The first part of Scientology’s Bridge to Total Freedom helps the person take responsibility for his own mind and his own issues.
From the bottom of the Bridge to OT 2, the person exercises his ability to take responsibility over his own mind matters.
From OT 3 and up to OT 8, the Bridge is all about blaming others for one’s issues. The person works on shifting blame to imaginary entities that he is told is stuck to his body. Hubbard calls these entities Body Thetans (BTs), remnants from a sci-fi catastrophe 75 million years ago. And every person on Earth presumably has thousands if not millions of these spiritual flees stuck to and around his body and pestering him. They are supposedly the source of odd sensations, pain and discomfort and can make him behave irrationally. Whatever mental issue the person has, it is the fault of these BTs.
The first part of the Bridge is the Bait. The second part is the Switch.
- Why do OTs blindly follow the commands of the mad dictator, the pope of the Church of Scientology, David Miscavige?
- Why are there few if any OTs that make real positive impact in the world today? Or even in their own neighborhood?
- Why can’t the OTs in the church stop their religion from sinking faster than the Titanic?
Could it be that their responsibility is driven down to the level of a lemming?
Could this also explain why Hubbard found so many enemies to blame – from the CIA, KGB, APA, psychologists, psychiatrists, the media, the bankers, SPs, anti-scientologists, Xenu, the Marcabians and BTs – lots and lots of BTs?
I have hardly seen a group with that many perceived enemies and where the blame-game is on such a high gear. The International Executives blames the lower rank Sea Org members (the super-clergy), the Sea Org blames the outer Organization Staff and the those Staff blames each other and the public. And everybody blames the Suppressive Persons (the SPs). The shifting of responsibilities is massive.
Personal freedom and harmony is possible, but the road to tranquility is certainly not paved with blame, but rather with love, forgiveness, giving, care and fun.
Update(2013-11-03): After discussing this in great length, I have come to the conclusion that the above is merely a special case of Bait and Switch in Scientology. It is known to relatively few people. What should be much broader known and what constitutes a much more fundamental Bait & Switch at the foundations of the Bridge is this: Hubbard promised a great many objective, real and testable gains from Scientology. These range from a stack of abilities that you would get when you become Clear (see Dianetics) as well as a range of special (OT) abilities higher on the Bridge. All testable and objective, such as Freedom From Overwhelm (OT 3) and Out-of-body experiences (OBEs). But, when you are to attest on the various levels you attain on The Bridge to Total Freedom, the vast majority (if not all) of the End Phenomenas (EPs/gains) are strictly subjective. Promising objective gains is the Bait, delivering subjective gains is the Switch. It’s like a school would promise that you will attain a certain level of math skills, but at the end of the year you would attest to “I feel good at math”. A classic Bait & Switch.
Geir Isene - uncut 
And on top of that Ron repeated himself over and over again:
– Restoration of knowing cause
– Take responsibility
– You mocked it up yourself
– The PC is responsible for being a problem
– …
Hence LRH taught “cause” and delivered “effect”.
One of the most amazing datums I stumbled on in researching Scientology is that David Mayo said that Hubbard thought all cases were just like his! Um, what? There’s a good reason not to do the Bridge.
I was horrified when I read the OT Levels, Power and Ls online. I kept looking – is there more? This can’t be it. This stuff is a dirty trick that violates everything sane and kind on the non-confidential stuff.
Very good point that “addressing the BTs” is, essentially, assigning responsibility to anything but oneself. Typical Hubbard. Cult of Contradiction.
I mostly agree with this post to the extent I can, as one who has not done the “Bridge” but has read a lot of accounts by different people who have. It has always been clear the Bridge was a work in progress and unfinished, and the Lower Bridge, actually up through Clear, was pretty well “workable” by many accounts.
I do largely disagree on the view that “Hubbard created his own enemies”. There is a way in which this is true, but not in the way Geir and many others seem to think it is. It is true in the same way “whistleblowers” create their own enemies. But that’s like saying those like Marty or Mike Rinder or Geir, when they are stalked by OSA, “pulled it in”, ie “created their own enemies”.
I made a post on Marty’s a while back which I wil repost here when I have time to find it, because I think it is very relevant to this issue, and to the issue of why the CoS is the way it is, and what the “model” for it is.
Briefly, I wil sayy the CoS resembles not so much North Korea or China, or The Third Reich or the Soviet Union, but he United States itself as it was in th e1950s ansd 1960s, and earlier decades.
Most people who are not old enough to have been around in those days, do not realize that the USA was very much an overt police state back then. Some would say it still is today, but more covertly.
However, here is a partial repost of a post I just made on another thread here:
“Hey, no problem….. I get that you think he was no better than the people who attacked him – first. 🙂
http://science.discovery.com/tv-shows/dark-matters-twisted-but-true/documents/project-mkultra.htm
and
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=138871
OK, LRH was not a “nice” person. But don’t keep your head in the sand about who his opponents really were and what they were really like, and what the world was really like in the 1950s and 1960s.
Google “mk-ultra mind control” and “dr. ewen cameron”. Just the first page results should keep ypu busy for a few days.
Oh, I know, it’s hard to confront that maybe LRH was actually running for his life, not just “running from trouble” as you try to minimize it.
Probably you shouldn’t even try. But please, don’t even bother to reply until you have read the content of the 2 links above.”
Actually it would be worthwhile for anyone who is not very familiar with those eras and the “MK-Ultra” scene to spend a few hours at least getting familiar.
As I posted on Marty’s, It seems there is always a “generation gap” of sorts. I was born in 1945. I saw a different world growing up and coming of age in the 1960s, than the people even 10 years younger than I. If you were born in 1955 or later, you did not see the world I saw. For example, you were not subject to the military draft for the slaughterhouse in Vietnam. You did not catch even the tailend of Senator Joe McCarthy’s witch hunt hearings. In short, you just don’t know, and base your views on what you do know, and tend to dismiss the rest as someone’s fantasy or paranoia.
“D. Ewen Cameron served as President of the Canadian, American and World Psychiatric Associations, the American Psychopathological Association and the Society of Biological Psychiatry during the 1950s. Notwithstanding a career of honors, and leadership in early 1950s psychiatric circles, he has been heavily criticized in some circles for his administration without patient consent of disproportionately-intense electroshock therapy and experimental drugs, including LSD, which caused some patients to become permanently comatose.”
He was only criticized “in some circles” for his experiments. Evidently there were some who thought they were OK. And of course there were those who thought the mutilation of human beings by Nazi doctors were OK too, “in the intere sts of science”. This man was th eepitomy of what LRH called a “psyc”. And he was th eworld-wide leader of Psychiatry in the 1950s. You don’t supose he and the people who bankrolled him felt a bit threatened at the possibility that Dianetics realy could recover a person’s memory inspite of “the very best” forgetter implants?
And this type of “research” was proceeding at about 90 Universities in the USA and Canada before all was said and done. And how about in Europe? Well, we can’t apply our FOIA to other countries, so we don’t know. But Cameron was the chief of some International psychiatric societies as well.
Anyway, here is what I posted on Marty’s blog last week:
A big Thanks! Maria for your ack! It makes me feel less like an old fossil when I talk about the 1950s and 1960s, and most readers have no clue what I am referencing because they are younger and did not witness any of it!
This has led me to think about TIME in a couple of different ways. One, is that every generation sees and experiences a different world form the generation before. And 10 years can make all the difference. I was born in 1945 and I have seen and experienced a world that even those born in 1955 have not seen – much less those born in 1965 or more recently. We speak of Time as flowing or passing, and that may be true, but it is just as true that the World flows and passes. The world itself is in flux, is a flux, and Heisenburg’s principle adds the element of observer action and co-creation of the world. Maybe more about that, later.
But in terms of my post and your comment about the world of the 1950s, I had a new, for me, thought.
It has become almost a convention or a tradition to compare Scientology and the CoS with Fascist regimes past and present – North Korea, Hitler’s Gemany, the Soviet Union, etc, and their most infamous leaders. But the truth may be a lot closer to home. The origins of the Scientology culture may be a lot closer to home.
As I thought about the 1950s, I realized that the USA was at that time living under a reign of terror of its own. Just think, the House Unamerican Activities Committee. Senator Joe McCarthy’s “witch hunting for Communists, communist sympathizers, and even people who knew people who had a possible communist as a friend. People were being blacklisted. People were losing their jobs as their employers “disconnected” from them. People who could not get a job because they were being shunned for possible communist associations.
And J. Edgar Hoover was also right in the middle of all this, running the Federal domestic spying agency, the FBI.
Everyone in the country was being indirectly or very directly in Senate hearings, “sec checked”. And although “Communist spies and infiltrators” were the nominal target, McCarty’s witchhunt was actually much broader and was targeting homosexuals and probably damaged more people.
The USA was to a degree a police state.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_McCarthy
The whole ball of wax, the sec checking, the paranoia, the “Knowledge Reports”, the disconnecting and subsequent shunning, the existence of domestic “internal” and “external” “Intelligence agencies like the GO and now OSA, are really no more than reflections of AMERICA ITSELF, as it was in the 1940s and especially 1950s, the Korean War era, the Cold War, and the fear of Communism as a threat to the existence of this country.
I have thought before that LRH’s known preoccupation, in the 1950s, with “Communists”, did not seem unusual for that era. It was essential back then, to be against Communism as a matter of principle. His references to being approached by Communist agents, or people he thought might be Communist agents, could be true. He may have been so approached. But it is equally or more than equally likely he was approached by our own “agents” (J. Edgar Hoover’s folks) attempting to entrap and thus discredit
him.
Folks reading this, if you think “It can’t happen here”, well, it DID happen here. Read your histories of those times.
It was actually still going on in the 1960s. The Vietnam war, the Cuban missile crisis, the assassination of JFK and later Robert Kennedy….. all were in the 1960s.
Younger people who did not actually witness these eras of American history may not understand how I can view “Snow White” as a possibly laudable operation, as much as I think of “Freakout” as an atrocity.
The lives of these younger readers and posters were never on the line, they have never known anything but a volunteer Army, they were not subjected to the involuntary Draft for Vietnam, they were not faced with jail time for their activism, their protests of the war, or their refusal to be
drafted to go kill and be killed.
so now I see the CoS as being little more than a reflection of American society as it existed then. Its aggressively paranoid behavior is a reflection of the milieu it was born and grew up in.
Here’s a flight of fancy for you:
For those of you who believe ‘we come back’:
The witchhunter Senator Joe McCarthy died in 1957, likely of alcoholism. David Miscavige was born in 1960. He reportedly loves his Scotch, and is a demonstrated witchhunter, using all the same tactics used by McCarty, J. Edgar Hoover et al.”
Whatever one creates, there is a desire to experience it. When there is any change or stop for any reason in the experience, that part which remained not-experienced is the root cause of creating it on until it is fully experienced in which case ITS creation stops.
Geir,
Some excellent questions. Who exactly are you asking them?
How about your own responsibility in supplying some answers. After all you were there, all the way, for years, being fooled to the bone, buying all this nonsense dearly, and now blaming everybody else: Ron, COB, staff, Orgs, execs, the tech, the OT levels…just like you claim “scientologists” do. So what is the difference? COB fooled you fair and square. That was his intention, and he succeeded. Why blame him? Why keep blaming at all? I was fooled too, and realized it in mid-OT levels. It was hard to confront, but I finally groked why exactly this huge fraud worked. It is not exactly what you mention here, or anywhere, but rather a powerful and very ingenious plot. When I groked it, it did not bother me any more, because I managed to separate and see both the bad and the good. They are both there. and I could go about peacefully and practice the good OUTSIDE the Church and with the Indies. The WHOLE thing looks and acts totally different here, so are the results. I think it is difficult for you and others to see this, having done it all there. And The OT materials are NOT all imaginary bullshit, sorry. How otherwise could I’ve written spontaneously things like this:
Auditing on NOTS 4.10.2013 – as an Indie: free, full ARC no “agendas” but help/love/respect.
What a week I’ve had, incredible! An intensive auditing week…hard and complex work.
Not all is easy on that level. But every time, I came better and stronger.
Yes, the greater the difficulty, the greater the happiness in overcoming.
I’ve written before about this amazing, crazy, interesting, charming, lunatic, and enchanting level. And this kind of things repeat over and over. And now and then, after confronting and releasing necessary elements, a great and enchanting miracle occurs: connecting to an inside deep flowing, clear spring of pure bliss, happiness, and great love. The heart opens up, and the spirit, me, grows and overflows.
And the happiness, yes, yes, that happiness deep inside, about which poets write great poems, and legends and hair-raising tales are told, describing attempts to obtain it through dangerous journeys to mounts of doom or through spells by the witch from the dark forest…but in the end everybody knows it is the inner bliss of being oneself. Who is a Warrior and a Hero? One who conquers himself. I discover territories in me, huge, fertile, flourishing, and most important Loving, and I give up alien ones, pretending to be mine but are not such at all. Ones which I don’t really want, but can and need to let go.
And so, more and more peace treaties are signed within me, and war declarations dumped away, to happy cheers and beautiful, colorful fireworks. And I really like this process of peace and Love, and am continuing with it.
Because there is much more work. And much more peace. And an ocean of Love.
Thanks Ron, how the hell did you discover and do this? Huge thanks to the witch from the room up there in the clouds, at Dror Center, Tami Lemberger!! Well, white fairy, rather…Her will to help, enormous knowledge, ability, and above all a vast Love
for people and beings, are spells which nothing can resist.
Happy, full of Love, for all of you.
Hemi
Or this:
Auditing on NOTS 27.10.2013 – as an Indie:
On the mental, spiritual level, apart from the many wins I have had recently, as a spirit – this is important – I realize I am becoming more and more tolerant, relaxed, less argumentative, less “needing to be right”. These are important things and I am proud of them. And I need these kind of wins. For years I have not been tolerant enough, too argument happy, and over needing to be right. The reasons for these shifts:
This wonderful auditing: which peels more and more layers and phobias and nonsense and other vegetables, which do not belong to me, but which I bought and even paid for.
The fact that I feel good, more and more: this automatically gives more space to those around me, and truly wish them well too.
The work as an Indie: This is a very very important element, especially for me, on the whole subject of patience and tolerance and accepting others no matter what. This was a problematic area in the CoS and its way, also under part of Ron’s Policy
to which I object, namely, that we know it all and others are Zero. Doesn’t work. And wonder of wonders, suddenly people are listening to me more and more, and respect and appreciate much more. Because I explain mainly by Being, and setting example
and granting beingness…and I am not a foreign body in any group of people but a part of it. So much Funnnnn too!
Reminds me of the saying: “Endless patience, brings immediate results…”
Deep Thanks to my auditor and the incredible team work we do, the like of which I have never encountered before.
To my charming C/S too – thank you both for working exclusively for ME, I understand this and it I am deeply touched.
and thanks to all this Indie group which create this atmosphere of truth and freedom. Cheers to you all.
Love,
Hemi
האודיטינג הנהדר הזה: שמוריד עוד ועוד קליפות ופוביות ושטויות ומיצי עגבניות שלא שייכים לי אבל שקניתי אותם ועוד שילמתי…
זה שיותר ויותר טוב לי: זה בפירוש, אוטומטית, נותן יותר ספייס גם לאחרים שמסביבי, ורצון שגם להם יהיה רק טוב.
העבודה כאינדי: זה אלמנט חשוב מאוד מאוד, לי במיוחד, בכל נושא הסובלנות וסבלנות וקבלת האחרים לא משנה מה. זה היה
חלק בעייתי באירגון ודרכו, גם תחת חלק ממדיניות של רון שאני לא מסכים לה, שאנחנו הכל וכל האחרים אפס. לא עובד פשוט.
והפלא ופלא, פתאום כולם מקשיבים לי יותר, ומכבדים יותר, ומעריכים הרבה יותר, כי אני מסביר בעיקר על ידי Being ונתינת דוגמא
ו- granting beingness… ואני לא נטע זר בכל חבורת אנשים, אלא חלק ממנה., כףףףףףףף!
איך אמרו חכמייינו: “סבלנות אין קץ, מביאה לתוצאות מידיות!”
תודה עמוקה לאודיטורית, לעבודת הצוות שבכמוה לא נתקלתי עוד, לC/S המקסים, שכתב לי פעם : “אתה עכשיו בין ענקים” – עם שניכם
מסביבי זה בטח נכון…תודה על זה שאתם עובדים בשבילי, אני מבין את זה וזה מרגש אותי. ותודה לדני שמחזיק את זה והתעקש להיות
אינדי – כל הכבוד, ולכל שאר האנשים שיוצרים את האווירה הנכונה הזאת. לחיי כולכם.
באהבה,
חמי
Eh… first; Did you actually read the blog post? Secondly; Are you trying to sell me a Bridge?
Sure, why not? And at a bargain price too, compared to what you paid the con man…
And its good stuff too, the one I am talking about – at least for me so far. I thought Nots was one of your favorites too. Can you imagin doing it all with no duress no arbitraries, no enforcing of anything? It is almoat impossible to imagine, being CoS graduates. It is something else.
No hard sale though. Take or leave.
Heni
‘connecting to an inside deep flowing, clear spring of pure bliss, happiness and great love. The heart opens up and the spirit, me, grows and overflows.’
yes
thanks for your communication of heart connection
HeMi
love
After I graduated from Scientology I continued with Idenics. That led me to mindfulness, which actually started on a discussion site that Geir had set up. Now I am continuing with mindfulness, which I call KHTK. Mindfulness (KHTK) is simply wonderful.
.
Why do OTs blindly follow the commands of the mad dictator, the pope of the Church of Scientology, David Miscavige?
From what I have read about David Miscavige from GOING CLEAR, he simply cannot sit still. He must have squirreled through TR0.
OTs follow the commands of DM because they cannot differentiate DM from LRH. That says something about the degraded condition most OTs are in, at least those who are still in the Church.
OTs who have left the Church have retained some freedom.
.
‘FROM’ what ‘ I ‘ ‘HAVE’ ‘READ’ ‘ABOUT’…. ‘MUST HAVE’
Can these words/concepts be the basis for beliefs and assumptions? Can a belief, an assumption be called as forms of havingness?
Vin? How do you see it?
Hemi, the success stories like yours are simply subjective and do not have meaning for anybody else but you.
I feel that true spirituality can be described in objective terms. Hubbard tried but he didn’t really accomplish it.
The direction that appeals to me now is to start looking at physics and metaphysics by putting them next to each other. And then start resolving any and all inconsistencies that come to notice.
That is the direction in which, I feel, that progress needs to be made.
Success stories never meant much to me.
.
I must disagree Vin. I stil remember, how 45 years ago, I returned to work after taking a couple of weeks off to get my first auditing, people I worked with taking a look at me and asking – “WHAT happened to YOU??!! They could see and feel the difference in me without my saying a word to them, or any kind of “success story”.
The before and after results of auditing can be very obvious to anyone who actually looks.
‘ do not have meaning for anybody else but you’
True. 1. ‘meaning’ is for the mind. 2. true havingness is a spirit pervading 3. the ‘YOU’ is the SPIRIT 4. when there is the spirit, there is not ‘any body! ‘ 5. when the ‘mind’ and ‘body’ appear, the ‘subject’ also appears and attempts to use the mind to
explain the……so it becomes ‘subjective’. 6. no two explanations will be exactly the same, so there are discussions and scientific testings.
Hemi…not your words. Part of what you wrote is…………………thanks.
Efforts, emotions, thoughts are rough….the finest analytical in com with another is experienced for me like a very thin transparent veil. Spirit with spirit is even finer..of the same substance…and there is just the one-no-separation….
(present experiences, may change)
Looking at a live person is very different from reading a success story.
.
Looking at a live person is objective and not subjective.
.
I don’t agree, to the extent that one can sense a person’s sincerity to some extent, even on a blog. Is reading what you post on this or any blog purely “subjective”?
Reading success stories on blogs are definitely subjective.
.
I was trying to say, Isn’t reading ANYTHING on blogs, subjective? Another question might be, subjective to or from which terminal? I agree there is a difference between reading a piece of paper or a blog, and actually seeing the person in front of you in the “real world”, in that seeing a person in real life one sees a lot of “indicators” one does not see on a blog.
‘one can sense the person’s sincerity to some extent’….yes, difficult to put into words how but maybe when a com is rather inspiring than stopping.
There is no space, distance in looking. Looking is ‘alive’.
Good point.
Hey, are you trying get invited to beautiful Israel, so you can see and verify me..?
Come on, if you have eyes, common sense and a pinch of heart, you can read through things, and pick their gist. If you’re ready to open up and give/receive. Success stories are wonderful things for a keen observer. But sure, they are not the bible.
The bible is Geir. (Just kidding)
Hi Hemi. It doesn’t take too much of a keen observer to see from your posts that you are the most theta guy on the thread. 😉
Theta or theety-weety… just kidding.
.
Theety-weety would not have written the first paragraph that Hemi wrote in his long comment above, where he forthrightly challenged the blog post in an “politically incorrect” way on this particular blog.
And as he kidded above, Geir is not the Bible. 😛
How about Theta-witty…? not kidding!
“Theta-witty” – no kidding, I love that!
http://vinaire.me/2013/05/23/the-invalidation-button/
Hellow marildi, you are very kind.
I don’t see science progress works upon a summ of “success stories”, do you? I don’t see quantity matters at all, if the groups are not objectify further than personal and relative claims. We are not talking about faith. OTs are a label that represent different concepts, for many is an authoritarian label like saying “I’m best because I’ve done far more than you on the Brdige”. For me is like a military rank that could mean nothing more than a group of processing cycles got done. So, we have here an OT 8 who share his point of view about the OTs itself. Who dares to correct him? An under-OT 3 wannabe? But remember, this is not about fallacy of authority, this is about what do you know about all the Bridge and CoS, what matters most to the world. I think the less we can do, is to take the advices of someone who made all the way through the Bridge instead of trolling him until he fail so we can blame him. Wanna save the good things on Scientology? fine, start for making it scientifically, on field of science, and far away from a Church and a blind faith system. Wanna take the challenge?
Exactly! The personal improvements may be real, but temporary and relative. But success stories are freaking marketing for third parties. They are prove more of a cult/fan club than an humble basic scientific approach.
http://goo.gl/mYpcFN
http://goo.gl/JLA0XV
http://goo.gl/qTgt85
We cant’s ignore this variables.
I remember LRH said, I think on RJ 67, something to the effect of, he had realized he had gone as far as he could with the current technology, and he decided to take the plunge [into OT 3 material]. The reason why he took this plunge into “blaming others” as you described it, perhaps lies in the likelihood that LRH was frustrated with having to dilute-dilute-dilute the stated abilities gained at the state of Clear, compared to what a Clear had been described as in Dianetics.
It was also evident that after doing the Clearing Course at Saint Hill, Clears were still having problems, were still dramatizing, were not the super beings LRH had posited for two decades by that time. It is notable that also around this time period, it became a “crime” to invalidate a Clear. I think this also when the mysterious doctrine, “a Clear that doesn’t move onto the OT levels is at risk.”
He was probably out of ideas on how to further Clear a clear and decided the answer lie somewhere else.
John Doe: He was probably out of ideas on how to further Clear a clear and decided the answer lie somewhere else.
Chris: Yes, and we all are from time to time when trying to solve hard puzzles. The salient point of this for me is that if LRH had been honest, had been a real researcher with good motives and people’s well being at heart like his prose states then he would have mentioned he was out of ideas or at least communicated the raw data about PC results, processes, behavior and leveled with his adoring public. That he didn’t was indicative of his megalomania and disrespect for all the contributions to his well being that he received through the years. That he didn’t casts an unholy light on the whole of his method of operating. That he postulated the state of clear, reported it done, and then certified it without delivering it should speak volumes about the man’s character even without knowing his shady past.
Yes, he went down a responsibility scale (or had it in him all along).
“Clear” was Hubbard’s postulate only. It was Hubbard’s dream. Anybody can dream anything, but when one wakes up then reality hits him.
Ability lies in making one’s dream become a reality. The tool, which has proven to be successful again and again, in making dreams become reality, is the Scientific Method. The Scientific Method is an extension of mindfulness.
Hubbard had some drug-induced intuition, and some intelligence, but a lot of guessing. he did not have enough command of mindfulness and the scientific method to make his dream become a reality. So he failed in bringing about a Clear as postulated originally in Dianetics.
When intelligence failed, then Hubbard resorted to force, which he start implementing through his version of ethics. This happened in mid-sixties. There were still sparks of intelligence as expressed through Study Tech and the Data Series (the two things that attracted me in 1969-71 period). Though these were ideas from others, but Hubbard had enough intelligence to recognize and promote them. But Hubbard slowly succumbed to force and lost. OT levels was a product of his insanity. What worked at OT levels was not the discovery of Body Thetans, but the application of objective looking under the excuse of getting rid of BTs.
Hubbard failed because of his lack of mindfulness.
.
BLAME, may be the route to the OT levels is not that of blaming, while diving amidst mental mases, but to look to the outside valuable part of the existence and act accordingly. Just a hint.
Valkov, let me calrify my point about these glowing success stories being subjective and not credible to me at least. Maybe a more accurate term to use here is that of consistency. If what the other person is saying is disconnected and not consistent with the physical reality, then it has an aura of unreality. It is like if you have read one success story, then you have read them all.
Spiritual reality must be consistent with physical reality. People use all these esoteric definitions for ‘consciousness’ and ‘awareness’. If they are disconnected with physical reality then they are just free-floating abstractions with not much meaning. I am, therefore, researching the interface between physics and metaphysics and putting some KHTK axioms together. These are letting me see the incompleteness of Scientology axioms. The first KHTK Axiom is as follows:
KHTK Axiom #1: Neither the state of rest, nor the state of motion can be determined to exist in an absolute sense.
DEFINITION: Absolute means, “Viewed independently; not comparative or relative; ultimate; intrinsic.”
1. The theory of relativity states that from all uniformly moving frames of references, the laws of physics appear to be the same.
2. With nothing to compare to, one cannot tell if the frame of reference is at rest or if it is moving at the speed of light. There is no awareness of uniform motion.
3. When there is something to compare to, there is awareness of uniform motion. Still there is no way to tell which object is at rest and which object is moving.
4. There is neither absolute static, nor absolute kinetic. The awareness of static and kinetic exists in a relative sense only.
5. What remains in the absence of relativity cannot be determined.
http://vinaire.me/2013/10/04/khtk-axiom-1-the-absolute/
.
Life is not a static as assumed in Scientology Axiom #1. Life is basically undetermined.
.
First off, Axiom #1 does NOT state that “Life is a Static”. That is your alter-is, your ‘straw man”, there.
Axiom #1 states that “Life is BASICALLY a Static.” That is a way of saying that Static is the Source of Life.
The other point is, Static IS exactly that which which is “undetermined”, by defintion. It determines, but is not itself determined. Or one could say that it determines itself.
If you win to split hairs about this, fine. Go to it! But I think then you are putting yourself in theth efine company of those theologians who used to debate about “How many angels(or Statics?) can dance on the head of a pin?” 🙂
Good catches, Val.
+8 Val !
I am looking from Einstein’s viewpoint. Static and kinetic are relative only and not absolute. What is life static relative to?
.
OK, let’s try thinking this through by analogy.
What Nirvana relative to? Or, WHERE is Nirvana? How long or short or tall is Nirvana? How much does it weigh? What is its texture? Its color? ETC.
I have no idea.
.
That one does not have an idea is the best BASIS for EXPERIENCE without the mind’s intervention, that is what should, could, might be there to be experienced.
And life is not BASICALLY a static either. Where is such an idea coming from?
At best it is speculation.
.
Val: Axiom #1 states that “Life is BASICALLY a Static.” That is a way of saying that Static is the Source of Life.
Chris: Then for the sake of accuracy if Hubbard meant that then I think he should simply have said that. I get Hubbard’s construct in this having spent a large part of my life studying him and it but I can say that to me life is anything but static. It is not static basically or otherwise to me. No offense to anyone who wants to play with this semantics but I’ve been all the way both directions on this and simply doesn’t look that way to me.
Are you sure you are using the correct sense of the word “Life”?
LIFE
. pl. lives (lvz)
1.
a. The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.
b. The characteristic state or condition of a living organism.
2. Living organisms considered as a group: plant life; marine life.
3. A living being, especially a person: an earthquake that claimed hundreds of lives.
4. The physical, mental, and spiritual experiences that constitute existence: the artistic life of a writer.
5.
a. The interval of time between birth and death: She led a good, long life.
b. The interval of time between one’s birth and the present: has had hay fever all his life.
c. A particular segment of one’s life: my adolescent life.
d. The period from an occurrence until death: elected for life; paralyzed for life.
e. Slang A sentence of imprisonment lasting till death.
6. The time for which something exists or functions: the useful life of a car.
7. A spiritual state regarded as a transcending of corporeal death.
8. An account of a person’s life; a biography.
9. Human existence, relationships, or activity in general: real life; everyday life.
10.
a. A manner of living: led a hard life.
b. A specific, characteristic manner of existence. Used of inanimate objects: “Great institutions seem to have a life of their own, independent of those who run them” (New Republic).
c. The activities and interests of a particular area or realm: musical life in New York.
11.
a. A source of vitality; an animating force: She’s the life of the show.
b. Liveliness or vitality; animation: a face that is full of life.
12.
a. Something that actually exists regarded as a subject for an artist: painted from life.
b. Actual environment or reality; nature.
adj.
1. Of or relating to animate existence; involved in or necessary for living: life processes.
2. Continuing for a lifetime; lifelong: life partner; life imprisonment.
3. Using a living model as a subject for an artist: a life sculpture.
Idioms:
as big as life
1. Life-size.
2. Actually present.
bring to life
1. To cause to regain consciousness.
2. To put spirit into; to animate.
3. To make lifelike.
come to life
To become animated; grow excited.
for dear life
Desperately or urgently: I ran for dear life when I saw the tiger.
for life
Till the end of one’s life.
for the life of (one)
Though trying hard: For the life of me I couldn’t remember his name.
not on your life Informal
Absolutely not; not for any reason whatsoever.
take (one’s) life
To commit suicide.
take (one’s) life in (one’s) hands
To take a dangerous risk.
take (someone’s) life
To commit murder.
the good life
A wealthy, luxurious way of living.
the life of Riley Informal
An easy life.
the life of the party Informal
An animated, amusing person who is the center of attention at a social gathering.
to save (one’s) life
No matter how hard one tries: He can’t ski to save his life.
true to life
Conforming to reality.
[Middle English, from Old English lf; see leip- in Indo-European roots.]
Nowadays, “Life” is commonly used as indicating the background, the environment, existence one is theeffct of, as in “Life sure is rough. I got fired today, and my wife ran away with some dude, taking my truck and my dog, too! ife’s a bitch!”
However, “Life” can also refer to th eanimate kingdom, what LRH sometimes referred to as “Lambda”, by which he indicated the combination of MEST animated by Theta.
So do you think he meant either or both, when he stated the Axiom that “Life is basically a Static”?
As for his saying the Static was the “source” of things, if that’s what you mean, he said it over and over again, in books and in a multitude of lectures
I dunno but I think you are making my point for me unless you feel that one of these is static.
I may be making your point indeed. None of these are “static” in the sense in which physicists, for exaple, use the word. They are all effects. What is the source of these effects?
Keep in mind an “AXIOM” is an unproven assumption. That’s what we’re talking about here. A theoretical source of existence. It’s not something you MUST believe in. Like “GOD” is not something you MUST beleive in.
Valkov: The other point is, Static IS exactly that which which is “undetermined”, by defintion. It determines, but is not itself determined. Or one could say that it determines itself.
Chris: This is a good clean statement of a Scientology concept but I just don’t see it that way anymore. I see this as an assertion only.
Chris, an “Axiom” by defintion is an unproven assumption. It is usually made because it helps explain or align various data, or assumed in an attempt to explain or align various data. So axiomate away! Just as long as you don’t try to make others believe you have the “one true axiom”!
I don’t know what you mean but I sure do enjoy being lectured about the definitions of words.
Of course it is just an assertion, if by that you mean an unproven statement.
So “life is basically undetermined”, eh? Sounds like specualtion to me. 🙂
Yes, just like Hubbard’s.
You didn’t post it as speculation. In fact it sounds like you are saying the exact same thing as Hubbard said, so therefore it is Just like Hubbard’s, as you say. Since “undefined” is a synonym for “Static”.
Bu the main thing is, an “Axiom” by definittion is an unproven assumption.
So, how many Statics can dance on the head of a pin?
Where are you getting your definition of static as “synonym for undefined”?
This is what I get at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Static?s=t
stat·ic [stat-ik] Show IPA
adjective Also, stat·i·cal.
1.
pertaining to or characterized by a fixed or stationary condition.
2.
showing little or no change: a static concept; a static relationship.
3.
lacking movement, development, or vitality: The novel was marred by static characterizations, especially in its central figures.
4.
Sociology . referring to a condition of social life bound by tradition.
5.
Electricity . pertaining to or noting static electricity.
6.
noting or pertaining to atmospheric electricity interfering with radar, radio, the sending and receiving of wireless messages, etc.
7.
Physics. acting by mere weight without producing motion: static pressure.
8.
Economics . pertaining to fixed relations, or different combinations of fixed quantities: static population.
9.
Computers. (of data storage, processing, or programming) unaffected by the passage of time or the presence or absence of power: A static Web site contains Web pages with fixed content that does not change as the user interacts with it.
Well I obviously get it from Scientology! Where else?
IN 1954 LRH wrote:
Axiom One: 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.)
It is essentially a nothingness which does have some ability or potential to be th esource of “things”, but is itself “undetermined”, having “no mass, no motion, no wavelength, no location in space or in time. ” Also no shape, no weight, no texture, etc etc. In other words, it is “neti, neti”.
LRH did contrast this, in lectures, with the Physicist’s defintion, and pointed out that no “true” static can exist or be found in the universe, because in the universe all motion is relative
Val, Was this the buulshit you were referring to when you said I had been indoctrinated?
You see, you were entrapped by the subject and responded to my comment to Vinnie. You pulled it in!
Yes, yes but was this the buulshit?
Nope. THIS is it: “Nope. Report to qual! It’s not our call to make. It’s Ron’s. He said it. You get to decide whether to believe it or not. We don’t get to cherry pick, we get to clear our mis-u’s, retrain, then report to the RPF when we can’t make it come together in accordance with KSW. ”
The whole point is, You didn’t “get to decide whether to believe it or not.” Not really. By the way, “indoctrination” is actualy not always used as a bad word. Its basic meaning is simply “teach” or “taught” as at a school. (I had to add that because you like to be lectured on word meanings so much!) 🙂
Ok, well that buulshit is Scientology — True Scientology. Scientology is a deadly serious activity and the destiny of every man woman and child is at stake. If you don’t make it out this time, there is no reason to think that in the entire future of mankind there will be another. Not one pantywaist dilettante has ever made anything. It’s a tough universe where only the tigers survive and even they have a hard time. You need to stop your joking and degrading and wizen up because if you are on board then you are on board on the same terms as the rest of us for the duration of this universe.
That’s pretty good but I think you need to clay demo that a couple of times to make sure you got it. Maybe every day for a week. Certainty is number of times over the material, right?
Oh, and by the way pleasant dreams! Sleep tight, don’t let the BTs bite!
LOL!
I’m sorry you believe that is “true scientology”. It must be painful for you. I see it as the worst instance of one set of practices based on LRH materials. There are many others and any of them may be closer to “true”.
I know people today who were scientologists back in the 1970s and even early 1980s, who stil work as therapists, life coaches, etc. They don’t call themselves “scientologists” because they hav eno desire to be associated with that cesspool of an organization. However, privately they will say they use what they learned in scientology and give credit to LRH for passing it along, even if he was not the source of much of it. What they are doing is more “true” as far as i’m concerned because they are “integrating”, as Marty put it. They have also “evolved” and “transcended”. (These are terms from Ken Wilbur, who is boring to read but quite perceptive at times.)
If you think this is wordy, no problem. I am not really writing for you, here, but for other visitors.
What you fail to understand is that my feelings toward Scientology are neither painful nor a bad experience but epiphanies upon epiphanies based on years of careful study of the subject without a hunger for any particular result. What is pertinent about “Godel’s Incompleteness” for this conversation is simply that once one is out, they are no longer in. It is not a belief so much as it is a physical manifestation based on physical laws rather than clever and interesting fiction. Once the toothpaste is out of the tube, it is difficult to put it back in.
So whether you want to believe in thetans, salvation through the blood of Jesus Christ, or that some nukes detonated on volcanoes are somehow more severe than the violence that created our solar system, you enjoy them as interesting ideologies if you want but ideologies fixate one’s attention on their own definitions of their own mental constructs and stop you from seeing a world which extends beyond those constructs. I have a Catholic friend who likes the formal liturgy and pomp of a classic service. He says that’s enough for him and doesn’t proselytize. That’s fine with me. Proselytizing in any form? I don’t respect that so much.
Proselytizing in any form? You do realize that you do it yourself, don’t you? The only difference is that your proselytizing takes the form of preaching against. And it’s more fervent and incessant than mine ever was. 😛
Not at all marildi. I am still waiting for you to follow your own advice regarding Scientology.
The reason that I back you and support you in this is that like myself, it seems to be a long term goal of yours to participate in the OT level auditing that you still feel is so consistent and week give nearly 100% beneficial results. I applaud this as this purpose and drive is dear to my heart. Until you follow down, you will not know what you’ve wanted to know.
“Wizen up”?
Valkov, you need to do some more word clearing on Chris. Unless he meant to tell you this:
“wizen: To dry up; wither or shrivel.” http://www.thefreedictionary.com/wizen
Clever. How’s that been working out?
p.s. Here’s the quote:
Chris to Valkov: “You need to stop your joking and degrading and wizen up…”
I have been reading Ken Wilbur’s “A Brief History of Everything”. He talks a lot about “evolution”. It may be that the end result of evolution thew ay he envisions it, may be the scene of “as above, so below”, in which the spiritual and the physical are entirey consistent with each other.
That may introduce amendments to the scientific method.
Another book in that direction is “Emergence”, by I forget who.
That sounds like speculation. Do you have more details supporting what you said above?
+ a kiss, Val!
Valkov: in which the spiritual and the physical are entirey consistent with each other.
Chris: I believe that idea has merit. It’s fine to read others opinions and all, to stir our juices, etc., but finally our own interested looking directly at the things we are curious about will yield the most benefit.
Yep. And I am doing interested looking at LRH materials. It has been yielding benefits to me.
From my view, you have been “overrun” on aspects of those and thus need a rehab. Notice the similarity of ideas there – like a peaceful village “overrun” by a warring Mongol horde. I can’t help but feel you must have a huge amount of protest about certain aspects of your experience.
The best rehab may be to do exactly what you are doing. Just as the best rehab for me may be to do exactly what I am doing. It may not be all about Scientology. It may be more about clarifying one’s self.
Valkov, you are one cool dude. 😎
He used to be really cool. The last few days, he seems rather hot and touchy where he has exploded on occasions and become real nasty. I want the cool Valkov back.
Geir, I don’t know which posts you mean but there’ve been so many that I haven’t been able to read them all that closely.
You have to admit, though, that this post was very cool.
And Marildi, you are one frightened little chicken. If you do not follow your own advice to do Scientology, then you are a hypocrite and should STFU about Scientology. That’s how you will finally find out what it is you hunger to know and not by a million questions or cut and paste on a message board.
How is what marildi doing, “not scientology”? It seems similar to me to what Jim Logan did, perhaps is still doing, which is reviewing in detail and sorting out the written materials LRH left us. And applying them to what she sees and hears and reads. I think he may have gotten into the audio lectures too.
As for me, I have alot of things to do, I imagine, before I am a solo auditor. All of the lower bridge, to my way of thinking. That is a goal from long ago.
Val, thanks for the duplication! IMO, the reason you can grasp that about me is that you have a good grasp of Scientology itself and you don’t mush together the different meanings of the word “Scientology.”
I am getting the idea that you are a squirrel only since you think L Ron Hubbard can be ignored without peril regarding Keeping Scientology Working and now the Bridge to Total Freedom.
Since first hearing about solo auditing and OT I had been dying to try it. So I did. Maybe I think every Scientologist feels that way.
Blogging is fun but It is not part of the Bridge to Total Freedom.
I am very puzzled when I hear Scientologists that are not doing what they can to get up the OT levels as fast as heavenly possible. It is a real outpoint when you have Scientologists that are defending Scientology with a vengeance while not moving on the Bridge. Very strange.
Or maybe there is a little doubt in there that the tech may not deliver what is promised – and thus it is better to have the dream intact than have it shattered by reality?
Somehow at the beginning of my journey through Scientology I was thoroughly indoctrinated on the Scientology term “hidden standard.” Therefore, though the grade chart has abilities gained for every level, etc., I was always careful in my thinking not to have clearly defined expectations before auditing or training except to expect to always have my socks blown off and they always were. Regardless of our work or schedule, I maintained a “studentable” and “sessionable” persona at all times while in the SO. I won’t bother with exagerated claims about this except to say that if there was an empty auditing chair available, I would volunteer or make or work myself into filling that seat. I even volunteered to help one auditor on an ongoing basis to get her video TRs pass to do “int clearances” which is code for security checking. Anything to hold the cans. (BTW, they never passed their TR video to my knowledge though I had great sessions with them. ) In retrospect, I must be the most placebo-prone person I know of for the world of auditing together with the expectation nay determination to make case gain no matter the price results in the positive placebo effect. I was similarly electrically charged to be unfazed by the nocebo. Neither of these predilections were the result of my Scientology experience as I came to Scientology in this condition, left Scientology in this condition, and remain so today. Possibly this is why I have not so far caved-in, caught pneumonia, and died as a result of my leaving the SO and reading the OTIII materials, etc.,.
Chris and Geir, if you can understand this, you can understand me:
—————————-
“In the final analysis a being has to be led up to a point by a fairly unenturbulated environment, by various approaches has to be led up to a point where he could destimulate enough to somehow or another reach that next rung and to overcome terrors of becoming the effect and therefore himself put his own feet on the road to his own destiny. And in the absence of that he won’t make it.
“The only thing you can do is to help him somehow or another make those first steps so that he can walk in that direction. But there are limits to the amount of help which he can be given.” (SHSBC, 8 Sept 66, “States of Identity”)
—————————–
I haven’t at all ruled out auditing, if and when that becomes workable for me (so-called “solo-auditing” isn’t Scientology auditing).
Regardless of that, I’ve made enough of those first steps that Scientology provides to be able to “put my own feet on the road to my own destiny.” And anyone who understands Scientology principles well enough knows that those principles alone can serve as a guide. And also knows – from those principles – that a person can find truth wherever they find it.
And as for blogging, I’ve found truth right on this blog alone – a good bit of it just recently, thanks in large part to Geir, ironic as that may be! (Who knew?? :))
maridi, it just occurred to me that they may not be talking about you at all, but about those stil “in” the Church. See my post just previous to this one, a query to Geir.
of course in that case it would be an abrupt non-seq to what we had touched on, which was Chris’ harping on why aren’t you getting auditing.
“It is a real outpoint when you have Scientologists that are defending Scientology with a vengeance while not moving on the Bridge. ”
I didn’t realize we had any such posting here. I thought everyone here was “out”. Or are you referring to those out there somewhere who are still “in”? If so, they cannot move up the Bridge because they are kept financially bankrupt by the IAS and other donation programs the Church is constantly running. This has been true for many years now.
If these are not the people you are referring to, who then?
See how careful I am being about not jumping to conclusions about what your meaning is?
Val, are you accusing anybody of doublespeak? 😉
Of course not! 🙂 If they think so, they are having what psychiatrists call “ideas of reference”, like I do at times. Silly me, to think any of those posts were about me or in response to me! But it’s probably because I haven’t done anyof the Bridge. Oh, wait…. 🙂
LOL
Actually I am not entirely kidding. Many, maybe most of my posts arise from associative thinking rather than directly and cogently responding to another’s exact content. So why shouldn’t theirs be like that too? Regarding them that way may be a good way to avoid “taking things personally”.
Just discuss the content of the post, without assuming or even thinking that it may be referring to you.
Gotcha. Well, that’s the exact thing I came to recently too – just discuss the content of the post. I think we would all get along much better. Maybe even get somewhere – what a concept. 🙂
What a concept, indeed. That was what Vinaire was always pleading for even 3 years ago, for us just to discuss the content of his posts. Of course it sounded like he didn’t like it when we posted something he didn’t like, and away we would go! It is really difficult to leave one’s personality and biases completely out of all discussion. Here we are, back at “filters”! Yuck. It’s more fun to watch old Smothers Brothers videos. Or wildebeast cartoons. That is a really intelligent one you posted!
You’re right. Vinnie gets credit for saying this, way back. So now I’m going to watch to see if he can do it! 🙂 (And don’t forget, Vin, that includes answering the question asked since that’s also speaking to the post.)
I know – that wildebeest cartoon is hilarious. That’s the only one I’ve seen. Are there others?
It’s the only one I guess. Birdbox does have other shorts I guess but I haven’t watched any.
@Valkov; When I talk about Scientologists not moving on the Bridge, I am talking about any person that considers that Scientology produces consistent results as advertised by LRH. Because, if it does, I find it hard to imagine that the person wouldn’t do everything in his or her power to move up the Bridge to Total Freedom, to avail oneself of the tech and especially the OT levels where LRH advertises super-human powers – this is where a persons dreams come true. So, if one hs a sure-fire method of getting one’s dreams come true, isn’t it rather odd if the person wouldn’t maximally strive to use it?
So, I am not talking about you or any other specific person. But I am reflecting on the above.
And, good job on not jumping to conclusions. 🙂
That’s pretty much what I think anyone can ever do philosophically. As for the rehab, I’ve done this through solo auditing for approximately 500 hours done for a year going back two years ago. It was very beneficial for me as it satisfied and quieted my hunger at that time to have that experience. It was just what I needed because I felt that was just what I needed. Many don’t accept that a person could do what I did with solo auditing and get the result that I got but I’m telling you that is the way it is. Do I recommend that for others? For those of the same frame of mind as I was, still a true believer, I do recommend that people follow their dreams. For those who had no particular experience nor belief in Scientology? No, I do not recommend it. For you? Like myself, I believe you would benefit from solo auditing. With your opinions and education into Scientology, you will never be satisfied with the subject until you follow your own predilection, if indeed you are serious about your feelings about the beneficial possibilities of Scientology.
Chris, I appreciate your viewpoint and your frustrations with the apparent renderings and translations of what LRH seemingly meant in the datum that “Life is basically a static”. I understand that you basically have good intentions and you are genuinely looking for true consistency and systemic integrity.
The Basic Lectures and ACC’s contain over 1000 hours of detailed explanations for many such things as these.
But from my own interpretation of what I got from Science of Survival Lectures up to the PDC:
Life is Theta + MEST
In the viewpoint of Space, Energy, Matter (and with motion, change of particles in space), we have the apparency of time – in the viewpoint of MEST, the animating agent of Life(Theta) is unchanging from any viewpoint of matter, energy, space and time. So saying that “Life is ‘basically’ a static” is equivalent of saying that “Life is basically Theta”, “Life is basically Spirit”, or “Life is an unchanging unit, in the viewpoint and/or context of the MEST universe”.
The Basic Books and HCOB’s are really just watered down summaries and are not on the same league as the Basic LECTURES and ACC’s in terms of density of data in disseminating the philosophy of Scientology properly.
Blessings
Me:))
Yes, yes and yes https://youtu.be/f6TMLfuFQ6s
Hemi, My wife and children visited Israel in 2010. They had good experiences. But they also visited Bethlehem and had a dreadful experience when crossing the Checkpoint back into Israel.
I understand what euphoria is. Scientology does a good job in bringing euphoria about. But it is temporary like anything else. It evaporates sooner or later and reality sinks in. My observation is that there is little in Scientology that improves the understanding of reality.
Currently, I am reading GOING CLEAR by Lawrence Wright. Now that is reality. Why is that reality so inconsistent with the euphoria, which Scientology tends to generate?
In fact, all cults generate hope and euphoria. So, there is nothing new in Scientology. I doubt if Scientology can ever clear the planet. There is no evidence to support that it has started to do so.
So, I am careful to differentiate euphoria from reality. To me reality is like the PROJECT RECOVER AMERICA on my blog.
.
Vin: My observation is that there is little in Scientology that improves the understanding of reality.
Chris: Scientology is a collection of mental constructs religious in nature. Scientology describes a world view and prescribes mental and physical drills to condition one’s mind to see it that way. Like other religions, Scientology is an ideology that tells you how to perceive the world, defines the world, and does your thinking for you.
Chris, interestingly enough, what you are referring to when you say “Scientology” and what I am referring to when I say the same word, are 2 completely different rams of knowledge and experience. They are not even close and have virtually nothing in common, like any word in a dictionary that has 2 opposite meanings. And ther are such words in English.
I concede your meaning. When I talk about “Scientology” I am talking about something entirely different. Not even “a horse of a different color”. Not even a horse at all.
It is interesting how a subject can produce such inconsistent views, don’t you think?
yes…tone resonance, education and environment
In this case of Chris and me, I don’t see us as looking at “the same subject”. Chris is looking at subject (object?) of his experience and indoctrination in the Sea Org and at CST where he worked.
I am looking at the ideas, concepts, and principles as spoken and written by LRH, not any particular ‘objectivization’ or any particular concrete ‘realization ‘ of these by any particular person or people.
Just as there are many nominally “democratic” governments, or many profit-making companies exchanging goods and services for money, they in fact are not identical in their details and particulars and although nominally “doing the same thing”, ie governing, or in the business of making money, they can differ widely in their “flavor”, although nominally based on the same “subject”. The problem can be with the subject, or it can be with the particular implementation. Or some on both sides. Even Communism varied widely, as in the Soviet Union vs. Yugoslavia under Tito. One was a lot more benign than the other.
Anyway, that’s why I say that Chris and I are looking at 2 completely different realms of existence, or 2 completely different “objects of knowledge”. The confusion
arises because we use the same word to point to what we are thinking of.
It’s kinda like the wildebeast cartoon marildi posted yesterday.
Valkov: Chris is looking at subject (object?) of his experience and indoctrination in the Sea Org and at CST where he worked.
Chris: We will only ever look at life from our own point of view but for another to try to guess at what forms my opinions is a pretty complicated endeavor. I’ve 4,000 hours in the classroom as a winning student which is more than most SO who do not ever get enhancement (indoctrination). My SO experience similar to Geir’s “Bridge” experience was for the most part great. I enjoyed my job and felt useful and purposeful helping Ron to Clear the Planet. But Scientology viewed from outside Scientology is inconsistent. And applied from within Scientology may be done with a good and a clean heart with no other fish to fry but those people fail because unlike the simplicity that Hubbard preached as worthy, Scientology is complicated. Scientology takes itself too seriously and that is a mistake. It’s constructs are imaginary like “Dungeon’s and Dragons.” So people can play them and they can have a good time until they begin taking the whole thing too seriously. If we began taking justice actions against a player in D&D for his poor performance on a particular night why D&D wouldn’t be fun and people wouldn’t play it for very long. Like D&D we could say that Scientology is consistent from within the game or at least for parts of the game. But that is the most consistent that it ever can be as it pretends a world view which it must first construct before it can view it and then fix it.
I rewrote this twice and still don’t like it. The set theory that I think fits this situation nicely – I’m not in the zone trying to communicate it tonight. Maybe I’ll try again later.
OK. I’m weak on set theory so don’t get your hopes up that I will understand what you come up with.
That said, just don’t take yourself too seriously!
Ken Wilbur does a pretty good job of analyzing and the integrating the differences between the subjective and the objective realms, and how they actuallly relate, and how th emethods of handling them of necessity are different.
Does it seem that we are exploiting the idea that consistency only comes about within or amongst the members of the same set?
Here is an intersting find!
con·sist·ent
adjective
adjective: consistent
1.
(of a person, behavior, or process) unchanging in achievement or effect over a period of time.
“manufacturing processes require a consistent approach”
synonyms: constant, regular, uniform, steady, stable, even, unchanging, undeviating, unfluctuating; dependable, reliable, predictable
“consistent opinion-poll evidence”
Does this mean, then, that in seeking consistency, we are in fact seeking something like KSW?
Valkov, “Does this mean, then, that in seeking consistency, we are in fact seeking something like KSW?”
Chris: As an example, KSW comprises a set. Within that set KSW is self defining and that self definition contains the assertion that Scientology is both consistent and complete. When identifying with and operating within that set we can pretend it is a little world unto itself and go along and play make believe and that’s fine until we try to ourselves move outside that set into larger or other sets and compare those to KSW. At that point KSW begins to look inconsistent with the sets around it but if we look at the datums of KSW closely, even within its own world, its own small set, then the components become inconsistent even compared to its own technology. The trick to this of course is to not look if we want to keep that fantasy alive. And Val, maybe that’s the trick to keeping the fantasy of every other kind of drama alive as well.
Very well, I will not try to convince you that I know what you are talking about!
Thank you! I am so relieved! It’s been said by many sages that the first step to knowing, is to realize you do not know.
You hve now stepped up onto the first step of the ladder to that fatal apple God warned Adam about…. Now you are DOOMED to someday KNOW something! 🙂
Vin: I doubt if Scientology can ever clear the planet.
Chris: Correct since this was ever only the “bait.”
Vin: So, I am careful to differentiate euphoria from reality.
Chris: This is a well organized post
Geir
How is it that your personal win after OT8 is ‘no blame, shame, regret’? While you write that many others suffer from that. What do not they do that you did?
Actually, I’m not quite sure.
Then this is a point which is worth looking at. Please do as I am interested in what you get.
Yes, that is my interest, too.
Thanks, great that you are interested in it. So, what do you do in that direction? As you can only be sure of what YOU did, you can have a look at it again, in the now. The way it is most effective. As you are the expert of lists, tools, you will find the how. And perhaps write about what you got.
Which levels were you doing when your companies were most expanding? Of course I have an assumption that the more you handle your creations (of mind), the more you can handle life (‘you’, ‘others’ and mest). Do you find any truth in this assumption?
Geir
Did you read my question(s) above? You may have missed them, please answer them, I am interested in your answer. It may be related to ’cause over life’.
Can’t really see a correlation there. Most expansion: 95/96 (before I started from Clear->OT4 and 2007/08 (after OT8).
And Now – the past year. Best time ever by far.
Thanks! No correlation, no correlation. You sure have looked at the cause(s). The past year – best time ever, just great! It also has cause(s), it’s always good to look at what they are even when everything is continuously changing.
Scientology is built on Scientology Axiom One, which is a lie.
.
Prove it is a lie.
A much better philosophy may be generated from KHTK Axiom 1.
KHTK Axiom #1: Neither the state of rest, nor the state of motion can be determined to exist in an absolute sense.
.
Whereas Scientology Axiom 1 leads to the idea of thetan as “something permanent”. KHTK Axiom 1 doesn’t imply any such thing.
.
Scn axiom #1 doesn’t actually imply that. Are you open for the possibility that you have not quite understood that axiom?
Geir, it is all relative. The demand for proof postulates that there is something absolute. There is nothing absolute from my experiences or from the experience of Buddha.
If you feel there is something absolute, I would love to hear about it. 🙂
.
You claimed it was a lie. I ask you to prove your statement. Can you?
The structure of Scientology fixes Scientology Axiom 1 as the truth. There is nothing absolute about Scientology Axiom 1 as far as I can see. Even Valkov has said that Static is undetermined. I am sure you agree with me there.
So, the fixing of Scientology Axiom #1 as truth by the structure of Scientology (KSW) is a lie.
.
I can’t seem to get a real foundation for your statement when I read the above. You claim that Scientology axiom #1 is “a lie”, could you try a bit more of a formal rebuttal of that axiom, a succinct proof that it is a lie. You see, I am hessitant to accept statement such as “this is truth” or “this is a lie” without proof or even an attempt to back up the claim. After 25 years in Scientology it is pretty hard to sell me unfounded statements like that. So whether it is Hubbard claiming something or you claiming something, my advice to people is to not accept claims without verification. To do so is to render one’s judgment less keen and sharp and make oneself more prone to cult think and guru-following.
This is one of the best discussion posts of seen. Great!
Yes. Great!
It is all relative, as I have said before, and that is what experience tells me.
All I have to go by is experience.
So, the bombastic “it’s a lie” is merely an opinion from some person that goes by the nickname of Vinaire?
What I understand from this, is that Mr. Vinaire tell Axiom 1 was a lie because of the part (somewhere else) that states that something to persist must be a lie (or alter-is). So he then made a “research” of somekind (I really don’t know what are you talking), and discover what As-Is really was or should be behind that lie. It seems like a reformulation. Maybe it is unknown and any definition will be a lie.
I recommend Ken Wilbur’s “A Brief History Of Everything”. Wilbur’s shtick is integrating Eastern and Western, subjective and objective. Your reliance on empiricism only is hampering your progress.
Here is the next axiom:
KHTK Axiom #2: Awareness arises with relative motion, and disappears when there is no relative motion.
These axioms start from the same basis that Einstein started from. Einstein explored in the direction of physics. KHTK is exploring in the direction of metaphysics.
This data has always been there. It is simply a matter of organizing it.
.
These axioms are simply an effort to organize experience. These axioms are not absolute. KHTK is simply one way of organizing experiences. There can be many other ways.
Go with your own way. I have no objection.
.
“Scientology bait & switch”
This is a hugely important subject.
Scientology works successfully. The study of Scientology makes the student more able and more strong. Scientology promotes literacy, intelligence, and freedom. Scientology resolves problems that were overwhelming to us, and overwhelming to others. The study of Scientology should be promoted enthusiastically.
Scientology causes grievous harm. Scientology promotes criminality. The mindless pursuit of harming others, and being harmed by others, is the “religious” experience of Scientologists. Scientology places degraded beings in positions of responsibility and power. The excesses of Scientology would make the average dictator cringe in embarrassment. Scientology has thriving “concentration camps” INSIDE the United States.
Good gosh and golly, what went wrong?
Did Hubbard suddenly go insane? Or did Hubbard go insane slowly and cyclically? Or was crazy Hubbard correct to decide that a “big being” causes increasing harm to others? Can the good in Scientology be used to resolve the bad in Scientology?
Those that have benefited from the good in Scientology, are obligated to oppose the bad in Scientology.
Hubbard was hugely successful. Hubbard failed spectacularly. Hubbard was a far more able person than I am. Despite my inadequacies, it is up to me to distinguish between the right and wrong, sane and insane.
Geir Isene is an example of a being who is opposing the evil of the Church. He is facing considerable risk to himself in doing so. Other experienced Scientologists are also actively opposing the excesses of a Church dedicated to harm. We know them by their presence on the internet. We admire them for their courage.
It seems to me that Scientologists have no other option than to proceed on their own judgement. Remaining in the Church will result in increasing harm and degradation to themselves and others. Declaration, or residence in a concentration camp, is the only end phenomenon available in the Church.
Experienced Scientologists should be resolving the problems of the Church, but they can not. If they attempt to do so, they will be ejected. The choice of relying on the group is not a choice that will succeed. Leaving to be on one’s own is the only option. Leaving will result in a scary loss. It is hard for me to criticize those that face such a loss.
I admire Hubbard for his success. I am saddened by his failure. We are all on our own after all.
Amazing comment. Hall of fame-material.
“Still figuring”- super comment. Seems you made some progress!
The following is in response to
https://isene.me/2013/10/29/scientology-bait-switch/#comment-47601
.
I don’t intend to change anybody’s mind here. I can only explain how I see it.
SCIENTOLOGY 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.
(1) life = the general or universal condition of human existence.
(2) static = pertaining to or characterized by a fixed or stationary condition.
(3) static (Scientology) = Theta that can be the property or beingness of any individual and it is individualistic for each individual
(3) A Static = A thetan = “unmoved mover” (see Wikipedia) at the level of individuality.
(4) Experientally, awareness of static is relative only. There is no absolute static.
(5) Thus, static is not separate from the kinetic of MEST. It is the same thing viewed differently.
(6) MEST is not produced by THETA as assumed in Scientology.
(7) Both THETA and MEST are aspects of existence.
That was a very good reply to my question.
Now, are you open for the possibility that you could be wrong in one or more of the above points (#1-#7)?
Two in a row! I hope Vinnie will continue in the same vein too.
People react to right or wrong depending on what they are identifying themselves with. I try to be mindful. Mindfulness has nothing to do with any identification. The 12 aspects of mindfulness are:
1. Observe without expecting anything, or attempting to get an answer.
2. Observe things as they really are, not as they seem to be.
3. If something is missing do not imagine something else in its place.
4. If something does not make sense then do not explain it away.
5. Use physical senses as well as mental sense to observe.
6. Let the mind un-stack itself.
7. Experience fully what is there.
8. Do not suppress anything.
9. Associate data freely.
10. Do not get hung up on name and form.
11. Contemplate thoughtfully.
12. Let it all be effortless.
.
Would you like to answer my question?
I thought I answered your question. Your frame of reference may include right or wrong. My frame of reference doesn’t; specially when I practice mindfulness. It is simply a matter of recognizing inconsistencies and contemplating over them.
So, go ahead and give me some input.
.
To rephrase as not to touch on the words “right” or “wrong” here; Are you open for the possibility that you have misunderstood axiom #1 and thusly that points #1-#7 could represent an inconsistency in and with themselves?
I am open for anything without expecting, and also without prejudging. 🙂
.
My frame of reference does not include prejudging either.
Now, go ahead, Geir. I am listening. 🙂
Great that you are open for input, Vin 🙂
From what I can see, you assign “individuality” or “beingness” or even “life” into axiom #1. That is not what I see when I read that axiom (and also The Factors #1 and #2). What I see is completely devoid of any flavour, beingness, identity, individuality, opinion, frame of mind or any such. I read it as pure potential for all of these, but without actuality of any of them. With that it becomes irrelevant to talk about “permanence” in relation to a static as defined in axiom #1. It isn’t permanent or not permanent. Permanency belongs in the realm of kinetics – which is relative to static.
The idea of ‘potential’ is an extrapolation really. It is described in terms of that which appears. The concept of God is just like that. It is defined relative to the universe.
So?
I see ‘potential’ as a mental object (thought) that exists.
.
And her all along I thought mindfulness was recognizing what you are looking at and seeing it as it is.
When did “inconistencies” enter into it? If you are looking for inconcsistencies it seem s to me you are not infact being “mindfull”. You are in fact setting yourself up for confirmation bias, doing kind of an inspection before the fact thing, by expecting and looking for inconsistencies.
The first aspect of mindfulness is:
1. Observe without expecting anything, or attempting to get an answer.
I follow that, or, at least, I try to follow it as much as possible.
.
Here’s an interesting find! I never looked at all th emesnings this word can convey:
CON·SIST·ENT
adjective
adjective: consistent
1.
(of a person, behavior, or process) unchanging in achievement or effect over a period of time.
“manufacturing processes require a consistent approach”
synonyms: constant, regular, uniform, steady, stable, even, unchanging,
undeviating, unfluctuating; dependable, reliable, predictable
“consistent opinion-poll evidence”
It appears at first glance that people looking for ‘consistency’ are looking for some kind of KSW-type thingy.
LO! and Behold!
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_'a_foolish_consistency_is_the_hobgoblin_of_little_minds'_mean
When mindfulness is practiced, thinking becomes contemplation. Problems are solved by looking at them closely and obtaining the relevant data. There is no random figuring out.
1. Become aware of inconsistencies.
Inconsistencies are things that seem out of place and do not make sense. We naturally question such things. But often, as children, we are told to shut up because we are too young to understand. Our questions tend to get suppressed.
A child who has been discouraged from asking questions, and punished in his attempts to find answers, may grow doubting his opinions and judgments. He may think that he is not a good student. He may be afraid of speaking in front of people. He may suffer from a sense of inadequacy.
The remedy is to practice mindfulness and become aware of those questions that never got answered, and to become aware of the inconsistencies, which surround one even now.
2. Inconsistency comes about when missing understanding is filled by assumptions.
When we observe an inconsistency, the complete understanding is not there. Either some relevant information is missing, or false data is being added. There are assumptions in play. Any explanation forwarded needs to be closely examined.
When one becomes aware of an inconsistency, it is better to acknowledge it and pause for a closer examination.
3. Always look at the area of inconsistency more closely.
Contemplation is patiently looking in and around the area of inconsistency without assuming anything. One looks for things that have been put out of sight or suppressed. One examines relationships that are out of sequence or misplaced. One separates what is actually there from what is being assumed to be there.
4. Narrow down the inconsistency more precisely.
Narrowing down is separating what makes sense from what does not make sense. Inconsistency is something that continues to be puzzling. One follows the trail of what continues to be puzzling.
5. Alternate the steps 3 and 4 to progress as far as you can.
Follow the trails of inconsistencies as far as you can. If a trail dead ends then take another broad view of the inconsistency and find another trail to follow.
6. As you continue with this process clarity will start to manifest itself.
As you become increasingly familiar with the area around the inconsistency, you will start to get a better definition. There will be increasing clarity about what does and what does not make sense. The key is to stay alert to assumptions.
7. Sooner or later the whole inconsistency may fall apart.
It may come as a bright flash of insight. Suddenly, there is complete understanding.
http://vinaire.me/2013/09/11/contemplation-2/
.
Discussions go best when the following policy is followed. This policy came about from my experience on Geir’s blog:
http://vinaire.me/2012/07/16/discussions-and-what-needs-to-be-avoided/
The purpose of a discussion is to learn by exchanging viewpoints. One uses experience and experimentation to obtain data and then brings it to the table to be discussed.
The participants in a discussion focus on the subject and not on each other. A discussion is not a debate where one is in a contest to win argument against others. There is no need for sophistry. In a discussion there are no opponents. All participants are on the same side. On the other side may just be ignorance. In a discussion each participant’s viewpoint is bound to change and evolve as he/she learns from the data pooled together by all.
Thus, a discussion is a cooperative effort. There is no reason to censor any data in a discussion. The data simply needs to be examined in detail.
However, there are distractions that can keep one from discussing a subject. Such distractions may be introduced in the following ways:
1. Defending a viewpoint instead of looking at the inconsistency generated by it.
Some people literally view God as a person who has created this universe. They completely ignore the inconsistency that a person has a form that occupies space, and that form and space are also things that are created as part of the universe. So, God cannot be a person and the creator of the universe. But such people, who believe that god is literally a person, would not like to discuss this inconsistency. They would simply insist that their viewpoint is right. They would reject others who think differently.
2. Focusing on participants instead of tackling the data being presented in a discussion.
This is what happens in the situation described in (1) above. But otherwise too, any focus on participants rather than on the subject of discussion causes much distraction. Such an action may involve commenting on the perceived behavior and characteristics of another participant; and/or becoming accusative, emotional and combative.
3. Not providing clarification of one’s viewpoint in a disagreement, instead calling the other person wrong.
In any disagreement effort should be made to clarify one’s viewpoint as much as possible. Not doing so, and simply saying that the other person is wrong, does not resolve anything. It only produces distraction.
4. Not caring in a disagreement if the other person clarifies his/her viewpoint or not.
A person can be so convinced about being right that he would not even ask the other person for further clarification in a disagreement. He would not even listen if the other person offers any clarification. He simply would not engage in a discussion. This kind of behavior also produces much distraction.
5. Complaining that the other person is not answering their question.
A person cannot see the answer even when it is given to him if he is already committed to another answer. An indication of that is this complaint that he is not getting an answer. The solution is for the person to honestly look at the answer that he has already committed himself to. Why is that answer adequate? Why is the other person’s stance being looked upon as “no-answer”?
If he then finds an inconsistency, then he should bring it to the table for discussion. But as long as that person is justifying an inconsistency with an existing answer, no discussion is possible.
.
Thus, distractions to discussion come from a person who does not want to engage in the discussion in the first place. He could be treating the discussion as a debate, or he may simply want to be right. He has got his mind made up and closed. The above behaviors are indicative of that.
.
.
Through the application of this policy, in which, among others, Chris Thompson and Maria T. participated on my blog, fast progress was made on any subject that we discussed.
On the other hand, I saw little progress made on discussions carried out on Geir’s Blog, where this policy was in complete violation.
.
That is IYO – beware that you may define progress very differently than others.
IMO there has been great progress on this blog in the absence of both you and the policy. Not that I am against the policy, though – at least not more than I am against any other policy.
Sure! It is my opinion. I am very happy and satisfied with the discussions on my blog. The result can now be seen in the emergence of KHTK Axioms.
http://vinaire.me/current-discussions/
My blog has no massive statistics. But it has quality statistics because my purpose has always been research.
.
Pardon me for adding notices that many of your posts are merely your opinion. It comes about because it may be hard to distinguish what in your posts are proven facts and what is your opinion. You very seldom make that distinction and your opinion most often come across as undisputed fact. Until the distinction is added for clarity, I will continue to add that notice for the casual readers.
No problem! 🙂
.
This post is in response to Geir:
https://isene.me/2013/10/29/scientology-bait-switch/#comment-47706
Let’s talk about static and kinetic without worrying about what follows, such as, “individuality” or “beingness”.
Kinetic is relative to static AND static is relative to kinetic. See point #3 in the explanation of KHTK Axiom #1.
3. When there is something to compare to, there is awareness of uniform motion. Still there is no way to tell which object is at rest and which object is moving.
.
You say that permanency belongs in the realm of kinetics. But the same thing can be static as well as kinetic. The point is that there is no absolute static.
.
Axiom #1 does not talk about any “object” being static. No object can be static, so in that regard you are right. But axiom #1 talks about something entirely different.
Please complete your answer. Simply denying something is not helpful to a positive discussion.
Let me state Scientology Axiom #1 here for reference.
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.
This is a good discussion. We shall soon discover how consistent this axiom is with science, especially with the Theory of Relativity. Here we are dealing with the interface between Physica and Metaphysics. We need to be really honest about our observations here. I believe that any inconsistency is going to be pretty obnvious.
.
“We shall soon discover how consistent this axiom is with science, especially with the Theory of Relativity.”
Axiom 1 isn’t intended to be consistent with science. Science limits itself to objective reality – to what can be measured. As Valkov pointed out, an axiom is an assumption – which every theory begins with – one or more assumptions. Scientology Axiom 1 is an assumption that takes one out of the box of science and would be a super-set to science and its objective reality. And as Geir indicated earlier, in your theories you have also made pure assumptions.
The way to evaluate any assumption is by comparing it to known data – that is where consistency comes into the picture, which was another thing I think Geir was asking if you had done with your assumptions. It can’t all be theorizing in the mind to see of one’s thoughts are consistent.
In the case of LRH’s Axiom 1 and other axioms, they have in fact been compared with the known data of what occurs in auditing, for example, where they are applied. And the results supports those axioms.
Here is Joe van staden’s account of th e birth of the Sea Org. He workd directly with LRH on this.
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?16669-Birth-of-the-Sea-Org&p=382595&highlight=Bill+Robertson+mission+St.+Hill#post382595
And here are Joe’s philosophical conclusions post Scientology. They are echoed in Ken Wilbur’s book “A Brief History of Everything”.It is a typical human trait to think that what is being perceived and experienced is real – that what our sensory receptors register is the way things actually are. In other words we do not question what we see and experience as being anything other than the way the world actually is. Yet within this conviction of what is real lies a well-hidden assumption. We assume that we are objective observers, able to investigate natural phenomena and view the human condition from an unbiased vantage point. The idea that our observations may be defined in terms of a biased human perspective is generally not factored into our worldview. Actually, how we define aspects of existence, such as time, space, energy and consciousness are first and foremost interpretations of the mind – the human perspective.
It was not realized by the architects of classical science that the nature of reality as measured and defined by them was given meaning, relevance and value in accordance with their own personal prejudices as well as the prevailing scientific mindset. The idea that the scientific observer’s observations may be subjected to a hidden personal frame of reference or paradigm, was not factored into the scientific community’s conclusions. This is still very prevalent today, in spite of revelations in quantum mechanics.
Actually our understanding of all we perceive and experience, all the laws of nature, including time, space and energy is first and foremost an interpretation of the mind – the human perspective. What we think of as reality is the human mind’s rendition of what enters our awareness via our senses, intellect and/or intuition. In other words, our human perception and experience – our humanness, is the only measure we have of what is real – of what is true.
“Time and space are not conditions of existence, time and space is a model for thinking” Einstein.
“What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning” Heisenberg.
“What we see depends on the theories we use to interpret our observations” Goswami.
Not only does beauty lie in the eye of the beholder but the meaning, relevance and value of everything. The human perspective, whether defined in terms of a frame of reference, a paradigm, a point of view or opinion is a mindset construct.
“It is in the nature of human beings to bend information in the direction of desired conclusions”. John Naisbitt.
“Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world”. Einstein.
“Things are this way because this is the story we humans tell based on the way we see the world and explain it”. Marcelo Gleiser.
Wow, great post! Great quotes too. It makes me think of an exchange with Geir on another thread. He was asking how a person would know they had achieved “Cause over Life,” the EP of OT VII, and added that “it is one of the most nebulous and untestable statement I’ve seen.”
Well, I don’t think ANY of the EP’s are testable. Even early on the Bridge. ARC Straightwire ,for example has the EP of “KNOWS he/she won’t get any worse.” It’s a Knowingness. And with EP’s, it always is.
I’m quite sure that Geir is one who understands what is meant by “Knowingness” and that he has experienced it many, many times. Such experiences, when they occur, aren’t based on physical universe proof – and they can never be proven by science in the aftermath either.
Science is at “Look” on the Know to Mystery scale, not at Know. And since there is such a thing as Knowingness, I don’t think we can worship science to the degree that we require scientific proof as a yardstick to determine truth. Scientology is basically a gnostic system, and that tells us right there that it isn’t in the realm of science. It’s a path to having direct perceptions of truth.
Marildi – there is a huge difference between the EP of ARC SW and “Cause over life”. The first is only subjective, the second is objective – on par with Grade 0 EP. Had it been “Knows that is cause over his life”, then it would be a whole different ball game. A blanked “Cause over life” means a thousand things to a thousand people (I have heard dozens of people give me that many interpretations). It is the most ridiculous EP I know of. There is just NO exactness to it and as you say, not testable (unlike the EP of Grade 0).
Geir, if you think about it, even the EP’s that are worded in an objective way are essentially subjective. For example, take the EP of the purif, the first step on the Bridge: “Freedom from the restimulative effects of drug residuals and other toxins.” It is worded in an objective way but it’s entirely subjective – based on the person’s knowingness. And what possible objective test of proof could there be for such an EP – of course there isn’t any.
As I say, Scientology is, at least in part, a gnostic practice and I’m sure you yourself have experienced direct knowingness through Scientology. But right now you seem to be looking at it only through the lens of science. That’s a kind of filter.
If I think about it, the Grade 0 EP is objective and “Cause over life” means nothing.
Sincere question: what idea did you have about it when you attested to “Cause over life”?
Well, you see – LRH promises “Cause over life” but what I attested to was that I couldn’t find more BTs to run. Another nice Bait & Switch, eh?
Seriously? There was nothing whatsoever in the attest that related to the stated EP on the Bridge?
Nope. A classic Bait & Switch, courtesy of LRH.
So what got you to accept that at the time? To do so seems beneath who you are.The EP on the Bridge hadn’t changed.
I didn’t run by EPs. I ran by curiosity and what I got out of it. Doing the Bridge for the EPs would be beneath me.
Okay, I get you.
Something else occurred to me – in your blog post “From inside Geir’s head while on OT 7”, you wrote:
“I’ve never felt this awake, this potent, this on top of life before.”
If you had to come up with the best understanding you could for “Cause over life.” wouldn’t that relate?
No. What I had was “much more awake potent and on top of life” – not an absolutish “cause over life”.
To me, “on top of life” seems very much like “cause over life,” I would ask you to explain the difference, but you say you don’t know what “cause over life” even means. If that’s the case, however, how can you know that it’s abolutish?
You seem to try to not understand what I am writing.
If I said “I have never felt this much cause over life before” … can you see the difference between that and attesting to “Cause over life”?
Are you just on an auto-defense here, Marildi?
No, I don’t think I’m on auto defense, Geir. But if you simply address my comments per se, I might be able to see if that’s true. And yes, I can see the difference. My question was simply whether or not your statement “related” to the Bridge EP. How would it feel to you if I now asked if you’re trying not to understand me?
Try to give me the benefit of the doubt. You made some challenges and I’m sort of being devil’s advocate more than anything, with the intent that we might be able to figure this out. I’m more open than you give me credit for.
In that tape excerpt I quoted on the other thread, Ron talked about “cause over life, thought, matter, energy, space and time.” Thus, it seems to me that “life” is differentiated from those other things. So in that context, what meaning of life would you say fits?
Marildi: “Try to give me the benefit of the doubt.”
Chris: I’m curious Marildi, when does Geir or others receive the benefit of the doubt from you? Especially if they disagree with your take on Scientology?
Marildi: To do so seems beneath who you are. The EP on the Bridge hadn’t changed.
Chris: Why does one changing their mind about something require an ad hominem from you as a retort?
Wow. Just wow. (head shake). Question, “When did the inconsistency of that take root and begin to make itself known as an out-point and begin to compete for attention in your thoughts?”
What totally baffles me is how were you allowed to attest to completing the level without reaching and being able to attest to the EP?
Who was baiting and who was switching there? It seems like you were allowed to “pass’ thorugh to the next grade, so to speak, as sometimes happens in schools when the teacher or administrator doesn’t want to “hold the student back anymore”.
This seems like a “tacit consent” situation in which both sides (you and the CS) were complicit in letting you slip through short of actual full attainment.
Marildi: “As I say, Scientology is, at least in part, a gnostic practice and I’m sure you yourself have experienced direct knowingness through Scientology.”
Chris: This is entirely correct, though Scientology is not and has never been packaged in this way, thus the bait and switch. The only exception to this is with respect to the IRS and taxation organizations in other countries where it is sold as religion to dodge fair taxation and to enjoy constitutional protections of religion which bait and switch is there for the purpose of obfuscation of its truly fraudulent activities. Furthermore, whenever we experience “direct knowingness through Scientology,” or any other type of religion or ideology, we have allowed that ideology to do our thinking for us.
Chris: “Furthermore, whenever we experience “direct knowingness through Scientology,” or any other type of religion or ideology, we have allowed that ideology to do our thinking for us.”
As opposed to letting science do our thinking for us? 🙂
Since I started rading Wilbur’s book, and I’m less than halfway through it, I can really see how much these discussions, and manyother discussions, are stuck in dichotomizing between science and religion, gnostic vs behaviorist, subjective or experiential vs. empirical, etc etc.
They are all “the sound of one hand clapping” and I don’t believe they will yield productive results until new paradigms are found.
Val, I think LRH knew that and adhere to it. This is from CoHA:
“Simplicity, it would be suspected, would be the keynote of any process, any communications system, which would deliver into a person’s hands the command of his own beingness. The simplicity consists of the observation of three universes. The first step is the observation of one’s own universe and what has taken place in that universe in the past. The second step would be observation of the material universe and direct consultation with it to discover its forms, depth, emptinesses and solidities. The third step would be the observation of other people’s universes or their observation of the MEST universe, for there are a multitude of viewpoints of these three universes.
“Where observation of one of these three is suppressed, hidden, denied, the individual is unable to mount beyond a certain point into certainty. Here we have a triangle not unlike the affinity, reality, communication triangle of Dianetics. These three universes are interactive to the degree that one raises all three by raising one, but one can raise two only so far before it is restrained by the uncertainty on the third. Thus, any point on this triangle is capable of suppressing the other two points and any point of this triangle is capable of raising the other two points.”
LRH: “Where observation of one of these three is suppressed, hidden, denied, the individual is unable to mount beyond a certain point into certainty.
Chris: So what did you learn from this?
Hi Valkov, New paradigms are found every moment. If you have a beef with the paradigms of a scientist, I understand, however science is a construct that allows, nay expects new paradigms. People naturally seem to be striving to make things hold still while to me science allows for and expects for the universe to be in flux and addresses its calculus as such. Yes, people will cling to present science and try to make it hold still, however, my daughter the MD has been indoctrinated or educated as you wish — conditioned to believe that she has embarked upon a lifelong path of learning and to expect her paradigms to change. We the dirty and uneducated seem to enjoy being sour grapes about all technology modern and to pretend that by being so we are somehow above it all. Hubbard was fond of doing this too. Somehow he found a lot of us out here “in the tunnel” who were ripe for his grift. Scientology is chameleon-like changing its stripes called shore stories for each and every port all the while proclaiming the consistency of its “science.” At a point, a tipping point, we all finally acknowledge that Scientology’s inception was birthed in lies from a pathological liar.
Marildi: “But right now you seem to be looking at it only through the lens of science. That’s a kind of filter.”
Chris: It seems unfair to characterize science or Geir in this way.
Except with respect to governments, Scientology and Dianetics has always been packaged and sold as “The Modern Science of Mental Health.” This is indisputable. If you can see how you “hop from your left foot to your right foot” to try and maintain some sense of balance in this discussion of the inconsistencies of Scientology, this can be a clue at where to look for those inconsistencies. In this example, we can ask, “Is Scientology a science or is it a gnostic practice?”
See? Hop, hop, hop, hop. It is like hopping on stones to keep one’s feet from getting wet crossing a stream. In my metaphor, the stream is the stream of ideas. It would be better to immerse in those ideas and get wet than to avoid by hopping around above them.
This is exactly the dichotomizing I referred to in my last post. Humans are apparently unable to grasp any set that constructively embraces both.
In the case of our Scientology, the most salient point that I think needs to be understood is that it is neither gnostic nor science. It is a grift. If it accidentally contains tools which might or could be salvaged to help people, well then the Scientologists who are already trained and daily practice this might take something good away from it. But for the majority of us posters on this blog, we are just having a chit chat.
Marty pushed me to read Ken Wilbur’s “A Brief History of Everything” and he was right. Wilbur is not an “exciting” or “charming” writer, but he is quite deep AND broad. He integrates the inside and outside, the subjective and the objective, experience and behavior, in what he calls a “post-modern” view. He goes beyond the “representational” views that deal in “map-making” as though there is a given empirical world which science is in the grand enterprise of mapping. Van Staden’s quotes are exactly in line with Wilbur’s thinking. It is the most comprehesive paradigm I have seen for understading all of existence.
Marildi: Scientology is basically a gnostic system, and that tells us right there that it isn’t in the realm of science. It’s a path to having direct perceptions of truth.
Chris: This seems correct to me. All religion seems to have this. Now the interesting difference between this type of unverifiable truth compared to the truth of science is that this unverifiable type of truth never ever results in commonly experienced results of the truth such as industrial age and information age technology. People spouting religious truth seem to never feel held to any particular standard such as a statistical probability whether praying for a diseased person will cure them. In Scientology, we even have a Scientology term for verifiable truth and that is the “hidden standard.” The hidden standard is in Scientology a pejorative term meant to make the bait and switch more smooth. In Scientology, data and knowledge being secreted is the major carrot on a stick used to make the mark less able to detect the switch after the bait.
Marildi:”Scientology Axiom 1 is an assumption that takes one out of the box of science and would be a super-set to science and its objective reality.”
Vin: An arbitrary assumption cannot form a superset of science. Any superset of science must be consistent with science to fulfill the definition of a superset of science.
.
KHTK axioms are an attempt to generate a bridge between physica and metaphysics.
No, if a superset were “consistent with science” it wouldn’t be a superset of science.
In order to get out of the box of science there would have to be a theory that goes beyond science. And any super-set theory – like all theories – starts with one or more assumptions. From there, the known data can be compared in order to evaluate the likely validity of the theory. Have you done that with your theories? I’m just asking.
First you need to understand the theory of sets.
.
(1) The superset of CATS, DOGS, RATS is ANIMAL. It cannot be TREES.
(2) ANIMAL is consistent with CATS, DOGS, and RATS.
(3) TREES is not consistent with CATS, DOGS, and RATS.
.
And it also seems that the brackets can be drawn in ever enlarging or tightening circles depending what one wants to exclude or include. I am wondering at the organization of sets wondering whether a “set” is purely an mental abstraction or if there is natural objective grouping. For instance, gold and silver are subsets of metals and since they are different metals, their natural chemistry groups them separately one from the other. And when we look at the super clustering of galaxies, they take on (we abstract) a thread-like or sponge-like quality and we have the largest structure as a super clustering of galaxies 4 billion light years across. I’m trying to bring this comment back on topic but it’s drifted and I can’t do it! oops.
A superset has all the properties of its subsets.
I’m sorry. Maybe I am not understanding the basis of this apparently dogmatic statement, that an arbitrary Axiom can “never” reflect truth. It assumes the Axiom is entirely “arbitrary”. The statement you propose seems entirely arbitrary. It seems obvious that even an arbitrary “Axiom” could accidentally, in the “monkees and typewriters” fashion, have some truth to it.
“Any superset of science must be consistent with science to fulfill the definition of a superset of science.” What is the basis of this claim? It seems illogical on its face. A “superset” includes but is not identical to, any of the sets it includes. That seems obvious.
Chris, the Urban Dictionary shows 3 definitions of “grift” I assume you mean this one:
3. grift
The art of cupping a fart with your hand and placing it in someones face “grifting” see also “cupcake”
LOL! You are right Valkov. I misused “grift.” As a petty swindle, there is nothing petty about the Scientology swindle. It is on a par with the swindle any of the great religions by which men live.
This post is in refernce to the following post from Geir:
https://isene.me/2013/10/29/scientology-bait-switch/#comment-47712
.
I would like to contemplate over the difference between fact and opinion.
I see fact as a datum, which is well indexed within a matrix of data. That matrix of data is well understood, which means that all data in that matrix is consistent. In other words, the data of that matrix is understood to be in agreement with each other. When that matrix of data is validated with physical observations, it becomes an accepted theory.
An opinion is a datum offered. It may or may not be situated within a matrix in a consistent manner. It needs to be examined thoroughly for consistency with other observations. So a matrix of data needs to be built to fully understand that opinion. If such a matrix cannot be built, or if any attempt to build a matrix immediately leads to inconsistency, then that opinion may have to be revised or discarded.
If that opinion becomes a consistent part of a matrix then it can be looked upon as consistent part of a hypothesis (the matrix). When that matrix of data is validated with physical observations, that opinion becomes a fact.
.
Hey! That’s what I just said. 🙂
And the implication I intended was that what is needed is for you to give the “physical observations” (as you worded it) which support your assumptions – or (as I worded it) the “known data” they align with. Have you done so?
Research takes time.
So far the KHTK Axioms are yielding wonderful results:
KHTK Axiom #1: Neither the state of rest, nor the state of motion can be determined to exist in an absolute sense.
DEFINITION: Absolute means, “Viewed independently; not comparative or relative; ultimate; intrinsic.”
KHTK Axiom #2: Awareness arises with relative motion, and disappears when there is no relative motion.
KHTK Axiom #3: Awareness of motion is composed of space and time.
KHTK Axiom #4: Objects are systems of motion characterized by space.
KHTK Axiom #5: The existence of objects is characterized by time.
KHTK Axiom #6: A universe is all that exists.
KHTK Axiom #7: The location of an object in this universe is only as certain as its inertia (resistance to motion).
.
These axioms are a work in progress. They may change if they do not give birth to subsequent axioms. You may find further explanations for each of the axioms here.
http://vinaire.me/current-discussions/
.
Is this the right venue for promoting your philosophy, Vin?
And then; None of the above violates, goes against or is inconsistent with Scientology axiom #1 as far as I can see.
Please delete my posts that you find inconsistent with your philosophy.
That is OK with me.
.
It’s not about that as I believe you also understand. Is about keeping this space fairly on topic and marketing-free.
I market only knowledge. But as you do not find it to your taste you may delete it. I am done for now on your blog.
.
Sigh. Another emotional leaving from you. Several readers on my blog has commented on you selling and pushing your brainchild here (KHTK). It often comes across as quite out of place (off topic), and I comment on it when it gets too severe – as with this latest comment of yours.
Mario Bunge, the philosopher of science, holds that pseudosciences are all sterile, despite the billionaire subsidy or the amount of massive support them may have.
Real scientists never postulate its central hypotheses as non-testable hypothesis that “probably will be demonstrated .” It’s the futuristic approach which gives the lie to the claim that their belief system is scientific.
A pseudoscience is a belief system that claims to be scientific . Any system that purports to be scientific exhibits the same unequivocal sign of pseudoscience . The pseudoscientific did not meet the Popperian requirement to submit their guesses as testable or refutable. Suffice to say that any pseudoscience , whether biologicist or paranormalists have four things in common:
The false “science” (1) has its central hypothesis irrefutably , (2) idolizes perpetuity that hypothesis, (3 ) violates the economy principle of ignoring the most parsimonious alternative hypothesis, and (4) is completely sterile . After decades of research have not demonstrated the existence of the (alleged) phenomena they study.
Scientologists googling what bad monster is Mario Bunge in 3…2…1
LOL
I would like to see and hear a conversation between you and Vinaire.
Who was Vinaire? A scientific researcher? 🙂
The good about learning science and philosophy of science is that even Mario Bunge could be wrong. It is essential to recognize the best frauds like what they are first: pseudoscience. It’s a way of operating, even a form of life for some. Looking into the Scientology’s confusing definition of reality like an agreement, it seems that the Scientific Method is the biggest tool of agreement on humanity. As Philip K. Dick stated ‘Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away’.
Hubbard covers this by stating that your agreements are buried out of sight.
But wouldn’t that be going off on a tangent? I mean, if the whole thing was solid as geometry.
In my reality, this is covered in ‘Methodological Problems of the Social Sciences’ in Epistemology. Author: Gregorio Klimovsky.
http://vinaire.me/2013/11/02/khtk-axiom-1-and-scientology/
Here is another look at Scientology Axiom #1:
SCIENTOLOGY 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.
This axiom is simply another version of ‘unmoved mover’. Is there such a thing as ‘unmoved mover’?
.
Static and kinetic are conditions that are relative to each other as covered by the Theory of Relativity and KHTK Axiom #1:
KHTK Axiom #1: Neither the state of rest, nor the state of motion can be determined to exist in an absolute sense.
DEFINITION: Absolute means, “Viewed independently; not comparative or relative; ultimate; intrinsic.”
The ‘unmoved mover’ could itself be in motion with respect to something else per the principle of relativity. So, it isn’t really ‘unmoved’.
Thus, it is incorrect to say that a life static has no motion. If it has motion then it also has a wavelength. It will have location in space to the extent it has mass and inertia. It will have location in time to the extent it exists.
About the ‘life static’ having “the ability to postulate and to perceive,” it is a conjecture derived from the existence of motion relative to it.
Thus, the assertion that life is basically static, or a static, is questionable.
.
You seem to treat the concept of a static as some sort of object or identity. But that is not what Scn Axiom #1 is about.
Please contribute to the discussion instead of simply criticizing!
Criticizing?
I am merely pointing to what I see as fallacy in the very premise of your criticism. If that is not allowed… What are you expecting? Only applause of your brilliance?
Vinaire, you seem to paylip service to discussion of discussing the content of your posts. I posted 2 comments recently addressing the content and logic of your posts, but you have not bothered o respond to either of them. Neither one ttacked or criticized your person (ad hom), but questioned the validity and logic of statement s you made.
Why have you not responded? Instead you are arguing with Geir about other matters.
Here re muy comments you have not responded to:
https://isene.me/2013/10/29/scientology-bait-switch/#comment-47750
https://isene.me/2013/10/29/scientology-bait-switch/#comment-47752
Valkov, I shall prefer to discuss with you elsewhere than on this blog.
I know I am rough at the edges because I am just too passionate about knowledge. I am not really thinking about promoting my blog when I go to other blogs. I just want a good discussion with my friends.
It is just extremely frustrating when I can’t have a good discussion. There is such an incredible amount out there to explore.
But when one is simply criticized personally for presenting certain ideas then any possibility of having a fruitful discussion goes out the window.
What a pity!
.
I hope that you will one day figure out what it is that you do to facilitate the situation that you don’t want.
I shall not be responding to any violations of Discussion Policy on this blog. I am already implementing Discussion Policy on my own blog.
As far as I am concerned I shall also be implementing Discussion Policy on any blog I may write on. If that means no support on a blog than so be it.
Here is the Discussion Policy:
http://vinaire.me/2012/07/16/discussions-and-what-needs-to-be-avoided/
.
Implementing a policy seems like a substitute for getting to the root cause of the issues at hand. It is a sort of end-of-pipe handling.
Excellent post, although here at the end it seems to me to be getting a little overworked. I really liked Marriane Toths question ” Why was Geirs experience in scientology so different than other peoples?” To me this is a very interesting question.
The pressure in Norway was less than most other places. I remained a rebel within the ranks. I refused to take up loans. That’s what I can come up with.
I wonder if Geir’s experience in Scientology was “so different from other people’s”?
Who are these “other people”? Are you speaking of their experience with auditing? Training? The crush regging? ????
I tend to think there is a lot of variability in the experiences of individual persons , although there are common elements visible in the church experience.
+1
There are many people who have had bad experiencesAuditing, training and crush rgging. I know a few persoally and I read all the blogs. My own experience was not that wonderful either. Is that enough proof for you or do I need to srart listing names? I can do that if you like, but it seems like kind of a waste of space. On another note, I love ypour posts and also find Ken Wilbers writing rather boring.
My question really is simple. WAS Geir’s experience that different? I tmay have been. I don’t know. If it was, why was it?
Ken Wilbur is really dry to read, but I have to give him credit – he has a broader and deeper view of existence than most I have heard. And he is able to explain it in plain English as LRH tried to do. Interestingly enough, some of the concepts of his “Integrative” worldview are similar to what LRH talked about in 1953 in his talks about “The Factors”.
I don’t know if this is the best place to state the following. But here is what I understand from the whole ‘Bait-Switch’:
First, we are in front of a ‘Self-fulfilling prophecy’, we know what we are suppose to be.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-fulfilling_prophecy
Then, this evolve into ‘The Pygmalion effect, or Rosenthal effect’ as we are making the whole thing seems workable or valid.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pygmalion_effect
At least, this explain the beingness and why most scientologists are such an ‘actors’. If I’m gonna do a rebuttal, I will start from this and suggesting that most of the gains were there from the beginning. Travolta was a good actor (or not) despite Scientology. Isene was how he is, despite Scientology. Not the best argument, but you will get the point. Add to the remaining doubts the placebo effect and its variables, and the cognitive dissonance behavior. There is something that would remain uncovered yet? Paranormal or spiritual phenomena? Spiritual marketing?
Let’s play skepticism for a moment.
If you achieved “special powers”:
A. You had them from the beggining.
B. It’s a delusion or self delusion.
C. It’s an objectivable ‘common’ phenomena, they are not special and they are not powers.
There is something about case I’m thinking -permanency. If something is permanent, it means it survives in time forever. A creation -including case- doesn’t have to be permanent, but only exists for as long as it is created. A gain on the Bridge doesn’t have to be permanent either, as case can be created again. If something cannot be created, it is a ‘can’t’, which means it is case. So, if one for example can not-have a reactice mind, he can also have one –create it. For me there is no permanent no-case, but on the contrary there even more ability to create case or anything else. The difference that processing can -potentially- make is to put that case or no-case under one’s control.
I’m saying this because I think -although it will sound very SP- that the lower scales of the Bridge can get overrated for the simple reason that the higher scales are not delivered. Imagine delivering 30 OT levels? A Clear would seem so low, basic then. But for an org that only delivers up to Clear, then Clear seems star-high and it can even seem so hard to attain as well. I think it’s to some degree common case in SCNists that the Bridge is hard to attain it takes such long time. I think SCNists that fall into that trip keep themselves occupied with lower gains so that they will find out after 30 years or so -if they ever make it that high- that the expectation they had of the Bridge are simply not met…
SP: If something cannot be created, it is a ‘can’t’, which means it is case.
CT: This is a good direction to explore. This statement about what is case holds the unspoken assumption that one is capable of anything. For myself, I may have arisen from a backdrop of infinite possibilities and come forth into a universe of nearly infinite variations, yet what are my own capabilities? My own abilities are limited. I do not believe that statement is “case.” I do believe there is potential for improvement but how much improvement is a human capable of? Both Clear and OT are not clearly defined and as far as becoming gods, within what frame of reference? As gods from your Mt. Olympus? Or as gods to hover over some fire-ants here in the desert of the southwest United States? Ability, like truth seems to be relative, conditioned, and impermanent (to me.)
Chris at that point I was reffering to less real objects –more like mock ups in one’s universe. But I’m creating no limits.
If your or my or another’s journey reveals something, then that is revealed to him. There’s no pushing for more or less to be invented/discovered. I found I could create more than pictures of the past ‘in my mind’. I’m happy about it. But that -as all- is or not limited by what I think. When I think that I can’t, then I can’t. But always first I think, and then it happens 😛
Well, yes, then imagination is a wonderful tool. Our imaginations do seem to be without limits.
I’m glad. I think it’s very important 🙂
Here is my final assessment on Scientology:
Scientology is L. Ron Hubbard’s honest attempt to escape the universe and get all beings to submit to his will in following his escape out of the Universe.
Hey, you can’t blame a guy for trying!
Per Steve Pfauth, (Sarge), this didn’t happen as LRH was auditing BTs till the end of his life and even tried to electrocute himself to rid himself of a very difficult one. He hinted at planning to escape to a star that “rehabs a being”
Privately, Hubbard makes it clear in his Affirmations, that he he wants all men to be his slaves.
“Material things are yours for the asking. Men are your slaves.” LRH Affirmations.
Publicly, he also makes it clear in his famous “Boots in the Sky” speech that he enslaves PCs in order to free them.
Hubbard: “And the difference between the pre-clear that has to be chained down to have the boots put on him and me is, I never wanted to be a slave and I never had to be. That’s all. I never agreed.”
***
Another place he hides his postulates in plain sight.
In the Scientology Symbol, it is right there. The Symbol is a metaphor of Hubbard dominating through his knowingness through his religion. Here, I’ll demonstrate…
S = “Scio” which is Knowingness in the highest form of the word FOR L. RON HUBBARD.
KRC Triangle: If you notice, the KRC triangle is ATOP the ARC triangle showing dominance of KRC over ARC.
ARC = Understanding
KRC = ? (There is NO summing value for KRC. Why? Because I think it stands for “power” and intentions for power are quite often hidden on purpose by those who have it and desire more)
The two triangles in the symbol are ONE ATOP another. Thus …
Knowledge dominates Affinity
Responsibility dominates Reality
Control dominates Communication.
And finally “Power” dominates “Understanding.”
Now, let’s add in his “men are your slaves” postulate found in the Affirmations and we get …
Knowledge dominates the Affinity of others for the benefit or L. Ron Hubbard and those on his bridge to total freedom under his power.
Responsibility dominates Reality of others for the benefit or L. Ron Hubbard and those on his bridge to total freedom under his power.
Control dominates Communication of others for the benefit or L. Ron Hubbard and those his bridge to total freedom under his power.
Or in reverse:
Affinity aspires to Knowledge
Reality aspires to Responsibility
Communications aspires to Control
Understanding aspires to Power
So to sum …
Power dominates the Understanding of others for the benefit of L. Ron Hubbard and those on his bridge to total freedom primarily through the mechanic of Control dominating the Communication of his followers, and the sub-mechanic of knowledge dominating the Affinity of his followers, and the sub-mechanic of Responsibility dominating the Reality of his followers.
Please correct me where this is wrong, especially if “Power” doesn’t fit the KRC summation.
***
And one shouldn’t blame another for wanting to be God. I hear it’s a cool gig!
“And one shouldn’t blame another for wanting to be God. I hear it’s a cool gig!”
Thing is, he wanted us all to be gods. 😉
“An auditor, by applying processing skills, is actually making somebody well, But he is also bringing that person up to the line toward a higher goal of Self-determinism, and if he wishes, up to a higher goal of Pan-determinism There could be billions of Pan-determining individuals, since a universe is composed of time-continua of particles in common. As long as one does not cross particles into other time-continua and so get two time-continua, one would not get a mergence of universes.” [from “The Creation of Human Ability”]
The Xenu story isn’t the creation myth. The creation myth of Scientology is “The Factors”.
And it is a very cool and sexy mythology. And what people don’t understand is that it is exactly what you wrote above that is so appealing.
… AND
You get this if one interprets the Scientology Symbol point for point as illustrated:
Knowledge of the leader manages the Affinity of its followers while the follower is using Affinity to aspire to improve his/her Knowledge.
Responsibility of the leader dominates the Reality of the follower while the follower is aspiring to gain his Reality to improve his/her Responsibility.
Control of the Leader manages the Communications of the follower while the follower is using Communication to gain more Control of his/her life.
Power(KRC) of the Leader dominates the Understanding(ARC) of the follower while the follower is using Understanding to gain more Power in his/her life.
***
Question for Marildi:
“Can you really trust a man who uses KNOWLEDGE to dominate what you have AFFINITY for, or takes RESPONSIBILITY for what your REALITY, or CONTROLS your topics of COMMUNICATION, and most importantly …
… uses POWER to manage what you UNDERSTAND?
Again, I freely admit that “POWER” is not officially the summation of KRC in any Scientology writing that I know of, so TECHNICALLY it isn’t “factual”.
But … I think it is, and I think it was designed that way. “KRC” was never summed to a single value for a reason.
Restated because of typos:
“Should you really trust anyone who uses KNOWLEDGE to dominate what you have AFFINITY for, or uses RESPONSIBILITY to dominate what your REALITY is, or CONTROLS your topics and lines of COMMUNICATION, and most importantly …
… uses unstated POWER to dominate what you UNDERSTAND?”
My answer: It all depends on the outcome, doesn’t it? 🙂
First, I agree with you that The Factors are Scientology’s creation story. And it’s basically the same “mythology” as various other creation stories.
Your theory about the KRC triangle is interesting. You might want to compare it to the theory of a former Scientologist you may know of who wrote under the name of “Ouran.” The book “Ghost Danse” was written by him, as well as many other writings including an article about the KRC triangle. That article ends with this:
——————————
“The Co$ staffers, and apparently LRH himself had these two different KRC actions collapsed into one another. How else can you account for the tendency of the church to attempt to make their staff, especially Sea Org members, be ‘responsible’ using heavy force and no affinity? How else to account for LRH screaming at people to obtain compliance, and ordering them thrown over the side of a ship if they performed less than perfectly? Force is NOT-IS. Affinity is AS-IS.
“If one knew this and wished to get a staffer to be perfectly responsible for his/her post, then a first column action [here he’s referring to another part of the article] would be indicated. On the KRC triangle the theta ‘responsible’ equals a return to ‘know’ (KNOW, CHANGE, KNOW), so the staffer would be trained to know the post in order to control it perfectly (not optimally, damn it!), and therefore be RESPONSIBLE as CAUSE. Quite a difference between the two actions.
“It’s exactly as different as the difference between AS-IS and NOT-IS. Apparently Hubbard never recovered a certain prime postulate we all made which creates the opposite of theta, then equates them to each other. This equating of the top with the bottom is the cause of all our scales like Know to Mystery and the Tone Scale. If the postulate is not recovered then the opposition dichotomies remain collapsed into one another in a way very similar to collapsed GPM terminals — only this item runs far deeper into a thetan’s past. (This may need processes to be created to handle it.) Apparently: first we created the separation, then we collapsed it by equating the opposites to one another. This made an is/not-is conflict which persists quite well!
“Underlying this phenomena is the fact that at the very high level on the tone scale just below the top, the anatomy of these triangles are that:
“AFFINITY, START, BE and KNOW echo AS-ISNESS, which is a first postulate.
“COMMUNICATION, CHANGE, DO and CONTROL echo ALTER-ISNESS, which is a second postulate made to obtain persistence.
“REALITY, STOP, HAVE and RESPONSIBILITY if done as a return to theta resolve to the original postulate and obtain an AS-ISNESS. But in the MEST universe they instead represent a third (or more) postulate which ignores the persisting isness (which is the ALTER-IS atop the AS-IS) and attempts to force a new isness without having confronted what already exists. The third postulate creates a NOT-ISNESS.”
http://www.censorthis.com/ouran/GD12.html
———————————————
Check out the rest of the article if it interests you, and tell me what you think.
Well, I’m just connecting dots that literally line up on top of each triangle and drawing meaning from that alignment. He knows his religion way better than I do. I can’t make heads or tails over what he is saying.
Okay. But I think you would do a better job of theorizing if you knew the basics that he was referring to. The dot connecting you did seems to be, at best, like “circumstantial evidence.” 😉
But you’re still the best as a “never-in.”
Actually, I do think kata’s on to something here.
How so?
There are a lot of things Hubbard hides in his imagery here are some I can identify and others I cannot.
EXAMPLE: In “Dianetics 55” you see a cover of military men loading boxes onto a plane. (Xenu mythology)
In “Creation of Human Ability” you see a guy in a bear suit eating a turkey leg. I have NO fucking idea what that means and would love to know.
In “Diabetics the Original Thesis” there was a nuclear explosion on it. (Xenu)
In another book (can’t remember the tittle) there were military men and a snake if I remember. (NO IDEA WHAT THIS MEANS)
On Fundamentals of Thought is a long haired hippie in TR0. (I’M CLUELESS)
On Scientology Ethics is the same long-haired hippie on a judges bench. (CLUELESS)
But EVERY corporate logo has LAYERS of meaning. A good marketer can reverse engineer any well designed logo if he knows the orgs main values.
Child Dianetics had a dog on the cover (CLUELESS to Meaning). Self Analysis had a kid staring out a window (Clueless if alternate meaning included). “Problems of Work” had a Giant Hubbard on his hands on hips (He’s Big and Strong),
BUT …
Scientology 8-8008 and 8-80 had Hubbard in Armor holding a Sword (Excalibur?) with a long haired woman (His Muse He Wrote Privately About?)
Yeah, he was pretty symbolically obsessed. Question is, what do they mean?
Regardless, the meaning of Hubbard’s symbols obviously went to the grave with him. I honestly think the chicks on 8-80 and 8-8008 are his muse and the sword is excalibur.
Of course, “The History of Man” image of a cave man eating a hunk of meat is a symbol of where man came from in past lives according to Hubbard.
I don’t think the old book cover images are a secret LRH took to the grave. Years ago, I read somewhere what each of them symbolized, but I don’t remember now what they all were or where I read it.
As regards your theory about the Scientology symbol having the KRC triangle at the top, you may be on to something, as Geir said. But you seem to have based it only on conjecture – unless it was intuition on your part, which I believe is possible. Be that as it may, I do realize the article I quoted was a pretty steep gradient, but I think it actually supports your idea that the KRC triangle was used by LRH to dominate.
To sum up the relevant parts of the article: there is a KRC triangle that applies to the MEST universe and one that applies to the theta universe. LRH operated on the first, which involves the use of force – or, as you put it, domination.
According to Ouran, the reason LRH operated on force was as follows: “Apparently Hubbard never recovered a certain prime postulate we all made which creates the opposite of theta, then equates them to each other.”
Thus, LRH equated the two KRC triangles and ended up using a lot of force. This is about the best explanation I’ve seen for why he violated the most basic principles of Scientology – which he himself had laid out.
M, I think the reason LRH used force is that he was willing to literally do anything to get the power to figuratively “pick up an ashtray with only his will” – and with the same will – “put those cigarettes down for good”.
In short – perform magic in the physical universe, and be spiritually at cause over his body’s health and will.
I think ALL of Scientology is Hubbard’s attempt to do those two simple things in some form or another. All the tech, all the trials, all the people he brought in, all the money, all the lies, all the yelling, EVERYTHING was an attempt to be at cause over MEST and spiritually direct one’s will and health through his body.
Even while on the run from the law, with no one to distract him, he STILL couldn’t pull it off.
Here’s proof:
The Thetan couldn’t pick the ashtray up with only his will.
The Thetan couldn’t get his body to put the cigarettes down though he often tried and admitted so to his messengers.
And he told Sarge he failed in the end. And what was that failure IMHO?
And I think CHIEFLY that failure is based on the two things listed above: His cause over MEST, and his cause over his body both in health and will.
And I know he tried. I trust this because I am personally certain that Hubbard in his early years was a classic narcissist. And narcissist are ALL about one’s self surviving and ascending above others. A narcissist ACTUALLY BELIEVES they are better than others.
I think what is missed by most concerning Hubbard is that because he was chiefly a narcissist, he would literally do ANYTHING to save himself.
He even let his wife take the fall for him.
He literally threw everything at the “Ashtray-up!/Cigarettes-down!” problem in some form or another, and in the end pointing to a star claiming that he failed but “IT” can rehab a being … because … because … (pause) … HE couldn’t.
And in the middle, he wrote down some sexy tautologies of the soul. “The Factors” are fucking brilliant, but unprovable in this universe.
And in the end, a stroke took his life.
I guess one can say he “smoked enough cigarettes to stop cancer” but didn’t smoke enough to stop a stroke?
In the movie “Unbreakable” a good parallel is made. Hubbard wasn’t David Dunn in the movie. But he WAS trying to be Elijah Price, a crippled man seeking to reveal the super being. But alas, no hero emerged …
Nice try Elijah. Glass up.
Here is the end to “Unbreakable.” Unlike “Mr. Glass” no Superman emerged from the mayhem created by L. Ron Hubbard. In parallel, a lot of people did die and many more suffered a lot, but STILL there is no Superman emerging with a kicked cigarette habit and a levitating ash tray.
Mr. Glass, may I suggest a less violent approach?
Science is pretty nifty …
KG, the two posts above are good examples of your unique writing style and talent – as well as your positive philosophy. Seriously, I hope you get “discovered” one of these days – if you haven’t been already!
As for the content of what you wrote, I must admit I don’t think anybody who hasn’t made a relatively thorough study of Scientology – and has personally experienced a good portion of the tech – would be able to understand the value of LRH’s “sexy tautology of the soul.” This would include not just the never-in’s but most Scientologists too, IMHO.
That said, your view of LRH is more positive than many others. I especially liked how you summed it up with this:
“In the movie ‘Unbreakable’ a good parallel is made. Hubbard wasn’t David Dunn in the movie. But he WAS trying to be Elijah Price, a crippled man seeking to reveal the super being. But alas, no hero emerged …
“Nice try Elijah. Glass up.”
Loved the last line, especially. And for you to view LRH as a “crippled man” is a lot more compassionate than most critics. I see him in pretty much the same way, in that I consider that for the most part, he was the victim of his own ego – essentially, his conditioning. This is very similar to the expression: “There but for the grace of God, go I.”
Glass up to you, KG. 🙂
Thank you Marildi.
And do you know what?
I can’t pick up my coffee cup with my mind. And I can’t put the put the coffee habit down! So, in that regard, I’m no better than Hubbard.
So, I don’t have anything for others to “discover” really. If it doesn’t work on me, why sell it?
“All dharmas lead to the same goal.” – The Lojong Proverbs
Seems to me it does work on you. 😉
That’s one of my favorite proverbs. What’s your dharma these days?
You first sweetie! What are the Marildi Factors?
Okay, I’ll go first. It’s a short list:
(1) The only absolute reality is consciousness/spirit/theta.
(2) You are not your beliefs, thoughts or feelings – and when you realize this, you’re on your way to total spiritual freedom.
I’m a born-again nondualist. 🙂
Here’s a video that describes it in a nutshell:
My dharma is my memory mindscape.
In it, is a kluge of writings I have thrown together that I find useful and inspiring.
As I walk through it, I am mocking it up. And the dream isn’t really me. It’s the creation of a guy in Texas sitting on a medicine ball that he uses for a meditation cushion.
And that guy’s self is a dream.
And I like to think that what is dreaming the dreams is paradoxical and what creates the universe. And my dream is okay with being wrong about that.
“As you know, I”m quite keen on comic books. Particularly those involving superheroes. I find the whole mythology surrounding super heroes FASCINATING. Take my favorite super hero.
“Superman.
“Not a great comic.
“Not particularity well drawn. But the MYTHOLOGY! The mythology is not only great, it’s unique.
“A staple of the super hero mythology is the alter ego: Batman is really Bruce Wayne. Spiderman is really Peter Parker. When THAT character wakes up in the morning, he’s Peter Parker.
“He has to put on the COSTUME to BECOME Spiderman.
“And it is in THAT characteristic Superman STANDS ALONE.
“THAT’S the blanket he was wrapped in when the Kent’s found him. Those are HIS clothes!
“What Kent wears, the glasses, the business suit, THAT’S the costume. That’s the costume Superman wears to blend in with us.
“Clark Kent is how Superman views us. And what are the characteristics of Clark Kent? He’s weak. He’s unsure of himself. He’s a coward. Clark Kent is Superman’s critique of the whole human race.”
– Bill, from “Kill Bill”
***
Tarantino on “Unbreakable”
Sigh. Typo from my mind scape. so I have to repost this great quote from “Kill Bill” actually makes sense.
Sigh.
I’m no Superman. . .
***
“As you know, I”m quite keen on comic books. Particularly those involving superheroes. I find the whole mythology surrounding super heroes FASCINATING. Take my favorite super hero.
“Superman.
“Not a great comic.
“Not particularity well drawn. But the MYTHOLOGY! The mythology is not only great, it’s unique.
“A staple of the super hero mythology is the alter ego: Batman is really Bruce Wayne. Spiderman is really Peter Parker. When THAT character wakes up in the morning, he’s Peter Parker.
“He has to put on the COSTUME to BECOME Spiderman.
“And it is in THAT characteristic Superman STANDS ALONE.
You see, Superman didn’t BECOME Superman. Superman was born Superman. That costume he wears with the cape? THAT’S the blanket he was wrapped in when the Kent’s found him. Those are HIS clothes!
“What Kent wears, the glasses, the business suit, THAT’S the costume. That’s the costume Superman wears to blend in with us.
“Clark Kent is how Superman views us. And what are the characteristics of Clark Kent? He’s weak. He’s unsure of himself. He’s a coward. Clark Kent is Superman’s critique of the whole human race.”
– Bill, from “Kill Bill”
Finally, I have this to say about Hubbard.
“He tried to make superhumans with a religion.”
No other religion I know of except maybe one has tried that. Not Buddhism, not Christianity, not Islam, not most of the pagan Greeks.
He failed. But he DID try.
He couldn’t lift the Ashtray up. And he couldn’t put the cigs down. And the logo at 2:00 minutes points to the notion that I might ACTUALLY be right …
I beg to differ on the issue of superpowers and the major religions you named. They are all heavily involved with the existence and promise of superpowers of one kind or another. The Vedic line before Buddhism also had quite a bit to say about superpowers, treating them not as a goal of the practices, but as byproducts one should not get hung up on achieving. Buddhist literature also has plenty to say about them.
KG, I enjoyed all these last posts of yours – both the content and the writing. See below my other reply, to you and Valkov.
In the above comment, you wrote: “And the logo at 2:00 minutes points to the notion that I might ACTUALLY be right …”
I’m not sure I understand exactly what you mean, but I did find the following regarding that symbol:
“The symbol for the Church of Spiritual Technology is engraved into the Earth’s surface in Scientology’s Trementina Base, in a mountainous region of New Mexico,[6] large enough to be seen from a high altitude. Former Church member Michael Pattinson has said that the circles are intended as signposts for reincarnated Scientologists who will come from outer space.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbols_of_Scientology
The interlocking circles exactly match the circles interlink on the logo of Kools cigarettes.
Designating the largest stash of Kools in this sector of the galaxy.
“Designating the largest stash of Kools in this sector of the galaxy.”
That’s funny too!
(This reply is to Chris and one above was to katageek,)
Nope – the one below is for KG. :roll”
🙄
There is mention in scientology of pictures people would automatically reach for, like some of the book cover pictures. Perhaps someone thought the being who had been known as LRH would simply not be able to resist reaching for the Kool interlocking circles, when he returned from running around that star… 🙂
🙂
Oh, that’s right. Funny!
Addiction is such an interesting thing, and such a mind-fuck. I’m lucky. I’m only the bitch to caffeine.
And boy, am I its little bitch. I’ve quit plenty of times and then …
“Just this once, okay, hand me that Duncan Donuts coffee …”
One would think one could easily be at cause of “hand to mouth.”
That said, I offer no “tech” as you shouldn’t trust any I might offer. Why?
Because If I can’t be at cause over my own will to the degree that I can’t Start, Change and Stop my coffee habit you shouldn’t trust my notions!
… and …
If I can’t de-bitch MYSELF from coffee, I can’t de-bitch anyone from something bigger than coffee!
And ESPECIALLY don’t trust my tech if I claim to make “de-bitched” humans AND I have the logo for Duncan Donuts Coffee carved into the earth such that it is fully visible from space! I might as well be saying, “YEAH, I’m caffeine’s bitch Universe! I can’t pick up a coffee cup with my mind and I can’t not put down coffee for good, but I can fix you just fine! Hey! Here’s my favorite coffee!”
***
SURGEON GENERAL’S WARNING: Duncan Donuts Coffee is the most addictive drip coffee in the world. Letting go of it is next to impossible, as its flavor and body and caffeine level truly satisfies the soul to such degree that enlightenment is a mere footnote in your life. Smart people never start!
See now, this is an example of publishable material!
Btw, is Duncan Donuts coffee any better than the Dunkin Donuts coffee? 😀
No. Yours is superior!
“As long as one does not cross particles into other time-continua and so get two time-continua, one would not get a mergence of universes.” [from “The Creation of Human Ability” Hey Marildi, I’m back from a little Spring Break vacation (last week). Would you say that you understand these words of LRH?
Hey, welcome back, Chris.
The way I understand that quote is that he was talking about the individual universes of different beings, where each universe would have a different “beat” of time, which would be its time continuum. In other words, all particles in a particular universe “march to the same drummer” – like being attuned or in rhythm with whatever the “Planck” unit of time was in that universe. For particles to cross over from one universe to another and merge with it, there would have to be a change of their “beat” to match. These universes would obviously be digital, and according to Tom Campbell, the physicist and consciousness research, the idea that our own physical universe is digital is increasing among physicists.
Yup. That’s it. None of them are in the same time reference.
You aren’t “auditing” you are “co-existing.”
And the ash tray STILL sits there saying to me telepathically. “Cool mythology yo, but you are still fucked. But at least you will have a great inner life WHEN you are wrong over and over. But maybe, just maybe, in an infinitude of realities you MIGHT get lucky …”
Thank you Marildi.
KRC = Cause also , Kata. The relations ARC and KRC are intuitively right , but as with any knowledge , it can be used to either free people or enslave them. It is the intention behind it , that is at fault , not necessarily the principles. The relation E = mc² is factual , but it was used to create the Atom Bomb. Does this mean that we must throw away that relation ? No, not at all as it has also been used to harness the energy of the nucleus as sources of energy to help humans live a better existence.
KRC also = Understanding. It could also = “Power” as your said, but in terms of “Being able to hold a position in space” , thus becoming a Causative flow emanator/handler which equals being Cause in the area = being relax and calm about the area = not having any fixed attention in the area = being able to reach and withdraw from the area at will = having Free Will in the area.
Those are the relations I see. The problem was that for LRH ( as an individual ) , K = just Scn knowledge ; R = just carrying out the Scn goals ; and C = the “ethics” of forced “freedom” for a “Social Cleansing” endeavor (mission) called “The Scientologist”.
You know TC there is one thing Basic Scientology misses (and all I know are basics of the religion). And it is the four levels of relationship.
LEVEL 1: You are dominated (lead) by another.
LEVEL 2: You are equal (cooperate) with another.
LEVEL 3. You dominate (lead) another.
LEVEL 4: You are not connected to another.
In every human relationship at any time, we are at one of these levels. With some people, the levels change depending on the situation.
EXAMPLE: Your boss at work tells you what to do at the office, but while working for a charity ball he is your subordinate in terms of the event and does what you say.
The art of life as I see it is learning how to be true to yourself and others at each of these levels. The level of maturity a person holds is evident when one has to set power down and pick up service and/or set service down and pick up power. Or set service and power down and pick up cooperation.
Those are very interesting and empathetic views , Kata ; thanks!
+ 1
Thank you TC.
It seems to me all 4 of those levels are implicit and indeed often explicit in the tone scale.
Val and KG,
I saw Val’s post just as I was digging up some excerpts of a write-up by “Ouran” so I could quote them for KG, and now for Val too. They have everything to do with “superpowers and major religions” and also to the tone scale. After Ouran left Scientology, he continued research on the tech and discovered the following:
———————————-
“It has become evident to me that two of the processes used in Grade 5, AKA Power, are a direct address to two of the ten primal goal pairs listed below…
“…these dichotomies hold in place — nay are used to CREATE! — the entire span of existence itself with all its details of structure such as emotional tones, mental archetypes and sequences of aberration. Knowing as we do that a person can fixate on, or obliterate from sight, various parts of themselves as depicted using the tone scale as a model, then a knowledge of EXACTLY what puts any portion of that scale in existence should give us a far better handle on deaberrating it.”
“There is a tendency among spiritually awakened people to dramatize one side or the other of the top two goal dichotomies. With the top goal pair, either the person absolutely declares an infinite God, or else declares a non-existence such as Hubbard’s “static” or modern Buddhism’s “anatta” (no self). With the #2 goal pair, the person declares either a universal consciousness or else a godlike individual uniqueness. These are incomplete views. That’s right: Hubbard’s ‘life is a static’ is a dramatized half of the #1 pair, the zero half. The other end of which is infinity and can be experienced as an infinity of living universes wherein all thoughts, matter, etc are one living beingness. On that #2 goal pair (the one atop coexistence), some people declare that ‘we are all one’, while others insist on their individuality. BOTH VIEWS ARE INCOMPLETE IN EACH CASE. BOTH VIEWS ARE HALF THE TRUTH.”
http://www.censorthis.com/ouran/PGprocesses.html
———————————–
The above explains a lot to me about LRH’s downfall as well as KG’s insightful validation of his efforts. I, of course, would add that in spite of whatever LRH might have missed in his research, he contributed a huge start on the anatomy of aberration. In the future, some unbiased student of the mind and/or religion will probably discover this.
Okay. Remember.
I can’t pick up a coffee cup with just my mind.
I can’t put Coffee down and never drink it again.
And I don’t have the money or slaves to embed the logo of Duncan Donut’s Coffee into the earth so it is visible from space.
… BUT …
I think it is a better mythology with 2 dynamics added to your eight. THAT solves the issues listed above between the Monad and Emptiness.
0 – Point: Static
1 – Self as Body
2 – Self as Family
3 – Self as Group
4 – Self as Humanity
5 – Self as Life
6 – Self as Physical Universe
7 – Self as Spirit
8 – Self as a monotheistic or polytheistic godhead depending on the Universe
9 – Self as the shared reality that permits the geometry of the 0 point static
***
“Na-na-na-na-na-na-nahhhhh BATSHIT!”
***
And remember. BATMAN is NOT Superman. Batman is just a delusional good guy. And SOMEONE from social services needs to call about the dangerous situations Dick Grayson is constantly in!
I’m not validating Hubbard, but comparing him to Elijah Prince.
Elijah Price in fiction killed hundreds so that his Superman’s powers could emerge.
Terrorists kill hundreds in reality thinking their God’s powers will emerge.
THEY ARE THE SAME.
KG: “I’m not validating Hubbard, but comparing him to Elijah Prince.”
Okay. I thought you were validating him when you said “But he DID try.” My error.
But I am curious, do you have a personal upset with the man, or are you just basically philosophizing and exploring the issues?
Neither. Elijah Price was trying to find Superman – a noble effort worthy of a “glass up” AND he committed mass murder, which is unworthy of a glass up. We all have “glass up” and “glass down” times – including Hubbard. And he DID try to create clears and OTs (glass up), AND he threw children in chain lockers (glass down).
Perhaps EVERY being deserves validation. So … Yeah, I’ll admit that Hubbard deserves some validation.
Kata : “Perhaps EVERY being deserves validation. So … Yeah, I’ll admit that Hubbard deserves some validation.”
That is a very compassionate and empathetic view of life , Kata. Also I like your view that every being has his “glass up” and “glass down” times.
A particular writing from LRH that I love which is related to that , is “Recognition of Rightness in the Being” , which is an excerpt of his 7 Jan 1964 lecture titled “Good Indicators”. Here are some quotes out of it :
“An auditor’s tendency is to look for wrongnesses. He is always trying to find something wrong with the pc. That’s the nature of Scientology; we assume that there is something wrong with somebody otherwise he wouldn’t be here and be dead in his head, and he would be capable of doing a great deal more than he is doing at the particular moment.”
“Because we are in the business of deleting wrongnesses from the individual we seldom look at rightnesses and that’s what’s wrong with most auditors. They are so anxious to find the wrongness—and quite properly—and they never really look at the rightness. If they don’t look at the rightnesses that are present, then they aren’t appreciating the degrees of truth that are present that can be promoted into more truth.”
“In other words they are starting at a level of no truth present all the time so of course they never make any forward progress.”
“You must realize that there must be truth present and that this truth must be recognized and that this is hand-in-glove a part of auditing—the recognition of the fact that truth is present.”
“If you only look for wrongnesses and only recognize wrongnesses then you will never be able to pull anything up a gradient because you won’t think you have any rightnesses to work with. It just all looks wrong to you.”
“You have to be able to look at the wrongnesses in order to right them but we also have to be able to look at the rightnesses in order to increase them.”
“We are only trying to find wrongnesses in order to increase rightnesses, and that’s very important If you have no rightnesses present in a session you will never be able to make any progress of any kind. Progress is built on a gradient scale of rightnesses by which you delete wrongnesses and they drop and fall away.”
Thinking that “perhaps every being deserves validation” , and that we all have our “glass-up , glass-down times” , is recognizing the rightness in the being which a very balanced way to look at life.
Hubbard understood all these things intuitively and intellectually. But he missed the point that in order to delete the accumulated “wrongness” in the being , he only needed to get this being to find out who/what he REALLY is , and all the “wrongness” falls away all by itself as it was never really there to begin with ; it was only being mocked-up by the being himself by confusing himself with false selves.
This endless search for truth and freedom as if it was something to “achieve” , to “get to” out there some place, is what got LRH to fail. This assumption that there was anything to “get rid of” ( “Because we are in the business of deleting wrongnesses from the individual… ” LRH ) , prompts and endless “wants to get rid of” , or “wants to achieve” , which are both , wrong methods to find truth and freedom. Because the individual himself is all that freedom and truth that one is ever going to find. And there is no other truth of freedom apart from that. “Know Thyself” and you’ll meet freedom and truth.
The Lojong proverbs in the “Five Forces” section has a phrase I like:
“Water the white seeds not the black ones.”
Meaning put your focus on what you want not what you don’t want.
Scientology’s main error IMHO is that it didn’t audit IN what works more than it audited OUT what didn’t.
Remember, rehabbing a knee after surgery is about DOING MORE of what you want the knee to ACTUALLY do more than revisiting the accident over and over.
Practicing being who you want to be will automatically “counter-create” who you don’t want to be.
New neural connections of competence!
– Kata : “The Lojong proverbs in the “Five Forces” section has a phrase I like: ”
“Water the white seeds not the black ones.”
“Meaning put your focus on what you want not what you don’t want.”
Peter : That’s very true indeed!!!
Kata : “Scientology’s main error IMHO is that it didn’t audit IN what works more than it audited OUT what didn’t.”
“Remember, rehabbing a knee after surgery is about DOING MORE of what you want the knee to ACTUALLY do more than revisiting the accident over and over.”
Peter : At one point that became LRH’s approach to processing ; “Placing the accent on ability” , to paraphrase the “DNs 55” book, one of my favorite ones. But later one that approach was changed to “Getting rid of” (Engrams , the “Reactive Mind” , BTs, GPMS, etc, etc) , and “Self” remained out of view as something to be “discovered” in very high “OT” levels (more like “Operating Ego(s)” ).
“Practicing being who you want to be will automatically “counter-create” who you don’t want to be”
Peter : That’s a very wise and practical way to put it , indeed! To emphasize the positive of it all , which is always “Basic on the chain” !
“New neural connections of competence!”
Peter : Yes indeed!
What’s your path in life , Kata ? What teachings do you follow , if you don’t mind of me asking ?
As I stated earlier in different parts of this blog, my personal mythology is batshit. Here is it in a nutshell:
1. The soul, or whatever creates the soul, or the Universe that permits a soul’s delusion, is at it’s very source PARADOXICALLY BATSHIT CRAZY.
2. “Returning” to this base self is returning to BATSHIT INSANITY and strangely enough, it’s a SAFE place to fall. One can be aware that one is batshit and be at peace with it if one chooses to. If you go Batshit, be okay with it. It’s who you really are!
3. “Sanity” is an evolution FROM batshit toward sanity and is never absolute. Only Batshit is absolute. Sanity is always a finite value. The more spiritually aware someone becomes, the more they basically are batshit, and unworthy of trust if one wishes sane choices and actions in life.
4. There are twelve basic human emotions I gathered from combining: 1. The 7 Micro-Emotions from Micro-emotion training; and 2. the 9 affects from Affect theory; and plus 1 from the Stoics (indifference) and they make up my tone scale.
They are: Shame, Fear, Sadness, Distress, Disgust, Dissmell, Contempt, Surprise, Interest (love), Enjoyment and Indifference. And, luckily enough, like a real musical scale it contains 12 notes.
5. There is a possibility that are uncountable versions of me across the multiverse that are “soul less” and materialistic.
6. Strangely, these soul less potentials WANT to exist as a soul. And when they choose to EXIST anyway by imagining each other IMAGINING each other CHOOSING a trans-mathematical soul point to exist FROM … and to exist TO …
That existence MIGHT actually happen, but you could never tell if it actually fucking DID.
If such a decision for existence may actually happen, then the only space where such a reality may exist is in the hated space of mathematical realism.
And NOBODY believes that shit anymore. Wikipedia lists Mathematical Realism as a subsection of another entry THAT’S how low thought of it is.
But Kurt Godell, Plato and Pythagoras were all mathematical realists. And so am I but I’m no G,P or P.
7. If this Batshit actually manifests, then an innumerable number of such batshit “others” exist. And an innumerable number of materialistic “others” exist.
8. I cannot tell which one I am: “materialistic” or “existence choosing”. And that is a fucking fixed fact flacking fiercely my flank forever.
9. Using a fucked-up version of Pascal’s Wager, I see that IF there is ANY chance at all that I actually exist independently of the multiverse realities. and IF I can direct my own choices, that I CAN choose to roll that die and be happy to be wrong when I get snake eyes.
I do. And I am.
And I can’t get a heroin addict to pick up his fix-kit with his mind. I can’t get him to quit heroin and put it down.
BUT if I promise him a lifetime of free Heroin, he WILL put carve the chemical formula for heroin out of a mountain such that it is visable from space!
These guys will do ANYTHING to get that shit yo.
glass up, KG.
You too Chris!
Here is the Katageek Tech guaranteed to keep Heroin Addicts carving on the mountains without being able to quit or lift their fix-kits mentally.
1. Technique 1: Just sit batshit. That’s right take total refuge in RAGING INSANITY while being perfectly still. Imagine yourself totally crazy and paradoxical.
2. Build memory palace mindscapes hosted by versions of you to store things you find useful. Each mindscape gets a different you. Here is my batshit multi-Will-overse:
1. An enlightened me that knows how to transfer his being from one body to another seamlessly for zillions of years.
2. A version of me in hell who is in total “overwhelm” and who can only be comforted by the others in dreams.
3. Me. Right here, right now.
4. Me as a girl. A red head. You know her.
5. Me as a guy with a magical wrist watch who is out to be a positive force in the universe to help people connect to the potential they may actually choose existence.
This is all batshit. Got it?
I. Got. Nothing.
So, there you go Marildi and TC this is my practice of batshit.
To enter my useless dharma, you may …
Try this for 60 seconds. Just sit and surrender completely to insanity. Just BE BONKERS and still.
Learn about memory palaces and memorize your beloved “Factors.” Then visit those places and touch the imaginary walls holding those memories.
And, like any other religion, this offers no real solace in the face of oblivion.
But I use it as a tool to shoot the bird at the realistic Zero. Maybe, just maybe, it might return the favor.
Wow! ; that’s a VERY interesting philosophical-matematical batshit vision of existence indeed!!!
Thank you. and it fails just like all the others!
“Thank you. and it fails just like all the others!”
When I had this epiphany, I realized how before this I was groomed to be easy pickins’ for Scientology. Batshit is a marvelous, free spirited and honest failure at spirituality. I enjoyed yours and Marildi’s “statements of faith” in another post, not even sure if it was on this thread. I was interested in her “born-again nondualism” as it seemed like a new revelation to her, or was it? Marildi?
In a metaphor of using the river to represent life, Batshitism seems to me the light-hearted letting go of the banks of the river. This metaphor represents ceasing to try and make life hold still. One cannot. For me, I can float for as long as I am here and pass on with the sweet flavor of the whole thing (river) continuing.
And now a central truth of my failed religion: “The Falsth.”
“There is no mythology that does not fail reality at some point, even this one.”
A+ tautology, I like it.
And thus reality also fails.
“Yes, but before I kill you Mr. Bond … ”
And IF we can use that to make reality fail the ash tray stands up next to the eternally recovered smoker?
I think it MIGHT. But I don’t think I will see it any time soon …
Good God Isene! Go to bed! I’m sure you will be posting a lot of late night comments soon enough!
Love the baby bump photos on FB!
😀
Armed with the “the falsth” (actually “the Falsth” is just a rehash from the Greek Cynics via a cool catch phrase) one may ASK …
“Is this FALSTH reality perhaps where individual choice is made BECAUSE of the Cynic notion that, “Nothing is absolute, not even this statement.”
Let me answer that. “I don’t know.”
“Let me answer that. “I don’t know.””
Knowing in the human sense can be compared to knowing in the computer sense where the computer samples what it is trying to do, checks, then rechecks to see that what was reflected compares accurately to what was sent, etc.,. We can surely know anything. This is not a trick. But at some point, if we yearn for an accurate reflection of the world in which we live, we have to embrace the falsth and let go of knowing in any absolute sense. Let go of our crutch of knowing and go rather for consistency. (At least that is how I adjust the scope on my rifle.) Leaning on a method for gathering knowledge such as the Scientific Method is a way to embrace a reproducible consistency that increases the probability of accuracy. Fuck knowing.
“Fuck Knowing!”
Thank you Chris. Very helpful two words there.
You are welcome KG, in this context, I find “knowing” to be a thought stopper.
Chris: “In a metaphor of using the river to represent life, Batshitism seems to me the light-hearted letting go of the banks of the river. This metaphor represents ceasing to try and make life hold still. One cannot. For me, I can float for as long as I am here and pass on with the sweet flavor of the whole thing (river) continuing.”
That’s a beautifully poetic expression of your reality. Substance-wise, it makes me wonder if you’re a closet nondualist. 😀
In my case, to answer your question, “revelation” is a good word for my discovery of nondualism. This is a teaching about becoming free of the conditioned mind and its patterns of thinking – otherwise known as ego. What you described above could actually be the same idea.
Mooji is the nondual teacher I like best because his beingness alone radiates wisdom and “an awakened one.” Also, his teaching is very simple and easy to grasp. He describes nondualism in just two words: “transcending ego.” And he explains it here in less than 10 minutes:
That is cool Marildi. I can really see how you’ve given that a lot of thought. Nondualism for me, my version, isn’t a belief system as such so it didn’t occur to me to mention it. But you are right, my opinions do land in that spectrum.
I wouldn’t call it a “belief system” either. What nondualism teachers do is just to point the student in a direction – as in “finger pointing to the moon.” The crucial thing is that the student simply follows some guideposts and through direct perception attains direct knowledge of the truth of existence.
Adyashanti is another appealing teacher. There’s also Lester Levenson, who was familiar with Scientology, and it’s easy to spot what he took from it. But he also studied traditional teachings and became a nondualist. I have a hunch you will like him!
” . . .otherwise known as ego. What you described above could actually be the same idea.”
Definitely same idea.
Awesome!
Good for you to be able to see that Hubbard DID try to create clears and OTs.
As for throwing children in chain lockers, here’s a point of view that might relate. See what you think:
The above was in reply to katageek’s post here: https://isene.me/2013/10/29/scientology-bait-switch/#comment-105285
I didn’t realize there were a few posts in between which mine came after. Geir needs to get a new theme so we can see who the heck is replying to whom. 🙂
KG: “8 – Self as a monotheistic or polytheistic godhead depending on the Universe
9 – Self as the shared reality that permits the geometry of the 0 point static…I think it is a better mythology with 2 dynamics added to your eight. THAT solves the issues listed above between the Monad and Emptiness.”
The added dynamics seemed like a clever idea to me – but then you called it batshit. And it does seem to only name the problem. In Ouran’s write-up, the main point was that people are dramatizing one side of the dichotomy or the other – which means they won’t achieve enlightenment because they aren’t seeing the whole of reality
Ouran also concluded that this was what happened to Hubbard and it explains why he took the course in life that he did. Does that make it any easier to forgive him for his steep fall from grace? You have to admit he was a dynamic force to be reckoned with and, as the saying goes, “The bigger they are, the harder they fall.”
I view life through three lenses: science, religion and art. The dynamics as I list them are scientifically batshit, but pretty cool religiously/mythologically and potentially cool artistically if one factors in Pythagoras’ love of the tectractus with imagination.
But a coffee addict who cannot even spell his java of choice correctly should presume enlightenment!
“But a coffee addict who cannot even spell his java of choice correctly should presume enlightenment!”
I suspect you are like the jester who is really a wise fool. 🙂