to be sincerely interested in. However, I have no interest in continuing with a discussion about it with you .

        2. Chris: “We should explore that. Without talking about the COS we should explore theta. How much would be required? Would it be in a battle with entheta? Is entheta truly enturbulated theta that would be un-enturbulated theta if it could? Or is entheta the polar opposite of theta like matter and anti-matter? Can a “tiny little bit of theta” do anything? Or does there need to be a commensurate amount of theta to balance with the size of task?”

          Hey, the idea of not talking about the CoS is “so dern crazy it just might work” (Gabby Hayes). 🙂

          Here are some LRH quotes that complement what S.A. said and could further answer your questions:

          “We could consider that theta gradually reverses polarity as it descends the tone scale toward 0.0.”
          […]

          “It seems to be one of the characteristics of theta that when the theta present exceeds to a very high degree the entheta present, the entheta will tend to dis-enturbulate and become theta. In other words, if we considered these matters in terms of polarity and energy, a positive field if sufficiently strong would inhibit and then convert a negative field near it. A very large magnet placed close to a small magnet will change the poles of the small magnet. When a very large amount of entheta is placed in the vicinity of a lesser amount of theta, the theta may rapidly become entheta. When theta and entheta exist together in more or less equal amounts, or when the disproportion is not large, a relatively stable condition exists, the theta tending to remain theta and the entheta tending to remain entheta. An example of this in the group is the phenomenon of mass hysteria, where one or two members of the group become enturbulated and very rapidly the remainder of the group becomes enturbulated.”

          (Science of Survival)

          1. I missed that. Did you have an opinion in there?

            I like the magnet analogy. But it is stated and then contradicted within the same paragraph. If the greater magnet influences the smaller magnet, then why isn’t the enturbulated person dis-enturbulated by the theta group? Or is there no actual prediction of human behavior and cause must be worked out after we see the effect? We don’t know which was the greater magnet until after the collision? Naming people one after one as the source of enturbulation of Scientology seems in contradiction to this quote and seems born out by the results declaring thousands of SPs. Unless Ron was the actual SP at the heart of the Scientology religion. That would explain a lot.

            Of your three quotes, I have to go with Gabby Hayes as being most consistent.

            1. Chris: “If the greater magnet influences the smaller magnet, then why isn’t the enturbulated person dis-enturbulated by the theta group?”

              I thought the answer was right there in the quote: “…when the theta present exceeds to a very high degree the entheta present, the entheta will tend to dis-enturbulate and become theta.”

              As for the rest of that paragraph, I see that in spite of you saying “without talking about the CoS” you still can’t manage to leave it out.

              And as regards the sarcastic remark of “I missed that. Did you have an opinion in there?” – your questions were about the theta-mest theory, not my opinion of it. I was just trying to give you some data about the theory itself that you seemed to be missing and which I thought you were sincerely interested in. My mistake. But another lesson learned about trying to have an exchange with you on anything to do with Scientology.

            2. Marildi, Do you understand that I’ve studied very well the references that you quote? Because I am a graduated and validated student of Hubbard’s Scientology, and because I was noticing inconsistencies in the language, I was asking your opinion. I think I’ve ever only asked for your opinion as I don’t remember asking you for a Hubbard quote.

              So regarding my question above, using theta mest theory, tens of thousands of Scientology Clears and OT’s possess less theta than the 2-1/2 in a hundred who are enturbulated and are unable to do anything about them? This is a fair question.

              Do we not know the result of the process before it is run? Do we need to see the result and then reverse engineer backward to see who was a good guy and who was a bad guy by comparing the result to true Scientology? This is a serious and important, I think pivotal point to consider.

            3. Chris: “So regarding my question above, using theta mest theory, tens of thousands of Scientology Clears and OT’s possess less theta than the 2-1/2 in a hundred who are enturbulated and are unable to do anything about them?”

              If I understood your question, the answer was in the quote I posted. Here’s that part again (my emphasis in caps):

              “It seems to be one of the characteristics of theta that when the theta PRESENT exceeds to a very high degree the entheta PRESENT, the entheta will tend to dis-enturbulate and become theta. In other words, if we considered these matters in terms of polarity and energy, a positive field if sufficiently strong would inhibit and then convert a negative field NEAR IT. A very large magnet placed CLOSE to a small magnet will change the poles of the small magnet. When a very large amount of entheta is placed IN THE VICINITY of a lesser amount of theta, the theta may rapidly become entheta. When theta and entheta EXIST TOGETHER in more or less equal amounts, or when the disproportion is not large, a relatively stable condition exists, the theta tending to remain theta and the entheta tending to remain entheta.”

              But there’s another factor we always have to keep in mind when it comes to that 2-1/2 percent – which is that considerations are senior to mechanics. SP’s have distinctly different considerations and intentions that the rest of the population. What’s interesting is that psychologists today are saying exactly what LRH stated decades ago about anti-social personalities, now usually referred to as psychopaths. Have a look at this article: http://www.cassiopaea.com/cassiopaea/psychopath.htm

            4. So there would be levels of OT’ness in SPs? Where say, 1 SP could enturbulate 50 or so thetans? And without training. These examples seem to give the edge to entheta as being more powerful. I think I am beginning to understand what happened with Anakin Skywalker.

            5. “So there would be levels of OT’ness in SPs? Where say, 1 SP could enturbulate 50 or so thetans? And without training. These examples seem to give the edge to entheta as being more powerful. I think I am beginning to understand what happened with Anakin Skywalker.”

              I have no idea what you’re talking about. Specifically what do you base each of the above sentences on?

            6. Marildi: I have no idea what you’re talking about. Specifically what do you base each of the above sentences on?

              Chris: Star Wars. I have gone over to the Dark Side.

            7. Oh, so you do now see that the answer to your question in that SOS quote?

            8. I was reading your link to: THE PSYCHOPATH – THE MASK OF SANITY, SPECIAL RESEARCH PROJECT OF THE QUANTUM FUTURE SCHOOL. I was umm, underwhelmed. Riddled with inconsistencies, made up statistics (4% of the population is psychopathic = anti social) and innuendo, I cannot recommend it.

              But if anyone just has to read it, please remember: It’s not about me!

            9. You haven’t answered the last question – did the SOS quote answer your original question?

            10. No m’am. That article generates my questions rather than answering them.

              Did you ever take a look at “what” is being stirred to enturbulate theta? What did you come up with?

            11. Forget the the article for the moment. Did the SOS quote answer your question: “If the greater magnet influences the smaller magnet, then why isn’t the enturbulated person dis-enturbulated by the theta group?”

            12. HCO B 31 Aug 71 CONFUSED IDEAS:

              “They will generate weird ideas and erroneous concepts of what the text says.They do wrong things and say the text said to. They ask strange ideas of their instructors. They clamor for ‘clarifications’.

              “AND AT THE BOTTOM OF ALL THIS IS SIMPLY MISUNDERSTOOD WORDS.”

            13. Chris: No m’am. That article generates my questions rather than answering them.

              Been on my mind for a while so now to say. When one leaves the organization, one must be very strong. Otherwise they have professional LRH tech-ers to persuade you to stay by having all the right quotes available to make you wrong. The best is to not talk with them at all as one can hardly win. Best is to just leave. That’s why so many end up staying longer, imo. I sense you get what I’m trying to say. I’m reminded of this so very often of the way of the church on this blog. Thanks to our strength and knowing the truth we remain free.

            14. Many writing here left Scientology on their own determinism. They had awful experiences that made them doubt the path they were on. Some decided they didn’t like Scientology and some liked Scientology but were in disagreement with COS. I wish I could say I was one of these two, but I wasn’t.

              I left a job that I liked and a dogma in which I was a true believer. I left when maybe the only other greater governing value that I had, the success of parenting my oldest daughter, was in jeopardy because of its conflict with my career in the SO. In hindsight, the mental conflicts that I experienced, the cognitive dissonance, had me bouncing off the walls. So I left and walled off that portion of my life while I got on with raising my oldest daughter and re-establishing myself in the world. I have recently become aware that I dramatized this disharmony by acting out in personally destructive ways. Regardless, the fact is that it took me 15 years to begin dealing with my issues and that’s been since almost 8 years ago. Because of the way that I’ve carried this forward with me, it’s seemed to be constantly in my field of vision. The reason for this was that I really didn’t know what had happened for that fork in the road, the one where I put my foot on the Bridge to Total Freedom, to have vectored off on a tangent like a shooting star that burns brightly, fizzles, and who knows where it went? I suppose that I carried that past forward with me and continued to create it hoping to change that past into being not a mistake anymore. This seems to be my own version of “why ideologies can makes you stupid.” I should’ve written this on the other thread but we were writing about this related matter here.

              Yes, I know what you mean. Decompressing from ideologies can take quite a while. Sometimes I wonder if we learn anything by taking up these crosses that others tell us are so important to bear.

            15. Chris: Some decided they didn’t like Scientology and some liked Scientology but were in disagreement with COS. I wish I could say I was one of these two, but I wasn’t.

              I like what I got from the old scn except for GO actions, after the fact, but when saw the new scn found it wasn’t the same and searched why.
              When looked and found out the Real scn and saw that I was duped and used I got out for good and will help others not to get into it.

              Liked your story, thanks for sharing. 🙂

              Chris: Sometimes I wonder if we learn anything by taking up these crosses that others tell us are so important to bear.

              I agree!

          2. A huge amount of theta dis-enturbulates. True. But only for a short time. As there is the ‘magnet’ phenomenon as well. Which looks to be ‘thought’ itself – which seems to have electric and magnetic components. Also, there is the question of intention.

            1. Yes, Marianne, LRH says the same about the short time, and many of us have experienced being around a theta person or group as well as an entheta person or group – so we have personal reality on the reality of these phenonena.

              All that you say was stated by LRH . And the point about intention was what I brought up when I wrote about considerations being senior and said that “SP’s have distinctly different considerations and intentions that the rest of the population.”

              It’s pretty late here now. Talk to you tomorrow. 🙂

            2. Watch the Gregg Braden video The Divine Matrix. It’s long but it’s worth watching it. It explains and DEMONSTRATES a lot……e.g. what emotion is: Love or Fear. True (clear) Love plus Thought meeting is……it starts at 0.38…
              The whole video is a gem…it’s on the soap-box thread.

            3. Marianne, thanks for all you said! I just listened to about an hour of that Gregg Braden video, starting from the point you recommended, and I totally agree that it is very well worth watching. What I find amazing is that LRH wrote about so many of the things that science is now finding scientific proof for – including the fact that considerations are senior to mechanics and that our theta energies not only affect the theta of others but actually make changes to the physical universe itself, i.e. cause over MEST! As for Gregg’s point that science has shown these energies are extended for miles from our bodies, here’s what LRH stated in 8-8008 (1952):

              “In that the beingness of an individual is actually extended for miles in all directions around him, if not much further, any idea or thought or past thought (as there is no past) is part of his beingness…”

              For those who have little time, here’s a shorter Gregg Braden video (under 15 minutes) that I posted a while back, where he talks about energies extended from the body, and also shows the film of that experiment of healing cancer with just intention:

            4. Thanks Marildi. I know that you know it and feel it and live it! True friend you are! Read your recent comments (too). Love them! I see what you are doing…

            5. Thanks for watching it. Yes, what is true is true. Whether LRH, Buddha, a Tibetian lama,
              Gregg Braden, Alan Watts, or any of us here tells that. The ‘problem’ I have started to see is that theta, presence, communication, helping with goals is not enough. The environment, the relationships of the person I ‘help’ do count a lot.

            6. “The environment, the relationships of the person I ‘help’ do count a lot.”

              Please say more about that, Marianne. And how may be different from the concept of the 8 dynamics, i.e. BEING each of them, as LRH came to describe it.

              Btw, if possible, please use the “REPLY” button at the bottom of your email notification of the comment you want to reply to. Sometimes I can tell by the content of your post, but not always. And looking at the thread itself doesn’t always show clearly whose post is being replied to if there are lots of posts in between.

              (Valkov, you too! ;))

            7. I’m not sure if you are saying that the 8 dynamics IS the same concept that you were speaking of, or if you simply expected me to say that. 🙂

            8. Marildi: “What I find amazing is that LRH wrote about so many of the things that science is now finding scientific proof for – including the fact that considerations are senior to mechanics…”

              Me: That came up in science in the 1920s.

            9. Geir I guess you’re referring to the idea of the observer in QM, but what about the rest of what I wrote:

              “…and that our theta energies not only affect the theta of others… As for Gregg’s point that science has shown these energies are extended for miles from our bodies, here’s what LRH stated in 8-8008 (1952), and then I gave the LRH quote which also stated “for miles”. That datum seems to have only been discovered quite recently.

            10. Much has been written about even that after the 1920s and onward, starting with Wigner’s friend, etc. LRH was late on the chain there.

            11. QM => Transistor

              And the rest of an avalanche of technology resulting from the discoveries of QM (and considerations senior to mechanics) would have been discovered without any influence from LRH.

            12. I meant as regards “non-physical” discoveries having to do with the observer.

            13. My point is about “theta” and all the phenomena that relate to it – not physical universe technologies even when they take the observer into consideration. What was discovered about the OBSERVER, i.e. theta itself, before LRH wrote about it in the early 50’s? I only know of this type of discovery having occurred in recent years, and that it corroborates what LRH wrote 6 decades ago.

            14. I guess the idea about the observer, the soul, the cause, etc. was discovered thousands of years ago. It was validated by science in the 1920s, then extrapolated further by LRH in the 1950s. Right?

            15. On second thought, I don’t think “extrapolated” is the right word. I suspect LRH came to the understandings he did through direct perception. For one thing, they ring too much of truth, to my mind, and for another science is now proving their validity.

            16. Yes, of course he stood on the shoulders of Giants! But he too was a Giant, who took knowledge a good bit forward, at least in the early years.

            17. Marildi: But he too was a Giant, who took knowledge a good bit forward, at least in the early years.

              Chris: Example? Not anectdotes, please.

            18. Yeah 90 years ago one guy recognized as a ‘scientist’ had that idea. And how many ‘scientists’ today have finally accepted it, or some form of it? And what progress has anyone in ‘science’ made in those 90 years, from that starting point? What practical beneficial results/applications have been developed on it’s basis?

              Not to rain on anyone’s ‘science parade’, just want to know where the parade is so I can view some of it…..

            19. Right, Val, it seems that the only scientists who have progressed are on the very fringes, and that mainstream science wants no part of their discoveries as it would highly disrupt their professional status and incomes. Otherwise, recent scientific discoveries would have been made front-page news, as Gregg Braden worded it in that video.

            20. Marildi: Right, Val, it seems that the only scientists who have progressed are on the very fringes, and that mainstream science wants no part of their discoveries as it would highly disrupt their professional status and incomes.

              Chris: Straight out of the LRH playbook, but it doesn’t wash. The technology, medicine that we enjoy are from these niggardly scientists who won’t share their discoveries. If you or anyone here knows of a consideration which is senior to a mechanic, please share that with me now.

              (preemptively) The double slit experiment seems to show us something basic about the mechanics of reality, but what that is is not perfectly clear. (no pun) It certainly does not prove “that considerations are senior to mechanics.” Until someone shows me otherwise, this statement is a lovely sentiment — power of positive thinking — backed by anecdotes, nothing more. Quoth the rave, “Nevermore.”

            21. Also, considerations taking rank over mechanics is a great concept, but taken to the extreme of making pieces of mest disappear or even flying hats out of people´s heads is an unproven assumption.

            22. Rafael, since Mohammed seems unwilling to go to the mountain, I’ll bring a bit of the mountain to Rafael. 🙂

              The quote below is an excerpt of the blog post I recommended to you a couple days ago but you haven’t replied back so I assume you weren’t interested. However, I do think it acknowledges what you are protesting and may shed some light on the subject. Anyway, here’s a part of that post, JFYI.
              .

              “What Hubbard set out to accomplish with Scientology was to return to an individual his or her certainty of these simple truths [a previously quoted passage from COHA], and to restore to the individual the ability to exercise his or her considerations in a manner senior to the mechanics of matter, energy, space and time. A thorough study and practice of Scientology and a wide study of science and spirituality outside of Scientology has led me to the strong view that Scientology has nothing higher or more transcendent to offer than the above [the quoted COHA passage]. At the same time, in keeping with the infinity logic Scientology was developed from, there are infinite possible degrees of that attainable. To the extent one wishes to attain something above and beyond that while keeping his or her considerations junior to the mechanics of Scientology doctrine, dogma, values, morality, morality disguised as ethics, opinion, politics, and prejudices, one winds up, for the most part, bitter and disappointed in Scientology.”
              http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2013/04/10/why-learn-something-of-quantum-theory/

            23. Thank you Marildi:-) I also see it as the basic tennet of Scientology and the basic datum which could be used to clean the whole subject.
              BUT it must be thoroughly subject to scientific, or at least impartial, verification.
              What is the real field of control of thought?
              What verifiable improvements of it can be obtained with Scientology?

            24. Thanks for the feedback, Rafael. The subject of verification of Scientology has been discussed a lot, here and elsewhere, and it seems it would take more time and money than anyone has been willing to invest so far, to carry it out using correct scientific protocol – or some other method of verification. But I don’t think there’s any reason it couldn’t be done, and the same could be said for any improvements that might be made.

              As for “the real field of control of thought”, just yesterday both Maria and I posted short videos, both of which describe just two of numerous scientific experiments that point to what that “field” is. Did you watch those? Here are the links:

              https://isene.me/2013/04/15/why-ideologies-can-make-you-stupid/#comment-37040

              https://isene.me/2013/04/15/why-ideologies-can-make-you-stupid/#comment-37153

              On an individual basis, however, anyone could discover for themselves whether or not the datum “Considerations take rank over mechanics” is true, if they avoided the kinds of things listed in that paragraph I quoted above. And I’m not even saying it would have to be on the path of Scientology. It could even be on a path of one’s own making – which I gather is the kind of walk you’ve been walking (after getting a “head start” with Scientology ;)). The most important thing is intention, IMHO.

  30. Good post – and quite a relief to me. I could never get my head round Clear – my reading of it from Book 1 was literal, in other words an absolute state, and therefore unattainable. So unattainable, in fact that I never did attain it! Now I know why!

  31. I have news for you: What I told you was not a lie, it was reality. Also, I’m going to send you to Qual, after I check you for SPness, because you alter Scientology.

    Axiom 27

    An actuality can exist for one individually, but when it is agreed with by others it can be said to be a reality.

    The anatomy of reality is contained in isness, which is composed of as-isness and alter-isness. An isness is an apparency, not an actuality. The actuality is as-isness altered so as to obtain a persistency.

  32. Several people have gone one some kind of attack vector regarding this blog post. The dust never settled and several of the members kept bitching about this. And so I sent this answer to the mailing list just yesterday:

    “What puzzles me is how mane here jump up to opterm without actually reading the linked blog post and my ensuing clarifications in my comments on that blog post. Even after I urge people to read the post and my comments, they still seem clueless as to my position and continue to bitch about it. This, ladies and gentlemen, is cult think. Clear and simple (pun intended).

    Here is my position:

    I doubt the existence of a mind. I believe everything you experience is your creation – that looking/experiencing and creating is the one and same thing. I believe that almost all that you create is created on automaticity and unconsciously – from the particles in the universe to relations to others to traumas to you walking, breathing and driving a car. There is a gradual scale of consciousness – from wide awake and creating consciously to less awake and operating on automaticities to unconscious creations, deeper and deeper. The definition of “a mind” seems totally arbitrary to me – it could be considered to be an area on this scale of creation, but it sure is fuzzy. I believe that one can increase one’s consciousness to be able to take more and more responsibility for one’s creations – all the way down to every particle and quark in the universe. All this can be seen as “the mind” – or not. And to put a “reactive mind” in there is equally arbitrary – as the “pc” is continually creating everything he experiences, there is no definite “reactive mind” on his scale of creations – and he could always be clearer about his creations. Thus there are no “Clears”, only more or less clear beings. And processing a person toward ever more clarity is the way to go, But a definite “state”? Nope. No absolutes, only gradients.

    As for my making a dozen or so Clears; The answer to that is soaked in confidential data. But I can say that I believed that I created those “Clears” at the time. I no longer believe that. As for my own attestation of “the State of Clear” – I thought I had reached an absolute level, a state. I have later learned that this is not true. All is more clear in hindsight, after having done the whole Bridge and continuing on my quest for more and more clarity.”

    1. ISENE,
      “Thus there are no “Clears”, only more or less clear beings. And processing a person toward ever more clarity is the way to go, But a definite “state”? Nope. No absolutes, only gradients.”

      Perfectly said.

      I am a 5th dan in Ryu Kyu Kempo. A form of Martial Arts. In it we have, like all modern martial arts a belt system. White belt and all the way up to Black belt and beyond to the so called secret moves of the upper levels 🙂

      Yes, the upper black belt classes were not viewable by anyone under the black belt level.
      Considered too dangerous for the students who were not ready. Sounds familiar 🙂

      Now, in the past, before the 19th centry. There were no belt systems in martial arts. You only had a belt to hold your pants up 🙂
      The only rule you had was that when you started you were given a very thick and strong white cotton belt that you did not ever wash. The reason for this was so that others knew how long you have been training and so they were careful not to hurt the lower level or inexperience students. The more and longer you trained, the belt will change colour from the sweat and so others will see the time of training you have had and know how skilled you would or should be.
      So there were no Levels or grades in the old days. You progressed slowly by learning more and more and being more CLEAR about how to BE a MASTER of the ART.

      Now the above is my way of trying to explain the concept of CLEAR. You never become CLEAR. You become CLEARER and CLEARER and CLEARER. Along the way you have AHA moments that help you move a big step forward but you are not CLEAR just CLEARER than before…..There are no states that are the same for everyone. Each will progress and get CLEARER as they work on themselves. There are NO ABSOLUTES…….

      To me I find the more I work on myself, the LESS MIND I have and more of ME expanded. Difficult to put in to words. I find that this thing called MIND is less and MORE of ME is HERE. But if I let go of my self work and focus on life only, then, I feel this thing called MIND more and more and I feel Less and Less expanded. So what this thing called is or if it actually IS anything is an interesting subject.

      Maybe the MIND is the GLUE that holds our attention to this Creation that we apparently agree on altogether. Maybe, no MIND means total freedom…..

      Just sayin 🙂

      1. Eric: Maybe the MIND is the GLUE that holds our attention to this Creation that we apparently agree on altogether. Maybe, no MIND means total freedom…..

        Chris: Good post. And maybe mind is the rudimentary condensate of space. Something along that line is a good conjecture. And maybe freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose. Freedom and barriers are alike considerations as are alive and not alive.

      2. Hi Eric,

        In your martial arts system with the different colored belts, what determines when the next color is to be given? Especially the black belt. 🙂

        marildi

        1. Like all Martial Arts these days you get your new belt when you have been there a certain time and you can show or demonstrate some set routines and moves. But the skill level of each person will vary greatly. EG: When I was half way through my training to black belt, I was already fighting with the black belts. But yet, others who have trained longer than I have were not capable of this.
          So, just like the subject of being clear. There is no set state that is equal with all individuals. Each persons CLEAR is different. I was more clear on how to fight earlier than others in my class. So, you could say I was clearer in my knowledge of the techniques, even though we all learned the say things. I was CLEARER in the understanding and so was MORE ABLE than others earlier.
          If we move these thoughts to Scientology CLEAR. We can have 2 people on the so called state of CLEAR but one would be more CLEAR than the other as there is no Absolute state of clear. One is MORE ABLE then the other, yet they are apparently on the same STATE. So you can see there can not be a specific state called clear that is the same for everyone.

          🙂

        2. You move up the ranks just the same as all other Martial Arts. After a set time frame and after you have learned some set routines and techniques you move onto the next belt. This Belt system only came into play in the last 50 to 100 years or so. The old Masters not wanting to teach their secret techniques to foreign students, started to put colored belts onto foreign students to identify their knowledge level and to play with their Ego`s. The foreign students were not patient and were constantly asking about the secret techniques. So the Old masters decided to start a belt system to show how far the student needs to study before they get access to the secret knowledge. Like a target. And so, the Belt system was born. It all started because the foreign student were impatient and had big egos 🙂
          These days the Idea of BLACK BELT means you are good at your ART. But in reality it only means you know some routine techniques and moves. It does not represent a skill level. It represents a potential skill that one might know and can apply in real life.

        3. I typed this 3 times but did not appear as a reply. Test 4 🙂

          Yes it has color belts like all the others. You move up the ranks like all other Martial Arts. After you are there a set time period and have learned some set routines and techniques you move onto the next level.
          But it does not mean your skilled enough to use what you have learned in real life.

          I learned about the no belt system a long time ago from my master.

          You had a black belt because it was dirty 🙂

          1. Eric – VWD. Currently working on another black belt level in Tae Kwon Do. I understand fully your statement “does not mean your skilled enough to use what you have learned in real life.” I always strive for the effortless ability and not just the parameters for each belt. To me, it is easier when I consider I am just running “start, change, stop” on the body.

            I just wanted to really acknowledge what you have done. I am no where near that level. I fully admire the perseverance and intention required. I spent years getting to black belt and knew of the story of how these came about. The other benefit was I have met many very able beings, all with their own story in life, working to make themselves better.

            I hereby decide, even thought having never met you, you are an able being and one of the good guys. Thanks for what you do.

            1. “I hereby decide, even thought having never met you, you are an able being and one of the good guys. Thanks for what you do.”

              +1 🙂

          2. Thanks, Eric. Just a few minutes before you posted this reply I decided to look it up in Wikipedia and posted what I found in a comment on the other blog thread (the latest one). Basically, I got the same idea as what you say here about learning certain “set routines and techniques”.

            The no-belt system I gather is also a matter of higher and higher gradients of skill but that they are not predetermined and “set”. I would assume that the belt system used nowadays must have some advantage as that was how the art evolved and is what continues to be used. The advantage, as I see it, would be that you have a more laid-out path – one with guideposts, so to speak.

            Very interesting that a black belt would be the “dirtiest”. 🙂 Other than the idea of it being the highest skill, is there any other way it is described (although I’m pretty sure that would not be an absolute)?

      3. Eric: Just sayin 🙂

        Wow and what you said was so good. Thanks for the story of the belt, loved it and makes sense.

    2. It’s not surprising that “Several people have gone on some kind of attack vector regarding this blog post,”

      You DID commit a high crime, after all.

      All that reasoning you laid out for your thinking regarding minds and clears? It’s out-ethics, obviously, or you would not have committed the high crime of invalidating the state of clear as a result.

      L Ron Hubbard said that “Clear” existed, the reactive mind existed, and everything else, and it is a high crime to invalidate this.

      Now drop and give me twenty.

      Alanzo

      1. “L Ron Hubbard said that “Clear” existed, the reactive mind existed, and everything else, and it is a high crime to invalidate this.”

        Very true L Ron Hubbard said the above. But he also changed the original Clear state many times. And he must have realized that there is no absolute state of clear but gradients of clear. If you go over the original Clear state that he said was possible has not yet been achieved. After, 60 plus years the state has not been reach to the level that he first stated.

        So, is there a state called CLEAR. I would say it would be at the END of the bridge.
        Knowing that the END is YOU reaching the Beginning but with having more experience.

        1. I just think this deserves repeating! 🙂

          Mastereric111:

          “So, is there a state called CLEAR. I would say it would be at the END of the bridge.
          Knowing that the END is YOU reaching the Beginning but with having more experience.”

  33. Re:
    ▫ Isene 2013-04-14 at 09:59 https://isene.me/2013/04/07/conclusion-there-are-no-clears/#comment-36931
    ▫ Isene 2013-04-08 at 17:29 https://isene.me/2013/04/07/conclusion-there-are-no-clears/#comment-36482
    ▫ OP

    I would like to add another possibility to Geir’s model (in order to make this model more interesting).

    Quotes from Mimsey Borogrove 7th July 2011, 07:53 AM

    “Tonight I was watching part of the Morgan Freeman Worm hole series – the one on the 6th sense, where it discusses two tests of pre-knowledge.
    One, the researcher had a laptop that had the screen divided into two parts the test subject would pick one or the other, a split second later the computer would randomly put a picture in one of the two parts of the screen. The computer did not base it’s selection on which screen the subject chose. They got a 50% response. But – if it was a picture involving sexual (or romantic if I recall correctly) content, they got 53%.
    Another researcher found that when a subject, wearing an electrode, was showed random pictures displayed on a laptop, there was a 5 second anticipation of a charged photo that the electrode picked up. This can be repeated with any subject.”

    “Which brings me to my cognition – perhaps we are not 100% in present time. Perhaps consciousness is a bit like the old bell curve – a part of it is in the future (possibly creating it), most is in the present (or what we think is the present) and some in the past.”

    http://forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?23852-a-new-model-of-consciousness

  34. I think this whole thing about clearing and other things that we discuss here can have such a good effect. To suppress communication for the sake of keeping ‘entheta’ away from scientology doesn’t work. Isn’t suppressed communication ‘entheta’ anyway, as per SCN itself? I think the key is to communicate openly and honestly –with ‘SP’s too. I wonder, when somebody disconnects from all those people that argue with things related to SCN does it ring any bells during his grade 0?

    Beside that, some outpoints I’m thinking about Mayo are that first of all the guy didn’t fully agree with Ron about Clear, and on the other hand he was senior C/S and he claims he was also given the ‘Tech Hat’ (what’s the exact definition for a ‘Tech Hat’?) for the following 20 years (I think). Why would Ron assign such a hat to anyone, and if he did, why would that someone be a guy who argued with him. And above all, why would Ron keep such an assignment a secret from the rest.

    Figure this out 😛

  35. Oh yes, do you see any connection between this and the fact that ‘Dianetics Today’ has gone out of circulation? Is it out of circulation because NED is better? Then why not take out of circulation DMSMH, SOS and other Dianetics issues too?

    Also, how do you know that LRH didn’t assign the ‘Tech Hat’ to me?

    1. Incidentally, I found out that some Clear certs were revoked somewhat recently in my local SCN org and as far as I remember there weren’t that many Clears in my local org…mmmmm…..Dianetics Today?

      1. Oh yes, and those people need to pay for their Bridge and do it all over from the beginning, as the OTs that decided this, are too OT to take some responsibility for having delivered invalid tech.

  36. Marildi: And the point about intention was what I brought up when I wrote about considerations being senior and said that “SP’s have distinctly different considerations and intentions that the rest of the population.

    SP: Hi Marildi. Some points thta are not included inside the PTS/SP course that almost all do in my local Church is how to no longer be PTS to the Church itself, and that ‘you’ -as a being- don’t experience the considerations of that SP -unless you cause that- but your own. You can get one convinced that he is PTS and have him roller coaster and get sick etc.

    1. By the way, very important: Here Aida Thomas has written how LRH cancelled disconnection in 1968, and Dave removed this issue from the latter green volumes.

      aidathomas.wordpress.com/tag/cancellation-of-disconnection/

    2. Hi SP (the good kind ;)),

      The thing that we can’t forget is that “truths” are relative. While LRH knew that everything was nothing but considerations, he also knew he had to communicate to the reality (considerations) of the people he was addressing. Right? 😛

      Now, if someone did become “convinced” that he was PTS, i.e. he created something that he hadn’t already created before reading about it, I believe that the tech itself, correctly applied, could handle that too. Of course that idea obviously includes the fact that nothing is absolute, but the tech is one system that gets pretty close, according to my own experience and the data I have.

      The main point in all this is that not many people are going to be like you and be able to grasp the truth of “it’s all a matter of your considerations” and then simply “get off it”. Besides, unless I’m mistaken, you didn’t grasp that truth until you had already grasped the less fundamental truths of Scn. 😛 🙂

      1. Hey Marildi,

        M:The thing that we can’t forget is that “truths” are relative.
        S:Yes, truth for me is what one creates (before he alters it, if he does) as well as the Cause of that creation.
        M:he also knew he had to communicate to the reality (considerations) of the people he was addressing. Right?
        S:Yes, that’s what he did.
        M:Now, if someone did become “convinced” that he was PTS, i.e. he created something that he hadn’t already created before reading about it, I believe that the tech itself, correctly applied, could handle that to
        S:OK, I’m thinking two things about this: One is which tech are you reffering to? In my opinion the COSes tech, for the most part, is there to convince one (and also in some cases lie about) the mechanics, and not give enough resolution. I judge that by the results –what happens to most people that I knew. What I say that before one experiences PTSness, he has to put it there, is very much out of the tech itself. Do SCNists in the COS have this point of view? When one is afraid to talk with anyone who may create antagonism towards SCN, because then he thinks he will or may become PTs and roller coaster -like it has nothing to do with im- he certainly does not assign cause to himself. He is afraid he will be the effect of another.
        M:The main point in all this is that not many people are going to be like you and be able to grasp the truth of “it’s all a matter of your considerations” and then simply “get off it”.
        S: Well I don’t fully grasp it all the time either, as this statement that I state too, is a generality, and in each case it needs to be specific (to as-is). Yes, I know that Ron aimed to the R with people, but I don’t think he aimed to the effect point of view as much as I was taught in the COS.
        M:Besides, unless I’m mistaken, you didn’t grasp that truth until you had already grasped the less fundamental truths of Scn.
        S: Well, I started with a DN point of view, and then learned some SCN mechanics. But then when I read ‘the good stuff’ (by myself, not in the COS) I figured that the place I was ‘in’ didn’t have much to do with what Ron communicated to people. I could as well not had learned much about mechanics –I think I would be better off then.

        Tell me, if somebody understands what is written in the fundamentals of thought book, -which is a fundamental one- about the apparent and the actual cycle of action and how the thetan USES his bank and becomes effect, how can he then continue to consider that a reactive mind is there by itself or that he can be the effect of an SP without himself causing it? I think that such concepts about a thetans causativeness were not meant to be secret, nor some ‘higher level’ in my opinion. But because of what you said -that people couldn’t grasp it- I believe the COS became what it became. I don’t think it was an SP’s fault (DM). He was very well ‘invited’ and agreed with. Anyway, I don’t put blame on Ron about this stuff. Just saying, that this thing about what tech is what, is not a minor issue. I would personally scrap all issues (with emphasis on the checksheets) that were released after Ron’s departure from the COS (that’s before 1980, as far as I’ve read).

        1. The mostest SP, covertly hostile people that I met in the COS, who beheaded anyone who argued with them through ‘ethics’, held the two highest posts of the org, as well as another exec post. Two were ‘OTs’, and one was also a former CS and the highest trained person in the org.

          They couldn’t tell the difference between morals and ethics. They communicated to others as if they were inferior and insane (because they had case)….they didn’t know sh1t about SCN. I doubt they knew where their bodies were located in. Yet, they were allowed and rewarded for what they did. People looked upon them as demi-gods…. It was an insane and agreed upon by all members situation. Whoever disagreed either leaved or was attacked –for a ‘good cause’.

          For me SCN is what I have learned and coged myself. But if it was about the group….I would be talking like Alanzo, or worse.

          The assumption that it’s all DM’s fault is -obviously for me- utterly false too.

          1. Spyros: For me SCN is what I have learned and coged myself. But if it was about the group….I would be talking like Alanzo, or worse.

            Dee: Met too! I wish I could talk like him and fortunate we have him.

        2. Spyros: how can he then continue to consider that a reactive mind is there by itself or that he can be the effect of an SP without himself causing it?

          Chris: Pivotal.

        3. Spyros: “Tell me, if somebody understands what is written in the fundamentals of thought book – which is a fundamental one – about the apparent and the actual cycle of action and how the thetan USES his bank and becomes effect, how can he then continue to consider that a reactive mind is there by itself or that he can be the effect of an SP without himself causing it?”

          M: The key words in that comment are “IF somebody understands what is written…” And for most people that is learned on a gradient – the gradient that LRH built the tech on.

          S: “Anyway, I don’t put blame on Ron about this stuff. Just saying, that this thing about what tech is what, is not a minor issue.

          M: “What tech is what” not being a minor issue sums it up for me too. 🙂

          1. Hi Marildi. Since we agree over the alterations, there isn’t much more for me to point out to you. I know that you know about the gradient scale ladder, know that I know about it too 😛 I just think that for the sake of that gradient, I have experienced some hole (on all 4 flows), instead of a ladder, because of those alterations. And it is something which is important enough for me, so I need to make it clear. Otherwise, I really don’t mind gradients. A bridge or some road or however-it-would-be-called towards some spiritual achievement would be a gradient.

            1. “I just think that for the sake of that gradient, I have experienced some hole (on all 4 flows), instead of a ladder, because of those alterations.”

              I truly got that, Spyros. (A while back. ;)) And I’m just glad you can differentiate. 🙂

        4. Spyros, Great post. In particular-

          “What I say that before one experiences PTSness, he has to put it there, is very much out of the tech itself. Do SCNists in the COS have this point of view? When one is afraid to talk with anyone who may create antagonism towards SCN, because then he thinks he will or may become PTs and roller coaster -like it has nothing to do with im- he certainly does not assign cause to himself. He is afraid he will be the effect of another.What I say that before one experiences PTSness, he has to put it there, is very much out of the tech itself. Do SCNists in the COS have this point of view? When one is afraid to talk with anyone who may create antagonism towards SCN, because then he thinks he will or may become PTs and roller coaster -like it has nothing to do with im- he certainly does not assign cause to himself. He is afraid he will be the effect of another.”

  37. Spyros: I think this whole thing about clearing and other things that we discuss here can have such a good effect.

    I agree. Communication with ARC can only do good. It is the only solution to a problem. When in doubt communicate. And if ARC is broken, guess what helps to fix it. Communication with ARC, imagine that 🙂

    The biggest error in CO$ and Ron for that matter is putting up obstacle to hinder communications of all kind. This way the only thing communicating was Them or Him. And everyone else who followed just parroted his beliefs back like an echo.

    Keep the communication going. Thank you GEIR 🙂

    1. Yes, it is very nice that we can be in comm. I remember a say -I think it was by LRH- that if comm doesn’t solve it, then comm more. It wasn’t exaclty stated like that, but you get my point. And by the way, I recently made a post about my problems with my past jobs, and a couple of hours ago, I received some very good news about some work in which I’m not asked to be a sucker 😛 🙂

      1. Spyros: I think it was by LRH- that if comm doesn’t solve it, then comm more.

        Chris: Shows good understanding of how to use a Scientology concept the right way. Now just add a dash of tolerance to both ends of that equation and you’ve got something really good.

        1. Thanks 🙂 Yes, tolerance, honesty, intention to keep the comm untill the problem is solved…I think that would work out well.

      2. Here you go Spyros:

        “For a very great many years I asked this question, ‘To communicate, or not to communicate?’ If one got himself into such thorough trouble by communicating, then, of course, one should stop communicating. But this is not the case. If one gets himself into trouble by communicating, he should further communicate. More communication, not less, is the answer, and I consider this riddle solved after a quarter-century of investigation and pondering.” (Dianetics 55!)

        1. Here’s the first part of that same paragraph:

          “Probably the only major error which exists in Eastern Philosophy, and probably the one at which I balked when I was young, was this idea that one should withdraw from life. It seemed to me that every good friend I had amongst the priests and holy men was seeking to pull back and cut off his communications with existence. Whatever the textbooks of Eastern philosophy may say, this was the practice of the people who were best conversant with Eastern mental and spiritual know-how. Thus I saw individuals taking fourteen or eighteen years in order to get up to a high level of spiritualistic serenity. I saw a great
          many men studying and very few arriving. To my impatient and possibly practical Western viewpoint this was intolerable.” (Dianetics 55!)

          1. “Probably the only major error which exists in Eastern Philosophy, and probably the one at which I balked when I was young, was this idea that one should withdraw from life. It seemed to me that every good friend I had amongst the priests and holy men was seeking to pull back and cut off his communications with existence. Whatever the textbooks of Eastern philosophy may say, this was the practice of the people who were best conversant with Eastern mental and spiritual know-how. Thus I saw individuals taking fourteen or eighteen years in order to get up to a high level of spiritualistic serenity. I saw a great
            many men studying and very few arriving. To my impatient and possibly practical Western viewpoint this was intolerable.” (Dianetics 55!)>

            This idea that Hubbard had friends who were priests and holy men in the east, when he was young, is disputed by the record:

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_life_of_L._Ron_Hubbard#Travels_in_the_Far_East_and_Pacific

            And so what are we to make of his idea that the “major error in Eastern Philosophy” is that “one should withdraw from life”? Is that really a major error in eastern philosophy? Does it even exist in eastern philosophy?

            And this idea of taking 14 to 18 years to reach a high level of spiritualistic serenity?

            I know people who have been in Scientology all their lives and have never reached a high level of spiritualistic serenity.

            Now, with all the reporting that is available, and with so many years of hindsight, it is good to revisit these statements by Hubbard and ask: Was this clown just lying?

            I think so.

            Alanzo

            1. Al, re: LRH’s opinion of the Far Eastern mindset:

              If a person expresses an erroneous opinion, does that necessarily mean he was (deliberately) lying?

              If so, you could be in a lot of trouble! 🙂

            2. Actually, LRH qualified his statement with “Whatever the textbooks of Eastern philosophy may say…” And then he continued the sentence with “this was the practice….”).

            3. Hubbard: Whatever the textbooks of Eastern philosophy may say

              Chris: Good point. No reason to study other disciplines before passing judgement.

            4. Valkov: If a person expresses an erroneous opinion, does that necessarily mean he was (deliberately) lying?

              Chris: Move the word deliberately between person and expresses, and the answer is yes.

            5. Whatever the textbooks of Eastern philosophy may say, this was the practice of the people who were best conversant with Eastern mental and spiritual know-how.

              Given the documentation of Hubbard’s travels to China and the East, I don’t think Hubbard knew any people who were “best conversant with Eastern mental and spiritual know-how”. Given the understanding Hubbard displayed while writing about “Eastern mental and spiritual know-how”, it is clear that even if he did know people like this, he did not understand what they were doing.

              I think he was lying about knowing these people in order to sell people on Dianetics and Scientology. He has a very long pattern of that kind of lying, and I believe that statements like these should at least be questioned, if not dismissed completely.

              Alanzo

            6. These arguments are red herrings anyway. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Go honestly audit a few people according to the rules and let us know if you were able to benefit any of them. That’s the only value scientology might have; not LRH’s possible confabulations about Eastern gurus..

            7. Al, or anyone: Regarding “And this idea of taking 14 to 18 years to reach a high level of spiritualistic serenity” – anyone has an LRH quote for this?

            8. Geir:

              Al, or anyone: Regarding “And this idea of taking 14 to 18 years to reach a high level of spiritualistic serenity” – anyone has an LRH quote for this?

              That was from Marildi’s quote from Dianetics 55!

              The numbers are spelled out in the original text.

              Alanzo

          2. Thanx M 🙂

            The way I see it about SCN is that it was a way, a game and had it’s own rules which applied to itself alone.

            If one could attain it all by withdrawing from the ‘outside world’ within 15-20 years (is this true?), it would be pretty cool, considering that I started studying SCN a bit less than 20 years ago. The SCN game’s rules ought to be followed, if one expects it to have some good effect. If I was still stuck on grade III because I didn’t have money to pay for the rest, then I would be better off up on some mountain ommmming. Actually, if I followed the group’s agreement I would be stuck lower than grade III.

            1. S: “The SCN game’s rules ought to be followed, if one expects it to have some good effect.”

              What I meant was that it wasn’t within LRH’s plans to wait forever to get some processing, while you were getting restimulated creating bank mechanics and considering that the 4th dynamic is in grave danger and urgently needs your help to get saved and that you had not much time left (a hell of restimulation) and that you ought to donate the money to the IAS, even if that means postponing your Bridge steps untill…and then if you didn’t want to donate you were out-ethics and you ought to visit the ethics officer (that was actually stated by the IAS guy, during the last IAS event I attended)…If the gradient ladder is to lead upwards, not downwards, it ought to help you as-is more than it helps you create.

            2. …and then if you didn’t have enough $ for your Bridge and for the IAS and God knows what other involuntary donation, it was your own fault for not being OT enough to make that money. Tell me OSA, if you were ‘OT enough’ why didn’t you make that money yourselves, and why are you so much effect of those bad people ‘out there’ who damage your always-right-service-fced-to-the-bone group?

            3. Yes, whoever doesn’t only ack -ONLY- the good stuff of the group is ungrateful.. We are only supposed to get harrashed, and never counter-attack, and that is not called suppression, it is called ethics. Well done. You are always right. And whoever does not like it can leave, or if he insist to keep his intergrity get desclared an SP. How is that grade IV going –ever intend to flatten it?

            4. Oh yes the report system had me covered. Instead of sitting here spreading entheta, I should had made reports. Yes, what happens when the person you should report is also the person where the report goes to? Then you wind up being ‘SP’. ‘SP’s have a nasty habbit of reflecting their SPness onto another. They are never the SP. They are always the right one. Whoever points out to him that there MIGHT be something wrong with his actions, he immediately declares you to be the devil. He sees himself in you –that’s quite some awareness of being his dynamics –but in a twisted way.

              OK, sorry for spreading my entheta today. It isn’t my fault, it’s the SPs fault 😛 Time to chill and have lunch and play on the playstation.

  38. Geir,

    You are correct on every point you make in your above post.

    Though I’d be more inclined to say there are “no Clears as defined by Hubbard because the notion of Clear as defined is false.” And I would further state this in the context that many folks got gains in their effort to “go Clear.”

    I pretty much lived the developmental history of Scientology, having first become involved in 1957 and doing all actions available to the public up till 1982-3 when “Church” management demonstrated its destructiveness against we old-timers and implemented a campaign of either subjugation of moving us off the lines.

    Having now studied in depth the factual history of L. Ron Hubbard and the proof of his secret motives as declared by himself in his “affirmations” and having access to his ordered to be held secret communications to confidants, I can affirm your accuracy and would further state that not only is the proposition of “Clear” as stated and defined by Hubbard in error, it is based on fraud, hype, marketing sound-bite PR misrepresentation and is not based on any competent research.

    Scientology, in actuality, is fraught with errors and omissions (areas of purported completeness that are incomplete).

    The notion of the “reactive mind” is, as you say, erroneous.

    Your proposition of the gradients of spiritual awareness is correct.

    What is referred to as “the mind” (in any of its putative forms: unconscious, reactive, supra, analytical, conscious, et al) is actually a part of our own spirituality.

    In the works of Alan C. Walter, he refers to a sequence of domains of existence through which we declined from our original purity to eventually be operating as humans in a physical universe. One of the solutions that we implemented is what Walter refers to as the “Universal Mind.” This is a construct formed of our own spirit designed to contain and locate as separate to us the experiences we found unpleasant and wanted to move out of our present experience. It is a construct containing the turbulent impacts and impressions on/into our spiritual Being that we have effectively “put aside.”

    Your proposition of increasing our spiritual awareness, control and responsibility is correct.

    Hubbard’s claim of the existence of the Reactive Mind and the proposition of attaining the state of Clear in the terms as variously defined by him (and his definition of Clear has changed over the years) is false.

    What is true is that a Being can become freer and more aware as one addresses and removes the alterations we made to our true state of Being and as we remove the impediments we have added to our Being.

    Some of the practices Hubbard made available in his materials (where ever he obtained them as it is proven beyond doubt much of it is plagiarized or stolen from others) do produce worthwhile gains and advancement towards the ideal humanity has sought of understanding its true nature and condition. And this would have been the honest and proper claim for Hubbard to have made.

    To have claimed the definite and definitive states of Being or case that he claims in his published materials are false and fraudulent.

    These claims and propositions are not based on proper research and/or observation as, in actuality, by demonstration no person has attained or demonstrated these claimed states as a result of following Hubbard’s procedures.

    I know of no person who has attained what Hubbard claimed, sold, purported or defined would be obtained by doing his various levels of action from Clear to “OT.” Though having said that, many did obtain great benefit from these actions and many have attained higher awareness states . . . but that is a very different thing than the obtaining of the fullness of what Hubbard claimed and purported would be obtained in his various grandiose writings.

    Roger

      1. Yes, my endeavor with the post was to make it informative, real and helpful to folks. The key to changing the fixed beliefs that hold the cult mentality together is to demonstrate the basis of the falsity they have unwittingly accepted. And I say that kindly because I was a believer myself for 35 years.

        As to what I’m up to, I have found the works of Alan Walter to be utterly exact and workable and I use it daily on my own case and help others get it and apply it to their benefit. Alan in actuality corrected the omissions and errors of the KSW line-up and a passage to higher states of Being and awareness is now truly available.

        Roger.

        1. GREAT PIECE ROGER. Hope Geir bumps it up to a post.

          For me, I ALWAYS look to a person’s basic human functionality regarding any claims of effectiveness in a practice.

          I always wondered why Alan Walter’s tech couldn’t prevent him from being morbidly obese. Plus, from what I saw, Alan was successful before Scientology not because of it.

          And frankly, if a tech can’t make you hot, or keep a former professional athlete from becoming fat WHO THE FUCK CARES?

    1. Good post Roger. Throughout my own experience, I routinely made gains that were different than any expectation that I had about those levels on the Bridge. Consequently, I routinely thought that this was just the way it worked, that actual EPs or other various gains were explainable until one did a level. Now I read your post as well as many others like yourself and myself and see others had these similar experiences. I’ve since come to understand that my own game in life was and continues to be to learn, have epiphanies, to interact with others better and my ongoing purpose for this to happen has driven the gains that I’ve made in life. Scientology was a detour on this route that I’ve been following.

      1. Yes, Chris . . .

        I had huge, not defined in Hubbard’s materials, ascensions in my early days (’50’s and early ’60’s). Then, when the Grade Chart was introduced in 1965 🙂 the game then became to try and fit into that system what the hell I had experienced!! Then, as I walked the bridge (and it’s variations on the basic theme) I kept thinking the mass, case and charge I was suffering would likely be handled on “the next Level” on the Bridge!

        I was very wrong on that . . . it turns out Hubbard’s “Bridge” does not handle what has to be handled . . . though it does produce various gains for many (not all).

        The biggest error in Scn is that it does often produce spiritual ascensions . . . but the error and omitted needed tech of Scn is that it does not know that the ascension boots the person up into a higher level of case and level of operation the person failed to handle and/or screwed up last time he was there . . . and it does not comprehend this and fails to handle it. It does not handle it at all . . . and that is a catastrophic failure as the result is often an “ascension then crash and burn” cycle.

        Alan Walter figured this out. His tech is that when you produce an ascension on your PC you must then honor it and do the handling Alan developed to stabilize the ascended to recovered state and remove the things at that caused your crash from that level last time you were there!

        This is why we see so many “OTs” dramatizing immense case and/or otherwise going off the rails in various ways.

        The other side of the coin is that Scn does not handle on any one’s case what is actually there to be handled.

        Roger

  39. Lec. December 2013 to S.P.T.
    (Good Geir!)
    The reactive mind does not exist.
    A facsimile is in the past, and it is as good as dead.
    Brought in PT, is” live” reactive.
    It is not the reactive mind, to give energy … He’s right!
    One Spirit, does not want facsimiles. Like a splinter
    in hand. (Except a masochist)
    The whole mind is an object.
    Geir true, the Spirit does not create, re – create facsimiles in PT.
    Continue, please.
    Nic ARC infinity

  40. Lec. November 2013 to S.P.T.
    Hello Geir, Your post something on a BT or
    point of view?
    Comes against a bad effort. I do not want to fight
    opposes. It goes the same. So you create the
    facsimile of effort and against ITSELF, the
    stops, holds, and the inability to stop him.
    Nic ARC infinity

  41. Good God . . . this thread had become lost to me for three years, and just now found it by accident . . . thus as Geir wondered of me: “What are you doing?” . . . the answer is that I have set up a forum where a group of us practice and co-coach the application of Knowledgism, the tech that Alan Walter developed (that I also had the opportunity to contribute to).
    here:
    http://knowledgism-practice-group.org

      1. In simple terms, it’s a body or work that enables us to attain what we hoped we’d get from Scientology . . . But Alan defines it in his Knowledgism dictionary thus:
        KNOWLEDGISM The high tech – high touch use of knowledge processes and
        procedures to optimize economies, societies, areas, subjects, objects, groups, and individuals, and help their utilizations, quality and viability for the greatest good of all. It is based on a win-win accomplishment for all. Knowledgism is an inclusion of what is best from all past systems. As Knowledgism expands it will cross all boundaries of race, nations, color, and creed. (The Zones of Life Book, Vol. I, Chapter Two)

          1. Ya, fair comment.
            Geir, I am an old campaigner, saw my 80th birthday earlier this year and done more things in my life than most or many folks might imagine. I would not sleep happy if I bullshitted anyone and I am certainly not into bullshitting myself . . . it ain’t worth it.
            I went and did “the Doubt Formula” on Alan’s tech in 1994 . . . it does deliver as promised. And the good news?? Folks can get and use it at no cost on the forum . . . this because I consider it that important . . . particularly for those lied to and brutalized in Scientology.
            And I also say this in the context of all my other life skills away from the realm of spiritual advancement techs . . . . I am a certified Performance Improvement Technologist with the International Society for Performance Improvement, a retired Fellow of the (then) British Institute of Management, and with a background in the physical sciences; biology, medicine, physics and a former Australian swimming champion involved in the research in the early 1950’s that put our swimmers on top of the world in the ’56 Olympics.
            Thus, my whole orientation is towards results, attainable verifiable results.
            Thus, to answer your logical response . . . check it out and see what you find 🙂
            Oh, and one last point: we are not big on “discussion,” that does not accomplish a lot . . . we are into use of the available processes and tech and the reporting of the RESULTS thereof. You’ll see this on our forum.
            Rog

            1. I still would want our readers to get a quick overview of what Knowledgism actually is. Let me give you an example:

              Scientology is a therapy where questions are directed at the subject and the subject searches for answer that will let him discover new things about himself and thereby regain lost abilities. Sometimes this involves searching for answers in one’s past. The first goal is to achieve the so called State of Clear where a person is sopposed to not have any personal mental issues. Then the goal is to exorcie spirits attached to the person that is supposedly the source of his mental issues even though the person has achieved the State of Clear. The ultimate goal is Total Freedom.

              Your turn on Knowledgism 🙂

            2. Knowledgism is a collection of knowledges and truths that have been discovered pertaining to the true nature of our spiritual existence, powers and abilities that are applied as a technology of exercises, drills and processes which restore to the individual and related groups the powers, abilities, attributes and virtues addressed. The recovery and empowerment of these powers and abilities is on a gradient and manner unique to each individual as each Being’s state of “case” or condition of existence is unique to each Being. Thus, in Knowledgism, there is no prescribed “cookie-cutter,” one size fits all declaration of progress or putative attained states. What is stated is that each individual’s case is unique, though the mechanics are the same; and that it is an error to process every individual on an identical, putative line-up of progress.
              Additionally, Knowledgism corrects the omissions and errors in earlier systematic attempts to address and restore the spiritual presence of each individual to optimum.

              Knoweldgism is not a “therapy,” per se. As a practice, its drills, exercises and processes are directed at helping the client attain his or her own wants, dreams/aspirations and purposes. As a practice, it can also involve addressing aberrations and other impediments such that the client’s powers and abilities are freed for optimum performance and use. Knowedgism procedures can be self-administered (solo processed) or done in session with a processor who works with the client doing the drill or exercise or, in the case of applying its subjective processes, the processor, by asking questions, causes the client to inspect areas of existence needing to be resolved such that encysted spiritual Life-Force is unlocked, freed and returned to the individual as free, known, Life-Force and power under the individual’s control.

              Unlike other practices that hold that one’s spiritual connections need be “exorcised” as though vermin, the truth that Knowledgism has found is that we as “composite Beings” had long ago formed spiritual teams and alignments that, rather like marriages that have developed discord, should be addressed harmoniously and restored to a positive and aligned relationship as these spiritual connections are basically a key source of power in the forming of the realities of existence. Though, we have also found, there can be individual spiritual connections that are opposed to us and these and the spiritual strife they cause can be freed with Knowledgism techniques.

            3. It sounds like a better scientology technology version, without an absolute clear state or false cause over mest OT levels. I wonder if Roger could be able to elaborate a little more on what is done on their OT levels version ( I mean, is there any aim of cause over mest on your tech ? ).

              Have a wonderful weekend you all:

            4. Good comments and questions, Rafael.

              I think it will be best if I cite each point you raise and answer them each comprehensively, otherwise a short handle of it all in one comment is likely to raise more questions among the folks here.

              You wrote: “It sounds like a better Scientology version . . .”
              Both Alan Walter and I were in Scn in the very early days. I got in in 1957 and lived the development of that tech till exiting in 1985 while on S/NOTs. Alan and I first met in 1962, in Melbourne. Thus in fact, the development and research that produced Knowledgism did stem from our involvement in Scn. Alan was in fact the most intensely trained person in Scn . . . he actually did the SHSBC four times, and on the original version of it he indeed processed LRH in a rescue session to correct a goofed up own goal GPM of Hubbard’s.

              Hubbard, actually rather cleverly, hit on and promoted something that all of humanity has wanted to achieve throughout history. He promoted the notion that he had answered the question of: what are we, what is our true nature and true powers, abilities and capacity. Having done all of Scn, and seeing its results and outcomes, it became obvious it is a failed and even fraudulent and misrepresented “thing” Hubbard delivered. And this not to speak of the criminal conduct of its founder and certain organizational executives.

              You wrote: “. . . without an absolute Clear state or false cause over MEST OT levels.”
              Yes . . . there are several answers to this point.
              It is a wrong and destructive technical action to state for others what their case state or attainments “will be.” It creates a “hidden standard” and is a misdirection to do so. We are all individuals and we attain or arrive at what we each find as we upgrade our condition.
              The correct technical target for the endeavor is to help the individual attain their most wanted wants and to help them discover and come to a full comprehension of their true powers, abilities and capacities such that they can direct these powers and capacities optimumly to the attainment of their wants, goals, dreams and aspirations.

              Hubbard was speaking his own case when he dreamed up the “Theta-MEST Theory” . . . and this is the genesis of the thinking in Scn of having Theta in conflict with and in need of conquest over MEST. Hubbard, it turned out, was a dominator who had to conquer everyone and everything.

              One of the datums we learned in our research in Knowledgism is that an attempt to conquer MEST is to effectively be engaged in a self-sabotage. It is wiser to learn to work with and operate in harmony with MEST . . . this because, one of the things that can be learned is the extent to which we are each a source of this MEST thing we find ourselves ensnared in. This happens to be an area of interest to me, as I am a student of the physical sciences, and it is a hot item being addressed on my case at the moment. In 1963, in Melbourne, I accidentally vanished the MEST universe for me and another person I was with at the time. This as a result of being very much mis-directed as to case advancement areas of importance due to the “Theta-MEST Theory” proposition. It was a traumatic experience for my friend, and an issue that persisted as a case problem for me for a long time after. You can read my write-up on this on ESMB here:
              http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?10201-A-brief-breakdown-of-the-8-OT-levels&p=214820&viewfull=1#post214820

              This exchange below on research notes between Alan and me might help explain a more correct and beneficial target for our spiritual development. Copied here is my post on ESMB explaining the traffic:

              __________________

              This is an exchange of emails Alan and I had in November, 2006.

              We often exchanged research “notes.”

              The word “Spirita” is the word Alan coined in order to get away from using the word “Theta” 🙂

              Tuesday, November 28, 2006 2:25 PM
              To: rb .com.
              Subject: NEW AXIOM 1

              Dear Rog,

              Thanks for the research material.

              This maybe of some help.

              A.

              My suggestion is to print this off and put copies near you and read it several times a day.

              If your mood level drops or you are having difficulties with honoring your presence, power or purpose – read this.

              Alan

              NEW AXIOM 1

              NEW AXIOM 1. LIFE IS BASICALLY AN EMANATION STEMMING FROM A LIFEFORCE PRESENCE

              Definition: A Lifeforce Presence is pure Spirita it has no mass, no motion, no wavelength, no form, no limitation, no location in space or in time.

              A Lifeforce Presence is infinite in depth, breadth, size and scope.

              A Lifeforce Presence in its purest state is capable of infinite aliveness, infinite powers, infinite duplication, infinite permeation, infinite intelligence, infinite abilities, infinite cleverness, infinite strengths, infinite skills, infinite creation, infinite love, infinite truth, infinite harmony, infinite knowledge, infinite know-how, infinite responsibility, infinite control, infinite experience, infinite exchange and infinite integrity it should be noted that each one of these infinite capabilities also has no mass, no motion, no wavelength, no form, no limitation, no location in space or in time.

              A Lifeforce Presence is in a state of oneness with all these capabilities.

              A Lifeforce Presence is senior to all gradient scales and the mechanics of life.

              A Lifeforce Presence has the ability to create and to perceive.

              A Lifeforce Presence is the infinity of Spirita (8) that creates the containers of the becomingness of the Infinity to Zero of Spirit (8 to 0+) – to the Zero to Infinity of Space, Time, Energy and Matter. (-0 to 8) = 8 – 8008.

              ALAN C. WALTER

              27 November 2006

              Copyright © 2006
              Alan C. Walter
              ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

              OLD AXIOM 1. LIFE IS BASICALLY A STATIC.

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

              I replied next day:

              New Axiom 1—Something Omitted

              Dear Alan,

              I’ve been chewing on the New Axiom 1, and I do believe we have a very important item omitted. It is:

              A Lifeforce Presence has infinite potential.

              One could use the less familiar noun form, “potentiality.” Good big dictionaries give wonderful expressions of what these concepts are in the context of an attribute of the state of existence of pure Spirita.

              This is a big concept. The stem word, of course is potent. And the original definition of it as an adjective is: that has power; potent. A modern adjective definition is: that can, but has not yet, come into being; possible; latent; unrealized; undeveloped; opposed to actual. The noun definition is: something potential; a potentiality. (These definitions from Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary, Unabridged Second Edition (Simon & Schuster.) A simple noun definition of it from The American Heritage Dictionary, Second College Edition, is: The inherent ability or capacity for growth, development, or coming into being.

              I have for the last several months been processing in the area of this state of “ultimate, infinite potential/potentiality” and the what stemmed from it when, as a “Life-Force Presence of infinite potential,” (and interestingly I did use those words to articulate the scenario in session) I and/or we acted to convert the potential to express actual states of Being or conditions of existence, and produced “things”.

              Hence my view that we need to add this concept to complete the full statement of New Axiom 1.

              Rog
              \

              Alan did embrace my bright little contribution. In his lecture dated October 16, 2007, titled “Life” his opening dissertation about “Life” was all to do with this concept of its innate potential.
              ________________________________________

              Thus one can see that, if our work is taking the person in the direction of discovering, recovering and empowering his capacity to express his infinite potential, it would be a severe blunder to superimpose on the endeavour any notion of fixed levels or of relationships vis a vis MEST.

              So to answer your question of: “. . . is there any aim of cause over MEST in your tech?”
              The honest answer to this is: It is not a stated or expressed aim or purpose of or for the tech per se but, yes, if you wish to apply it to that end it would be your aim of your application of it. And it is fair and honest to say that the guys I personally know and coach are achieving, a) really true freedom from being unduly effect in their relationship with the physical universe and, b) are being better able to manipulate the physical universe in a manner agreeable to and more optimum with others. But there is a HUGE gradient of degrees of accomplishment on this.
              There are some answers on this in Alan’s book: “Gods in Disguise” . . . data available on http://knowledgism-practice-group.org forum.

              You wrote: “. . . what is done on the(ir) OT levels version.”
              Yes, well, in order to answer this in the terms of what processes are available and applied to address the various of Scn case advance states as laid out in Hubbard’s various versions of “OT Levels”  it would be best to relate how we address each individual and what is applied as we make progress.

              Firstly we don’t tell folks what they should be addressing, what their putative case is, and we don’t have a cookie-cutter production line to put them on. We ascertain what it is the individual is interested in and wants to handle or attain . . . and address THAT. This is true for absolute newbies as well as for advanced guys. We do have a vast array of processes available to achieve whatever the client wants . . . and in this context we have R/Ds never dreamed of in Scn that address and handle issues of spiritual “case” unknown to Scn, as noted below.

              In the context of the OT3 and NOTs materials, we don’t pigeon hole it. Some utterly new folks come on our lines very aware of their spiritual connections in the form of “spirit guides” and as referred to by all sorts of other what we would now refer to as “new age” names. What we do is process, coach or train the guy in front of us on what he wants handled and in the course of this, eventually the issue his spiritual connections will come up and have to be addressed. This can occur in one of two ways:
              1) In the negative sense, the client can collide with a little difficulty and slowness in resolving an area of “case” (that is, something is not resolving). Here we then check for the source of the what is not resolving: “Is it yours, a Spiritual Teammate or Team, or mutual?” And handle the correct “who.”
              2) In the positive sense, the guy being aware of his spiritual connections opts to include the enhancement of this aspect of his existence. We have a precise array of process R/Ds for dealing with what might be referred to as the Scn 7th Dynamic of other spiritual connections and presences where ever they are.

              In Knowledgism, we are aware of the fact that, long, long ago prior to the creation of the physical universe, we each formed groups and teams of connections to work with in our dealing with other Beings. Our own connections thus formed became what we now refer to as our spiritual teammates or team. And this action was part and parcel of the creation of each individual’s Home Universe. Though Alan agreed with me that we might better also refer to the “universes” he delineated in “Gods in Disguise” as “Domains of Spiritual Existence.”

              Noted is the point that the sequence of the development of these Domains of Existence is actually the record of our decline through a series of changes of state of Being from a putative “Native State” to human in the physical universe.

              “Gods in Disguise” lists and describes twenty-six Spiritual Domains of Existence or Universes, fifteen of which are prior to the physical universe being brought into existence. The physical universe, in actuality, is a consequence of and solution to having screwed up and failed in the earlier Game Domain Universes. We have the R/Ds for addressing and undoing our being unknowing effect of and locked into these earlier Domains of Existence . . . and including the set-up and entrapment in the Physical Universe.

              The factuality of Hubbard’s OT3 incident thing is doubtful and it is certainly the fact that NOT “ALL individuals in this sector went through it.”

              As regards very advanced actions and dealing with “MEST as an OT” . . . it happens when and as it happens for each individual.

              Let’s look at a likely progress for someone who did advanced levels in Scn and had big wins at various stages along the way.

              As I noted in my 2009 FZ Conference Presentation in Pasadena, the typical thing that has happened to folks who had huge big wins (and “key outs”) in Scn is that they have gone through what we have discovered and refer to as the “Ascension Crash and Burn” phenomena. Folks in this condition are typically wanting to get back that ascended to state of Being. We have precise tech on the why and what of this, and it is imperative that this situation be handled and repaired before one attempts to advance the case further. What routinely happens in the ascension crash and burn is that the individual, for various reasons, activated the next higher level of case and charge above the level he ascended to. This is an issue Scn has no understanding of nor any tech to deal with it . . . and hence the ex-Scn community is littered with upset people and upset cases.

              Here is the link to the tech write up concerning the 2009 Pasadena FZ presentation. You will also find this on our Knowledgism Practice Group Forum.
              http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?14524-The-Tech-Error-of-%9262-%9263%97How-it-Went-Negative-RogerB%92s-FZ-Presentation-in-Pasadena

              Once the highest ascended to state has been recovered, empowered and put under the person’s knowing control, then the guy can “process from the top down” . . . that is, from his highest attained state of Being with his most available knowledge and power, he can address the negative impediments to his attaining his wants from a position of cause and knowingness rather than from the position of unknowingness and suffering the effects of the item to be handled.

              Now the guy is in a position to discover what his OWN true case is and based on, and to then thereafter to process HIS TRUE CASE. This is the material of The Prime Source Axiom CODES.

              Each individual has a case that developed based on a pair of “Codes” that he developed that is his personally . . . and to be processing a case in the attempt to “make it all the way out” without knowing and being able to process the guy based on his Codes will only screw up because one would then not be processing that person’s actual true case. The person’s Codes are the key to the why and what he is on about in life and thus the key to the basis of how his case developed.

              Once the individual knows his Codes, he can then safely and correctly deal with his Earlier Universe case.

              This fact and vital area of tech is something unknown and omitted in Scientology.

              As regards “being at cause over MEST” . . . 🙂
              This issue is addressed effectively all the time during the client’s progress (with auditing/processing and coaching sessions) and in his daily life. That may sound a little strange, but the fact is, we don’t see the MEST universe as some sort of opponent to conquer. We have the tech on how it came into being and the part we play in its continuance. You will read lots of examples and reports of successes on this point on our forum.

              We have a body of knowledge and a particular tech point and a series of processes we refer to as S.P.I.E.P.I.R. It is an anagram for the sequence of actions we all go through as “OTs” or operating spiritual Beings when we do or produce anything.

              The sequence is this: as SPIRIT the being PERCEIVES an area of existence to address to handle or do something about and, following the perceiving and evaluation of the subject area forms and creates an INTENTION to accomplish a need or want which is then ENVISIONED exactly how it will be, and when and where it will be brought into being; then, following the envisionment the Being then PLANS out the sequence of acts and accomplishments needed to be IMPLEMENTED to achieve the RESULT desired as originally envisioned.

              To be noted is the point that each of these actions of the SPIEPIR sequence is a spiritual ability and power. In Knowledgism, we have a series of processes and R/Ds that exercise and drill these powers and abilities precisely such that a person can use them knowingly and at the correct level of power needed to handle his level of operation vis a vis the physical universe. And part of the hatting all clients get in this area of their progress is the need of the application of these tech points in his daily life.

              But, it is a huge gradient we are on when thinking of coming to “total” command of and over the physical universe: but it does and has occurred for some of us.

              The truth is, those actions we address with the SPIEPIR R/Ds are spiritual powers being drilled/processed in the physical universe and also beyond it. But, it is a learning curve for most folks.

              Rafael, I hope the above covers all the points for you . . . it’s a little long, but that is because Knowledgism is vastly more complete than Scientology and we do deal with what has to be handled with more specificity, accuracy and completeness.

              Roger

            5. Well, Rafael, all that information and the R/Ds are on our http://knowledgism-practice-group.org forum 🙂

              But a very important point that should be made here for you guys familiar with the Dianetics procedures is this. And it is, in actuality, a very important point.

              In Dianetics, the command is given to “MOVE THROUGH THE INCIDENT.”

              One should look carefully at what that does to the PC and causes the PC to do . . .

              It makes the PC SMALLER than the incident and subject to and effect of that section of time stream.

              In Knowledgism we also handle “incidents” and losses and such with very much the same processing action EXCEPT that we use a very precise command that has a marked difference of effect on the PC.

              This is an excerpt from the R/D

              Get what the mood, attitude, situation, condition, etc. is and ask:

              1. “How long have you felt this way?”
              Get the first time. Get exactly when it was.
              2. “Where was it?”
              Get the location described.
              3. “What was happening just prior to this?”
              Have them tell you until it holographically recreates.
              4. “Move to the point just prior to this ( mood/attitude etc. )?”
              5. “Holographically experience what happened from that point to present time, telling me what occurred as you go.”

              Etc., etc.

              Note that command to “Holographically experience . . .” It enables the PC to maintain his size and position relative to the incident or event being handled. And that means, if the PC is a huge giant super Being, or even “OT” he can handle the clearing of the charge in the incident without getting dotted down to “move through it.”

              It should be noted that the guy would have been bigger than the incident before it happened . . . thus it is a grave error to ask him to go down into it to “move through it.” Being asked to Holographically experience it enables him to stay huge and more powerful than the thing.

              Thus, the tech point here is that in Knowledgism, we process folks at their highest attained state of Being all the time.

  42. Hi Geir,

    You wrote: I see the level of consciousness paralleling the level of free will in a person. I want to fully grasp how are you mean it.

    Could I ask you to describe more specificaly how do you mean it? Thank you. 😉

Have your say

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s