Tough questions…

…I should be asked.

Since I left the Church of Scientology I have been asked thousands of questions. Many were simple and easy to answer, others were more tricky and harder to reply to. There are a few questions that could put me in a tight spot and that would be hard to answer. Although they have been touched upon, no one have yet asked me these directly. And so I take the matters into my own hands.

First the questions:

  1. You claim you have had heaps of gains from Scientology. Yet you criticize the subject that helped you get those gains. Are you not in fact “burning the bridge” behind you and hinder others to get the same gains as yourself?
  2. When you talk about your gains in Scientology, are you not running the risk of encouraging others to become victims of the biggest cult trap known to Man?
  3. Every time you talk about your gains in Scientology, should you not be responsible enough to also inform about the dangers, the destroyed lives?
  4. When you criticize Scientology, should you not be responsible enough to also inform about the marvels of the tech, your gains and the only hope for Mankind.
  5. Are you not done yet?

Then the answers:

  1. After having discussed Scientology openly for 4 years, I realize that I was lucky living on the fringe of the Scientology world when I was in for 25 years. Others were less fortunate and have been victims of much more pressure and oppression in the church. Lives have been destroyed, families broken apart. I believe that every person should be able to make informed decisions about whatever they may decide to get involved in. Informed decisions require open access to all relevant information – both the good and the bad. I do not believe in hiding or not revealing anything bad or good in a subject that may come so close to your mind and spirit as Scientology. All information should be freely accessible on the Net, and through discussions, people can learn and avoid harmful involvements and make use of what they think will help them.
  2. See answer #1.
  3. I feel no obligation to bloat my blog posts with anything else but the succinct points I am trying to convey.
  4. See answer #3.
  5. I live on a whim. I do what I enjoy. And I continue to enjoy this until I enjoy something else. Who knows when I am done blogging, discussing or babbling about Scientology? Not me.

It really is that simple. Got any other tough questions for me? Shoot!

437 thoughts on “Tough questions…

  1. Regarding question nr.5, it will never end. Your experience in Scientology will follow you all your life. This is the price you’ll have to pay for leaving them. You’re out, but the shadow will be there.

  2. Nice. I would say similar things about myself. Also, SCN is not ‘either black or white’ for me. I’m just upset to have seen some of the black side of it survive more than the white, so I have to become bad and point it out. I have no hostilities towards the white side, nor it’s users. Actually, I don’t have hostilities towards the blacks either, I just don’t want others to buy their stuff and turn to the dark side, like poor Anakin 😛

    1. I consider the ‘work and don’t think about the dark side’ to be part of SCNs hardcore dark side practices, indeed. As one then not-ises himself (if he perceives a dark side) and just works like a slave. If a dark side is created, it should better be perceived.

      1. I like the make happy thoughts stance. I dont spend my life pointing out dark sides either. Generaly, I’m quite chill. But if that ‘make happy thoughts’ is used as a way to cover your unhappy thoughts, that is not-isness. The point is to have your creations under control, not to cover them with happy paint. The second is a way to not confront and to not-is and qualifies for the kind of psychology that those SCNists supposedly fight against.

  3. I’m with you, Geir. I got things out of it. I wasn’t very involved. I somehow avoided the “dark side” by chance/coincidence/whatever. Was it worth it? No. I was there because I was lied to. I could have gotten those gains elsewhere, since the “marvelous tech” had other sources besides Source! My heart aches for my friends still lost in the matrix, wishing them a speedy return to their true identities and life.

  4. Dear Geir,

    When “I look at you” as from here, which means that I look at what you write on your blog and elsewhere, then the subject is overwhelmingly much about Scientology. You agree? OK. You never write about your prep-school experiences. Why? Because you left it. You never write about your first wife? Why? Because you left her. (Or she left you or you split up, or she newer was). But you write soooooo much about Scientology. There are of course other subjects you have not left, which you also do not write about. But being me sitting here looking at you, it look like you have not left Scientology at all. Yea… it’s fine to write about what happened to chase others away that they do not make the same mistakes or whatever the reason is. But I do not see that you are practicing that doubt formulae you once preached… This is of course your right, and who am I to even talk about this? This because I have seen so many people who claim that they left the C of S and yet they keep talking about it for the rest of their life. If you are still a supporter of Ron’s philosophy, well fine. But his philosophy is an applied philosophy. It’s something you DO. It’s not something you talk about endlessly. So, of all these people who claim they left Scn but keep taking about it, YOU are the most active of them, that’s why I write YOU about it. Do you see my viewpoint? You do not have to agree, and I do not have to be right. I just want to communicate this because I have seen it so much the last 31 years since I left the C of S. I think that people who claim they have left Scn and keep talking about it, or about leaving it, I would love to see them stop talking about it and use that energy to support getting further in life to places where I know that Scn could never take you. How about that?

    EverLove,
    Per, DK

    1. Hi Per; I do not have an urge to be out of or into or in any other position regarding Scientology. I enjoy writing my thoughts about it for now, that’s all.

      As for my prep-school experiences or my ex-wife; Read my book. Plenty in there. And as you may see on the top menu, there are many other subjects covered here. But few of my other interests seem to interest others that much – like HP calculators, Ruby/Raven/MCODE programming, RPGs, art, music, poetry, i3, conky, uzbl, vim, HyperList, ITIL, PRINCE2, IP, telescopes… Search for blog posts on each and you will find very few comments. Take the top blog posts regarding interest, and you will find Scientology does indeed seem interesting to people and reading people’s comments – people seem to find those blog posts of great value. I like to generate value for others.

      So, if it tickles my fancy, I let it tickle 🙂

    2. It used to be a nasty habbit of mine to identify abberations behind each person’s actions, because of thought of them as dramatising monkeys. I did that to myself too, and I must say it didn’t help me at all.

      Maybe Geir doesn’t have a compulsion to get involved with that third dynamic, but rather an impulse to help it.

      So, we go back to our previous discussion, where we left it. Life is basically a Static…

      I never said that Static is uttainable, by the way. Life IS a static. It will never become.

    3. Hello Per! Very interesing point of view, full of common sense. But there is a big difference between you and Geir. If I’ve read your comment careful, it reveals that you left the Church of Scientology 31 years ago. Geir has only 4 years since he split it. Writing, speaking and posting everyday about Scientology, doesn’t mean that Geir is nostalgic about them, or he didn’t left them all. Maybe for him it’s like a detox period of life, he have to get rid of all the things he believed once.
      And! One more thing, Per…Take a look of his posts: Geir write, speak and post on his blog not ONLY about Scientology, but also AGAINST them. If he thinks that this a crusade against evil, if he thinks that this is the way to forgive himself, let him choose his own way to do it.

  5. Just because you leave something or someone doesn´t mean you can´t communicate about it/him/her. A casual perusal of Geir´s web site and FB page will give anyone a sense of the variety and range of his interests and activities, of which Scientolgy is only one…or so it seems to me…

  6. ‘And I continue to enjoy this until I enjoy something else’. Can be the quote of the month! Me just cannot stop laughing! Has just given a boost to my creativity! Thanks!

    1. After reading Per’s comment I agree that you could write more about the things you enjoy doing in life, more about yourself, more about the tools you use in your work.
      (which are useful as I have written about it), more about how you view people and life. As you write very well, even stories….so, whatever of YOU.

        1. Thanks! That is the book, not the blog. To last for whom? For you, as you don’t want to write about yourself, or write as such? Also, the book is ‘done’, that is it is the ‘past’.
          How about the present? How about creativity? Ok, I do not want to push you, I have expressed it many times that I like reading your views on e.g. science, physics, business, the books you read…the you. If not, ok, it’s your blog.

  7. “1. You claim you have had heaps of gains from Scientology. Yet you criticize the subject that helped you get those gains. Are you not in fact ‘burning the bridge’ behind you and hinder others to get the same gains as yourself?”

    Yeah, I’ve got a tough question. How could you possibly say that no one has asked you this first question when I have done just that, more than once! And, unless I am hallucinating, all I got was protests from you for asking. Do you mean to say that you finally recognize it as a valid question? 😉

    1. None of the questions are valid or invalid 🙂

      You have touched on this, but I cannot recollect you asking the question in such a direct manner. Have you?

      1. Geir, you’re too young to have short-term memory loss. Not that long ago, you yourself wrote:

        “You early on said that you didn’t like me criticizing Scientology because
        it would put people off from availing themselves of the tech. Is that
        still your position?”

        That is pretty directly saying that you were “criticizing the subject” and “burning the bridge behind you and hindering others to get the same gains as yourself.”

        Maybe it’s actually “selective memory loss” – where I’m concerned. Feel free to practice your objectivity on me. 🙂

        1. Well, after I said that in a comment to you and you answered, I tried to find where you said that, but I couldn’t. I think that was more an interpretation of some comment you made rather than a direct question. Are you able to find anywhere you asked me that question?

          1. I think the first place was on the ARC triangle thread, or the one that followed where we continued the same subject. I remember pointing out that the ARC triangle was such a basic principle and, you being an OL, your opinion would tend to invalidate the whole subject for people. That was the concept, though I don’t recall my exact words so I couldn’t even search for it very easily. I tried skimming through a bit but both of those threads are humongous! Not worth the time it would take,

            In more recent times, I’ve made a number of comments to the effect that you are over-promoting the negative and thus helping to define “Scientology” as such – helping to make that negative concept of it the agreed-upon reality. Basically, you and others are “putting it there” as an isness and, as you know, people very much perceive what they expect to perceive. I think this is actually the phenomenon Valkov was writing about in some of the superb comments he posted today on the last thread.

            1. I observe. I point out. I get feedback. I observe more, point out more and more feedback. I really try to never defend stuff. Stuff doesn’t need defending. What is needed is questioning and critical thinking.

            2. The most blatant straw man argument of all must be to repeat back to a person what they have said in other words than they used to begin with. It’s as though the person’s own description of their experience will seem better if told by someone else using another’s words.

            3. I too have tried to balance creating the is-ness with as-ising it. Truth is, nothing that is not created in the first place, could be as-ised. I think talking about black SCN can apply and should be addressed to certain kinds of people –people that have experienced it in a negative way. I wouldn’t and don’t talk about it with non SCNists. I see no point in that. I once did it, to slap my local org, because they played dirty with me and I fought back. So, I got them slapped 😛

              And people that have thorough understanding of SCN wouldn’t be influenced by me, as thorough understanding would also mean knowledge –not just data. That’s unshakable stuff.

            4. Hey Spyros! I duplicate all of your points. However, in reference to your last paragraph, I’d say that not too many people actually do have “a thorough understanding,” and those who don’t can be swayed when the negative is overwhelming – especially when the word “Scientology” isn’t differentiated in meaning, as it should be. Here’s a great comment by Marianne that I think is applicable to this exchange. She posted it yesterday on the “My Scientology Enigma” thread. Tell me what you think about it:

              “…Unless you have a completely FREE point of view of scientology in ‘this lifetime’, you will take with you what has not been completed to the ‘next’. Also, if you want to ‘expand’ and ‘evolve’, a complete love-affinity for the subject, the persons is advisable. You may not see it the way I do, I don’t know, but when one agrees to viewpoints, one can restrict oneself to that degree. Especially to those viewpoints which come from the lower parts of the tone-scale. There is a chance then to look at why one agrees.”

            5. Yes M, but differentiation between what and what?

              If a person engages to study and apply SCN, will he do it by himself –by studying LRH at home and running solo processes, or rather by joining some kind of an org? Unfortunately, SCN is a group activity.

              If Ron says this and thousands do that, eh…what do you want me to say? I say both this and that all the time. I know 8C wasn’t meant to be bossing others around, but thats what people are taught in orgs. I saw it both in my COS and outside.

            6. Right, Spyros – there are different ways of practicing “Scientology” even among those outside of the CoS. That’s my point about the use of the word “Scientology” – it has many different meanings and people don’t bother to make it clear which way they’re using it. That’s one big problem. Another one is that they often don’t even acknowledge that it can mean the core principles and tech.

            7. Yes, there can be an infinity of ways. The thing with independent SCN is that people and groups have a choice. In the Church, if they have a choice, they’re not in the Church anymore 😛

              Scientology can have multiple meanings. Me and some friends were talking about ‘love’ some while ago –how many meanings it can have. It can mean anything from liking to hate-with-a-fake-smile. So is with SCN.

              The point in pointing out the hate-wth-a-fake-smile is to not get backstabbed by it and to not hate love in general because of it. Of course, that’s a low level of responsibility. It’s just better than to be entangled inside it. Way ‘above’ that, you don’t create 1.1s at all.

            8. This is awkward. “Unless you have a completely FREE point of view of ANYTHING in ‘this lifetime’…” How in the universe it is possible that a human may take a completely free point of view about anything?
              people get into Scientology because of marketing and propaganda, or the antagonism to it. They get carried away because of whatever someone else said about the subject. Those people need to take informed decisions, and that first informed decision may be what to think about Scientology and about getting involved.
              While so many of you are debating and questioning if the people deserve to experience and get gains, too many people are experiencing the crap of Scientology by first hand, if there is not about their own ruined lifes or disconnection effects on their own families, there are testimonies from friends and impacts on social circles from more distant relatives. Are them just ‘hearsay’?
              What they are suppose to ‘conceptualize’ on their free point of view?

              I would like to reduce every concern of criteria over “the lies”. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary proves. If you know something is not truth, but can’t prove it, it’s ok, you can say it with honesty. If you can prove that something is a lie, PROVE IT damn it! The world needs that. I wonder which side takes more charge about the need of proving, the people with tendentiousness to the ‘good stuff’ on Scientology or the people with tendentiousness to the ‘hard stuff’ about Scientology? 🙂

            9. “I wonder which side takes more charge about the need of proving, the people with tendentiousness to the ‘good stuff’ on Scientology or the people with tendentiousness to the ‘hard stuff’ about Scientology?”

              That’s a very good question. And what kind of subject must it be that it would create such strong feelings on both sides of the fence? That’s a good question too. 🙂

            10. I don’t think that is a good question as I didn’t expect to be rewarded for my question like a good one. Strong feeling on both sides of the fence? Let me answer that: an undefined or too general subject, a field with unclear bounds mixing truths with lies, subjectivism covered with mystery. Even the fence is not clear, separating sides. But this phenomenon is known and can be explained as ‘Benford’s law of controversy’. I won’t put a link to it but I’m gonna point out that on life people will get strong feelings and will protest when their lives got marked somehow, when got involved with something and then it formed a part of their lifes.

              I also offer an answer to my own question, it would be:
              The side that takes the burden of proof, is the side that takes more extraordinary propositions. As is, the side more needy of finding evidence for shifting conclusions to the standing position.

            11. Common sense: Those people need to take informed decisions, and that first informed decision may be what to think about Scientology and about getting involved.

              Nutty: That’s OK. You can point out at them all SCNists are nuts, because you don’t understand what they talk about. That should keep them at bay.

              I’m with the idea that the way is to create more understanding, not more brainwashing. The brainwashed suffer from too much brainwashing and too little understanding regarding the subject.

              But before you can create that understanding in them, you need to get that understanding within yourself.

            12. Is the quality of this reply has something /out of context/ to do with me saying you are nuts?
              It was a missunderstanding. I like your comments.

              But I need to reply what are you saying here for responsability. And for a start is the definition and manipulation of reality what creates brainwashing. What is the most common motivation among the people that got fully involved into the Scientology’s reality? Make a statistic of it. Learn from the reality of a scientifically proved majority of cases, not from just your own subjective understanding alone. What do you ‘believe’ you are gonna get?

            13. Common sense, I dont disagree about reality nor SCN. Actually, I try to point that stuff out too!

              The only thing I disagree with SCN criticism (not you in specific) is when all is put in one bucket. I understand it serves the purpose to keep people away from the bad stuff too, but still it isn’t truth for me, and I have to write that as well.

            14. Common Sense
              ‘This is awkward…..How in the universe it is possible that a human may take a completely free point of view about anything?’

              That there is no identification with body and thought. One is then VIEWING itself.
              There is no resistance to any creation, may it arise from oneself or from another (they look separate). No resistance means no intervention of any thought in the process of viewing. Then ‘one’ gets to the Source, which is the ONE Source out of which creations arise. Actually, there is no ‘point’ of view, as WHAT is viewing from ‘your’ eyes reading these words and ‘my’ eyes is the same ONE VIEW in SOURCE.

              Your ‘name’ is perfect for this discussion. As what is viewing, perceiving, sensing is ‘common’ in us.

            15. Thanks Marianne. You are really giving an answer here, as you were the source of the quote. I generalize the question, because I view that Scientology is a more degraded noisy subject about achieving a completely free pov. But my question correlates viewpoints with actions, as I interpreted it was the suggested debate about saying something is good or not to third parties.

              And how the agreement to viewpoints on the lower scales works? How one finds out that a viewpoint is on a lower scale?
              What if a LIE is perpetrated on a very high scale? what then? because lies are evil or have short legs? what if you ‘never’ finds out the lies of the viewpoint that you agree with? we need absolutes to figure this out? absolutes do exists? (for ‘never’ I mean ‘relative long time’ with the reality behind the actions correlated under that period of time)

              And I have a few more question about this viewing you are talking about. What if this awesome concept you are sharing is the EP of a delivering from some ‘Bridge’? What happens to the common people that agrees with anything, believes anything and trust their own inner source? Do we need to persuade them, coaching them, even if they can’t see, so then later they can get this view and then decide to agrees from a completely free viewpoint about what we are doing? It sounds circular, and it’s not my intention to take it circular, I got caught in a paradox maybe.

              And my name is less than obvious, a self-reference. I was between that and “The Dunning-Kruger effect”, but the last one seems too obvious to me. For putting this clear, I’m against common sense as it’s something dangerous.

            16. Marildi: In more recent times, I’ve made a number of comments to the effect that you are over-promoting the negative and thus helping to define “Scientology” as such – helping to make that negative concept of it the agreed-upon reality. Basically, you and others are “putting it there” as an isness and, as you know, people very much perceive what they expect to perceive.

              Chris: You are referring to the “reality tunnel” as coined by Timothy Leary. Science in its various forms has the purpose to help us see things as they are and not just as they appear through our respective filters and realities. Oddly or not, if you really wanted to see the tide of dissention toward Scientology on this blog truncated, all you would need to do to accomplish that is to stop loudly defending it. You can see that can’t you? Your PTS’ness to this subject is being generated by what you are writing.

            17. Common sense
              ‘Scientology is a a more degraded noisy subject about achieving a completely free point of view’.

              What is ‘noise’? One’s thoughts, emotions AND not viewing BUT identifying with them AND acting out of that identification AS IF it was the truth. (In fact it IS the truth
              for the person in that action).

              ‘As I interpreted it was the suggested debate about saying something is good or not to third parties’.

              In my view I can tell another about what happened to ‘me’ and I can tell that it was ‘good’ or ‘bad’ for me. In fact, it is what ‘ I am, the way I act’, also, what another is aware of, which communicates. But when I start to ‘inform’ a third party of which I have not directly experienced, it is only an opinion and not the truth. When I start to ‘inform’ another of what happened to another even by showing ‘evidence’ by showing a video with the person speaking what is true for him/her, it is an opinion on my part, based on an experience I had which I could not fully experience but put a thought there (evaluation, conclusion). That thought is hidden, taken as the ‘truth’ by the person and it is on which the urge/drive to ‘inform’ a third party is based.
              From another aspect: when one is dramatizing the victim and another the victimizer, what both are doing is dramatizing both roles at the same time. When either of them ‘can be’ the other role for an instant, the duality stops to be a duality and both roles ‘fall’. No roles. When one ‘informs’ about it, one is still in both roles, one is ‘visible’, the other is ‘invisible.
              This is how I see it now. Will reflect to the rest of your comment a little later, I am off as I need to do some tasks now. Thanks for your questions, they help me look at things from different angles.

            18. Nice answer. As whatever comes from “outside” remains as “outside”. It point to the answer coming from “inside”. But regarding Scientology as “noisy subject”, how it is possible that one can achieve knowledge about it from inside? It comes from outside, as everything, as an engram. (I’m talking basically, do not play GPM on this).
              Let’s say it doesn’t have to do with “theories”, and only facts and actions. We can experience that, we can see, no matter who and how the information arrives. The fact is, people aligns their lives with the expectative of Scientology, whenever that expectative is generated by the person (inside) or by the scientologists (outside).

              To the rest of your answer, no more questions. It’s clear that one can perfectly reproduce the testimony from partners and only if we add our part it will be an opinion. We can be neutral about incidents. Maybe there always will be a trend to be partial in every situation involving ‘risks’. Specially when I am talking about doingness and not only being a passive spectator. I consider this whole phenomenon is called “interest conflict”, when it creates confirmation biases and selective biases.

            19. Common Sense
              ‘How the agreement to viewpoints on the lower scales work?

              I can only speak about what is happening here, the way it is an experience here. When I am in com with a person, I see the ‘source’. I do not see any viewpoint, just the ‘source’. So, as there is no ‘point’, there is ‘nothing’ to agree or not to agree to. When it is a com with words, it is a kind of exchange. When it happens that I get ‘reactive’ (which can, though it is rarer and rarer), there is already enough awareness to ‘view’ it. ‘Viewing’ stops the ‘reactivity’ not ‘me’ as there has been no sense of ‘me’ here for about two years. Viewing the ‘reactivity’, there can be emotions and thoughts, which are forms of energy. When the ‘energy’ is viewed/experienced thoroughly, there is always a shift in perceiving, also a kind of ‘knowing’, which is nobody’s, just knowing.

              I want to add here that when another says ‘me’, if the person looked at the ‘core’ of that ‘me’, the answer would be what I am writing here that there is no ‘me’ there. When two people are ‘in the core’, there is no ‘you and me’. Not even viewing. There is a direct ‘knowing’ that it is One. It can happen in a com with an animal too. Just happened last time today when I met a dog. Kind of ‘saw’ the same One-Spirit,
              me having a human body, the dog a dog’s body. The ‘connection’ is the same ‘theta’…looking into the dog’s eyes I saw it…haha…also the dog in ‘mine’. The dog jumped on me a little, the owner ‘excused’, I said it was ok, I love it…the owner said that many others don’t, they got scared or angry. I said I loved dogs, she said it might depend on one’s mood (haha…a complete stranger talking about the tone-scale?). The woman was smiling when she went on with the dog.
              Sorry for being lengthy. Did I answer your question?

            20. Yes, you did. I get you, like saying “I get you”. Maybe I’m derailing, but the energy that come across my reading could be expressed in the following sentence: “putting attention in the messenger, not in the message”. Is that right? I mean, logic applies on the message, and so does any consideration.
              The question that remain is, where is the source? Something beyond each part. Isn’t that the purpose of dialectic?

              Ok. Nice insights. For what I asked about the agreement to lower viewpoints, is because on a philosophical skepticism we don’t agree with anything until it is entirely necessary. For example, believing something or not would be irrelevant, but when it is matter of behavior and influence between human beings, only pragmatism wins. Then, when we find inconsistencies and conflicts is just when we need to choose. So, skepticism is a philosophical tool on the highest tone possible. 🙂

            21. ‘How one finds out that a viewpoint is on a lower scale?’

              I remember when I was doing the spotting and handling another’s tones (social and true) exercise. Many years ago. It worked but I was not aware of a lot of subtleties then. Also, was not perceiving the energy around the person. Now I can. You can feel it whether a person is ‘light’ or ‘heavy’. Also, with a certain perception, even the ‘ridges’ can be seen. Also, from how the person moves – slowly and at the same time with effort. How fast handles motion. What the person speaks about etc. I remember Ron wrote it down pretty well e.g. in the Science of Survival.

            22. ‘What if a LIE is perpetrated at a very high scale?’

              Can you give an example for a LIE? Also, can you give an example for what you mean as a LIE at a very high scale?

            23. I will try to make it as clearer as possible.

              Any belief system correspond to someone who created it.
              The belief system is not true in many senses. For example, 1. it’s not exactly followed (duplicated) from the original carrier. 2. it’s a model of reality that doesn’t work. 3. even because we don’t know what it meant in the original creator for making an objectivable exegesis, 4. even because it simply don’t make any sense if the creator doesn’t live to clarify it and to evolve it.

              Is it a lie?

              If lie involves “intention”, I would say “mistake” instead. It would be unconscious, (or agreement out of sight?).

              Then, for what exactly I was using this concept is that many people in the highest tone possible could believe and follow that belief system. Like saying ‘people with the best intentions following something untrue’.

              Isn’t it a lie/mistake subsisting on a higher tone?

              I know people will add themselves, and the same original thing will be more complex and rare. It will not be the same as when it started. What it will be clear, is that it won’t be clear.

              If you want an example, let’s say ‘religion’ is a lie. Let’s say Hubbard didn’t play clean even if he was aware of this. He lied, to make it work.

            24. Common sense: For putting this clear, I’m against common sense as it’s something dangerous.

              Me: That was my misunderstood about you 😛 You’re aa nutty too! ^_^

        2. Marildi, You used to believe in Keeping Scientology Working. Do you still believe in it? Or if that changed, tell about it such as when and what about it competed for your attention when considering it?

          1. Because it is a TA action-making (fun) question I’d like to jump in too!

            I ‘believe in’ (agree) it, in the ’60s! Now it has no application and no observed phenomena as -to a degree- those orgs and that tech no longer exist.

            It’s like wearing a coat in summertime to deal with the snow while you have moved from Norway to Greece –150 years ago 😛

            1. That’s cool Spyros, it is for anybody. Do you have an assumption that Scientology was consistent in the 60’s but became inconsistent lately?

            2. It’s a big subject that we’ve been discussing here and others elsewhere.

              Since I wasn’t around during the 60s, I can only tell judging by LRH’s and SCNist’s comms.

              What I can tell with certainty is that LRH’s comms don’t have much to do with what happens in those orgs. They apparently have much to do, but not really.

            3. Yes, that is a pretty good summary. Mostly they are like Big Brother looking over the shoulders of the executive directors and their staffs and confront anyone in sight oblivious of any organization chart. It is a favorite dodge of true believers to say that all was well before LRH blew in 1982 but then it went downhill from thereon because David Miscavige’s evil was more powerful than LRH’s good.

            4. I don’t know when/how LRH left. I have read some stuff about it, but this doesn’t mean I know. I know that even while I was in my local Church I knew LRH stuff were partially used or partially used in reverse.

              When I said ‘they’ I didn’t mean Big Brother. I meant the orgs, and I didn’t exclude execs and the rest of the staff. I’m not with in the faction that you described. I don’t think all is well in the orgs except from a few hidden beings that mess everything up, secretly. One needs to become pretty oblivious to act so mean towards his fellows like some staff treat others…or maybe be mean in the first place. If you read my posts you would understand better what my views are.

            5. Sorry, I think I misunderstood that you were talking about the LRH Communicator, who is a Sea Org representative in each org. They are responsible for spying and for running “programs” as designed by the Flag Bureaux Chiefs.

            6. Yeah OK, that staff I’m reffering to do all they do in the name of LRH. They applause louder than all at his pictures and hurray and they do everything for the cause.That’s what they show. But as far as I know LRH didn’t tell them to make people guilty of their O/Ws with retarded ideas that whoever disagrees and talks about it (keeps his intergrity) dramatises his O/Ws. LRH didn’t found the IAS and didn’t tell anyone to launch campaigns against psychiatry to ‘save the world’, and he didn’t make any super secret ‘super power rundown’ which he didn’t deliver because it needs to be delivered in the ‘mecca of SCN’ and nowhere else. And if I start making lists of what he didn’t do and what he wrote back for others to do that they don’t do, it’ll be a book. But you insist to blame an invisible man and say that all the people who do that stuff are nice and victims. Well, deep down all are nice, why not LRH too?

            7. Thanx, I see a repeating pattern: Somebody invents/discovers something like medicine, chemical knowledge, philosophy or anything else, and then comes another(s) and pimps it. Example: When did Jesus say anything about inquisitors, witch hunting and crusades? Or did the scientists that discover things that are primarily used by the armies intend to them to be used by armies? Or those graphics artists that make beautiful pictures/animations just to advertise banks…creativity that gets pimped. They pimp the resources of the earth (like land, food, oil which get converted to money) to have anyone that can actually create something work for them mandatorily.

              Scientology books and PABs contained info that could be used by a person to another person without ever having any contact/dependency to any org. You bought DMSMH and you could use it, and not even ever give credit to that Hubbard. (Whether you or me or others like that stuff is beside the point in what I’m saying).Now you can’t do that anymore. SCN is OWNED…according to the COS. Because it needs protection…like a hooker needs a pimp’s protection from the goons that the pimp himself hired to get her beaten.

              Anyway, beside all that I think it takes quite an %$#% to separate families and dominate people in order to ‘save the planet’. If their senior put them to do it, who was put by another senior who was put by DM who was put by LRH is no excuse. If you play that game, ‘you are a sick puppy’, like Elizabeth says 😛

  8. I see your point, Per. Honestly I don’t know yet if I could or would leave Scientology for good.

    Here’s an analogy. I have left my abusive ex-boyfriend for good. But I will keep warning and educating others on sociopathic traits to prevent them from falling into the same pit as I did. But I’m not obsessed by it. I could go on with my life not doing so, but I feel an urge to prevent people from getting their lives ruined or maybe getting killed. Same with Scientology. While I’m doing this “educational campaign” I also focus on my other passions in life as you can see on my blog. When I have emptied my cult prevention toolbox in published articles on my blog and in some chapters of my upcoming book, my job is done.

    I left but I can’t leave the invisible scars – yet.

      1. The list would be to long for this thread. Short summary would include but not limited to financial ruin, family members and friends disconnecting, mental, spiritual, physical and sexual abuse and rape, post traumatic stress, nightmares, severe migraine attacks on a weekly basis, chronic headache, loss of properties and other personal values, panic attacks, fear of death, burning joints, locked neck still unable to be “unlocked” after physical treatments 2-3 times a week for over 6 months, the days I could hardly get out of bed, enforced termination of education, loss of my father to cancer, huge debts, court cases, the filing of police reports… I think that will serve as a starter.

    1. I’ve met a few people who were in cults (not just Scientology) who left many years ago, even openly oppose their former cult, but still play “cult leader” to anyone they can get power over. I don’t know why they cannot shed the vicious behavior they learned while in.

        1. Yes, I wonder! But children raised with abuse are likely to perpetrate that on others when older. Maybe a lack of understanding of what was done to them, and failure to observe their own behavior. Also a lack of care for the well-being of others.

      1. Yes, it’s what Geir said and also -in SCN in specific- the ‘8C’. You see in those Churches it’s not bad to go around giving orders to people just because you can. I don’t mean in session, but in general. If the other person disobeys, don’t lose your TRs, utter the command again, they say.

        I would appreciate it if a SCNist actually made a comment about that, other than that I have O/Ws or that I talk too much and I don’t work. Also explain to me how it is only Miscavige who does that and not others, while I have never met Miscavige, but many others instead. And add over that how this way of living adds up to gaining self determinism and stuff. Thank you.

          1. Who needs ARC? All we need is skill in uttering commands. ARC is for losers who ARC break easily. Why don’t you obey my command? I think you have charge with control, which means you are on the robotism band, which means you have an evil purpose…don’t worry, we’ll fix ya.

            No I don’t think this is LRH. But it’s SCN. And if you think that you disobey because you have an evil purpose, better choose euthanasia as healing. You’ll be better off at 0 on the tone scale than sub 0.

            1. Mr. Spyros, who were you talking to? You are nuts, you should try to debunk secret societies for a while, but not after getting gains upon them. lol

            2. I know I’m nuts. I also know I don’t know wtf you’re talking about –how it fits into what I said. Other than creating an impression, do you have anything to say about what I was saying that makes sense? Do you even know wtf I was talking about myself?

            3. Yes and I was proving your point. Doesn’t? Also in my subjective reallity the word “nuts” is something awesome, it means that you are brave enough to be in a secret society. See the correlation with the “evil purpose” and the FRPD?

            4. I haven’t done the FPRD. Some once told me he had awesome wins with it that it was the best process he had done. Others outside the COS don’t deliver it.

              I guess if you consider that something is a win, then it is a win for you –even if ‘win’ means to give up all self determinism. You may even produce good indicators with it. It’s a matter of what you think.

            5. People get into secret societies because they have a 4th dynamic goal, a very messianic and fantastic one. And all the prerequisites are there for filtering people that are not sharing the same goal. There is a perfect match for each person according to its goals.
              I had heard the same about the FPRD I suppose, amusing gains and exaggerated claims. According to what you said, people use their self-determinism to even give up self-determinism. Interesting. So, freewill is a free variable, an undetermined constant, that can sabotage any attempt of systematized program. Maybe we can blame this thing for any systematic flaw, isn’t it? freewill is the uncaused cause.

            6. I’ve heard much about the masons in specific but since all that is supposed to be secret, and I don’t know what’s true and what’s not.

              I got into SCN to deal with my own case. Then I was given the goal to help others and I agreed with it. But my own case was and is my primary goal even now that I’m out. It’s not that I don’t care about others, I just think helping should be done in a sequence. You don’t go make donations to the poor, if you’re homeless yourself.

              I have encountered those messianic goals you reffered to, and I must say I didn’t enjoy them, for it seems such goals justify everything. Kinda like ‘I will save the world, no matter what it takes’. And there is also the matter of what ‘save’ means. The Church intends to convert everybody into SCNists. Funny, considering how easily they kick people out just because they disagree with them openly, and then don’t admit guilt for it. I don’t need to point out that they’ll never make it.

              Yes, I think it is free choice to give up free choice, but then one is free to have free choice again, unless he thinks otherwise. If one thinks that his senior is making him do it, he denies his free will. Free will is blamed for societies faults -obviously- that’s why through laws, law makers try to reduce it. But they have never tried to see how it would work out if people were totally free. Apparently, they suppress freedom and then they say ‘look how those people act when given freedom, they’re just a bunch of animals. Lets push them down some more’. And then things get worse, and then they think they need to push people down even more, and it goes on like that…

            7. Spyros
              I am sooo glad that you put your picture here! I know that it is an evaluation, also know that me sees what me is creating but looking at it, looking at your eyes I see humility…you may say how the hell do I see it, as what is there is ‘black, grey and white’…hm. something is coming through which I resonate with, that I call ‘humility’.
              I went to your blog. Just a quick look, will read what you write there. Are you sure about ‘Choose your illusions?’ How do you mean it?

            8. Hi Marianne. Thanx. I think I understand what you mean by humility.

              Now, we’re one big happy family with pictures huh? 😛 I put the picture mostly because I thought that for some I might appear like more of a stranger or a mysterious unknown whatever without them knowing how I look like.

              When i use ‘illusion’ and ‘illusionist’, I use it with a different meaning than the ones used in dictionaries. In the PDC ‘illusion’ meant ‘that which is created by oneself for oneself’ (to perceive), and ‘delusion’ meant that which is created by another for oneself to perceive. So, it just means imagination, mock ups. I think one should be able to choose those, yes 🙂

            9. spyros

              ‘Now we are one big family with pictures’ HaHa…won’t tell you how many things came to mind after reading this! Just laughing here, just laughing! Living on this planet is incredible….

  9. One needs to look at what really brings about gains in Scientology and what doesn’t.

    Hubbard basically gave birth to a method of ‘guided meditation’, which provided quick results. A person left to meditate or contemplate by himself may take a long time before he starts to get some results. However, when guided by a Scientology process the chances of getting a result improve.

    From a scientific perspective, Hubbard’s primary contribution was to come up with a shot-gun method that eked out a quick result from meditation or contemplation. His approach was to put a person through a battery of pre-defined processes to guide his contemplation. This greatly improved the chances that one of those processes may be appropriate for the person’s case, thus yielding a fantastic result quickly.

    But what really gets the result in contemplation is mindfulness. Whenever there are results in Scientology, the elements of mindfulness are present. Hubbard’s shot gun method seemed to provide occasions when a process matched the mindfulness of the person and provided the result. But Hubbard’s method did not specifically work with a person’s mindfulness. So results became spotty and seem to diminish after a while. Not knowing the right reason Hubbard got into more complexities up to a point that the subject of Scientology became more harmful than beneficial.

    Beyond that Hubbard had other fish to fry which further messed up the subject of Scientology.

    .

    1. It’s like looking at the hagiographies of Hubbard with objectivity. So many lies. But the major point is: the word ‘Scientology’ existed before Hubbard coined it. The fundaments of Dianetics existed before Dianetics. The meaning of actual Scientology is not Scientology, not even then. A failed attempt as it best. Then, a Church is represented on all of his members like a body.
      So, if Scientology “is not Scientology”, the early methods were the best attempt possible of something unconclusive, and the actual Church we see is an insane corporation that’s not doing any good. Why do somebody would still care about Scientology?
      I mean, if everyone wants to take the useful and functional stuff that remains inside the Scientology system, or even study and dispel doubts with rigurous science on the uncertain parts of its technology, wouldn’t be the first step leaving Scientology once and for all?

      Wouldn’t be it? Wouldn’t be then taking the subject with intellectual honesty and corresponding seriousness?
      Suppose we take the good stuff of Scientology, Why we still would have to name it like that? Why we still would be related to Scientology somehow? Why in the freaking world we still would be attached to Scientology?

      I take that if Scientology is so sunk and drowned, we just take what is still floating and moving. What is that objectively speaking? Guess guesser!

  10. I came across something last night that explains so very much. It was a speech on December 4th 1983 given by David Mayo. For years I was told that he was declared an SP because he altered tech. I’ve listened to this speech and it certainly does not sound like someone who wants to suppress individuals, but instead makes a point on how important it is to have the tech be pure. Mayo was LRH’s own choice for his auditor, he trusted him this much and what I’ve read is that Mayo even saved Ron’s life at one time. Mayo was chosen by Ron to preserve the tech, this alone should tell you that LRH didn’t ever think he was an SP. Once LRH was off the scene DM declared him and threw him off lines, then made it difficult for him to survive in his own group trying to deliver LRH’s bridge to freedom. I encourage anyone who wonders what went wrong with you not getting the spiritual gains as was promised, anyone who has had ill effects from getting auditing by the Church, such as still having headaches aches and pains, to listen to Mayo’s recordings and then form your own opinion. It is very interesting, to say the least. You can find it here near the bottom of the page: http://freezoneearth.org/downloads/files.html

    And here is proof of altered tech: http://aidathomas.wordpress.com/contact-aida/

    1. I’ve had a few OBE’s myself (described i my book) and also a very interesting time-slow-down that happened while on the Freewinds (also described in the book). And then there are scores of different degrees of telepathy with family members and close friends. Nothing wilder than that.

      1. ‘degrees of telepathy with family members and close friends’

        1. what is the reason for ‘degrees’ ?

        2. what is the reason for only with ‘close’ friends?

        3. after answering the above two questions, do you see anything common in them?

          1. Thanks. I have looked up the definitions of strength. Won’t copy them here, please look them up if you like. Proximity, yes, it communicates to me the degree one creates space. So, as it looks in experience, full telepathy is stopping creating space. Also, the reasons for creating that space. When you have looked up the definitions and also your previous experiences, can we come back to what you find? Would be very interested in it.

            1. Geir
              You said for something ‘ It has been proven to me’. To me it communicates that YOU as AWERENESS shifted by a kind of a ‘switch’ when something which had been hidden now came to be perceived.
              You here write about a time-slow-down which you experienced on the Ship.
              So, it was ‘proven’ to you that it was POSSIBLE. Proven, if you read about it earlier.
              New aware knowing if you did not read about it.

              1. Did you look at what made it possible, what caused the ‘shift of awareness-perception’?

              Change of environment, education and auditing can result in a ‘shift’. I have not been on the Ship but talked to people who worked there then, also to people who
              came back after doing a course. From my observations: clear space, theta, no counter-thought, no counter-intention when in com. Clarity, vibration. From this I ‘concluded’ that the Ship is a ‘place’of higher resonance or can be just pure theta.

              2. Did you communicate about the slow-down of time there?
              3. Did you communicate about that you wanted to experience out-of-body experiences with full perception?
              4. Can it be that had you stayed longer on the Ship, simply by being in that environment you could have had more ‘gains’ (more aware perception shifts)?

              Please answer these questions, I am interested in your view-experiences.

  11. Mister Isene, I see those though questions and I easily see its background. It’s a common thing that the questions that we would like to be asked will not be what actually the people are asking.
    But I’m sure about the question N°5, that if you are on some kind of a quest of informing and revealing the Scientology issues, or just sharing your own thoughts about the subject and by your experience, then you are not done yet and won’t be. While Scientology still remains as a hot spot, while people still maintain flamewars and discussions about it, while there still be unsolved stuff and puzzled stuff, you will be holding your space and expanding on it. isn’t?

    1. Perhaps. Or – as I state in the OP, I do this as long as it is fun 😀

      BTW; Welcome, you have been active with good comments here while I was asleep.

      1. Of course, free will prevails. I was just suggesting a human trend to accumulating responsibility and then being pressed by the weight of its own ice-ball. Most of people works upon a “guilty program”, making amends by leading followers into the right path, or advising them the wrong path to real illumination/gains/good living. It’s not your case, for what it seems. I’m a kind of a person who says “to the hell with what people interprets upon me and what they do as consequence”.

  12. Scientology works and Geir Isene is the proof of that fact. So he says.

    Scientology works like any other hard drug. Through addiction it slowly brings its users ( practitioners ) on their knees. Those who are strong ( and intelligent ) enough to stop their addiction are sentenced to a lifetime of craving to their drug of choice. In Geir’s case this is the incredible high that occurs after each Scientology Auditing session.

    Geir’s high production of Scientology writing ( two books and a blog ) is just his way of dealing with those cravings and the boredom of a trivial life. Being an ITIL consultant can’t be as ‘exciting’ ( read: is boring ) as Clearing The Planet, salvaging this Sector of the Galaxy, or whatever his Game was. In Scientology one playes Real Games, there is no RPG that can beat that thrill, they don’t come even close.

    What Geir really needs is your support and protection from freezone predators, despite his boasting about being an OT-8 and positioning himself as a different, special case. He is just a ( recovering ) Scientologist, one of many, afraid to confront his real problems.

    Tough enough for you, Geir?

    1. You try. Unfortunately you fail. First of all, there is no question in there. Secondly, the very premise of your comment is wrong. You say “Scientology works and Geir Isene is the proof of that fact. So he says.” Well, I don’t say that. So, before trying so hard to be tough, you should read up a bit more.

      I like tough. But I also like intelligent. Try again.

      BTW; Welcome 🙂

    2. I really laughed at the ‘freezone predators’ part. I can’t help it. Yes, I know them. lol

      1. Scientology expects OTs to make a seven figure income at least considering what they expect in event attendance, donations for services and IAS donations. OTs often leave for the simple reason they can no longer afford it ( not that they will ever admit it of course ). They are the prey for the predators are after.

  13. Geir

    The above comment is very close to what I see reading your post again.
    When does one ask oneself questions that others do not ask? My answer is when one 1. knows some stuff in oneself which one does not expose to others. Knows both the question(s) and the answer(s). Others feel that something is still ‘hidden’, so they come up with their best to put it into light. They succeed and fail. So, there is motion like in a game. 2. one hides, even from oneself those very questions which, if asked, would resolve the puzzle. Or questions (regarding scientology, the games you play in life). Kind of waiting for someone to come and ask them. But the ‘right’ person does not come. So one puts out and puts out whatever is there.
    For me the first looks to be a ‘game master’ position, the second also but one hides from oneself that one is a game master in it

    Is there any truth in the above?

    Common sense writes: ‘while there will be unsolved stuff and puzzled stuff, you will be holding your space and expanding on it’. ‘Holding ‘your’ space and expanding on it’. Right there is the root of separation, the root of dividedness, the root of duality: space. With that less life, less fire stuff, less challenges.

    Is there any truth in it?

  14. me: The subject of Scn in itself has so many contradictions, and I think that the “tough” questions are a phenomenon of it. I think the contradictions are woven into the subject and cannot easily be solved and they are, at least, an insult to human intellect .

    Geir: I believe that every person should be able to make informed decisions about whatever they may decide to get involved in. Informed decisions require open access to all relevant information – both the good and the bad. I do not believe in hiding or not revealing anything bad or good in a subject that may come so close to your mind and spirit as Scientology. All information should be freely accessible on the Net, and through discussions, people can learn and avoid harmful involvements and make use of what they think will help them.

    me: I was benefiting very much from what you mentioned above. Besides that I found it interesting what you thought and what you communicated and questioned, by this I could also sort out many things in my mind.
    Thank you for your “public service”! 🙂

  15. What I find rather funny is that the lower a person is on the Bridge the more that person tends to defend Scientology. I guess that’s because their clinging on to a huge HOPE of gaining super power. The further up the Bridge one goes the HOPE, dreams and promises are fading. It’s rare to see OT7s and OT8s defend Scientology. Why? Because they know they only got a small bit of that dream that kept them on the Bridge from the beginning. Scientology is over-promised under-delivered one-size-fits-all ponzi scheme founded by a con man. Period! 😀

    1. Annette, you … are … so …. SO … HOT when you talk ponzu scheme.

      ((SHAKES HEAD TO CLEAR IT))

      Okay. I’m better.

      Sorry. Lost if for a minute there. You may now return to the program you have been watching.

  16. Geir

    Can one inform without agreeing to creating the thing one is informing of?

    Can one inform without agreeing to creating the opposite of the thing one is informing of?

  17. Here’s a tough question for you that you never answered (pulling “a Vinnie” on me ;))

    I had commented that “…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.”

    Your reply was “If I think about it, the Grade 0 EP is objective and “Cause over life” means nothing.”

    So let me ask again, when you attested to the purif, or Grade 0 or any of the other objective EP, did you base it on any kind of proof or did you have a knowingness that you had achieved the EP?

    1. Marildi: So let me ask again, when you attested to the purif, or Grade 0 or any of the other objective EP, did you base it on any kind of proof or did you have a knowingness that you had achieved the EP?

      Chris: Asking someone if they have a “knowingness” about what they once knew is completely redundant. Like does Kim Kardashian have a “knowingness” about the husbands that she takes. Of course people “have a knowingness” at all times about things. This is not evidence to use against their present point of view. “knowingness” is not evidence of an objective truth. Praise Jesus! You see, I know that I know that I know that I’m going to heaven when I die. (humor)

  18. Okay. Then let me ask you one other thing. How exactly did you come to “have faith, confidence, or trust”?

    Was there some sort of analysis or such on your part? Like, did you decide that because you felt so keyed out you must have achieved the EP? Or was there really no thought-out conclusion or analytical basis for the confidence you had that you had done so?

  19. That’s all I mean to say too. To me, “It FELT right” falls under Knowingness. And yes, of course it’s subjective – it’s your universe, no one else’s. It seems to me that when a person is at knowingness about something, it’s a reflection of his own universe – which he is in “contact” with. So you are right, it’s subjective. There’s no other way to “measure” it.

    You even gave a kind of “proof” that you had the Grade 0 EP in that you could demonstrate the truth of it. But what possible way could science do such a thing? You would have to be followed around and tested (somehow) for the rest of your life/lives. You made this same point in a recent comment of yours, which I think was in the context of the EP of “Cause over Life.” That too a person could “feel” they had achieved, IMHO.

    1. Excellent. You have validated the Bait & Switch in the very foundations of the Bridge. Because LRH promises real, objective gains from doing the Bridge – and lots of it. And then all the EPs are in fact subjective. This is looking more and more like a trap to me.

      1. Why do you say LRH promises “real, objective gains”? Where? Do you mean things like the EP of Grade 0, for example? Then we would have to be very literal about it and ignore the fact that the EP is wholly in the context of the pc’s own personal reality – what he “feels” or Knows. The only “objective” test of it might be the meter phenomena – but there again, it’s a matter of what is going on in the pc’s own universe.

        1. Oh Marildi… What objective promises did LRH give for the State of Clear? And Freedom from overwhelm on OT 3 – can so easily be put to test. How about the very real OT abilities he promised oh so many places. That was the Bait. The subjective EPs the Switch. Classic B&S.

          1. These are too big of subjects to even begin to address in a single exchange. But in general, one thing I can say is that, yes, as his research continued, LRH had to take back some of the things he had previously posited. And another thing is that the OT levels were sabotaged by others, per my understanding, including OT VII and VIII. As for OT III, LRH even wanted to eliminate that per both Marty and Dan Koon. With NOTs, in the beginning it was supposed to be a “special rundown” – and the original OT levels, which aimed at drilling OT abilities, were never canceled. I trust that after you do them you will no longer have such a failed purpose.

            1. Interesting switch, Marildi. You see, I don’t have any failed purpose in this as I didn’t have a clear purpose to begin with. Nice try, though 😉

            2. I must be thinking of someone else – who though he was going to be able to exteriorize with full perception and to have full whole track recall. 😉

            3. That is my current purpose – one that I realize Scientology cannot deliver. I didn’t have that as a purpose for the Bridge in the first place. Nope. No failed purpose. It’s only a failure if you give up. And I am searching elsewhere for those gains.

            4. BTW; Marildi, thank you for this discussion. I have gained a new level of understanding about an aspect of the Bridge – and I updated the Bait & Switch blog post (the OP) to reflect this.

            5. Yes, I agree. And if you look away from harm perpetrated to others you will not find it. Nor will you be able to help those that suffers. Or if you stop searching for truth you will not find that either. Science is built on the premise of LOOKING to FIND. It is of course neverending as proven by Kurt Gödel.

            6. Sometimes I read too much into things. In this case, though Godel didn’t specifically comment on fractals or in his day, iterations; and since Benoit Mandelbrot’s work with iterations resulting in his work and coining the term fractals, he did not comment upon incompleteness — even so I feel these two are intimately associated. It seems the results of these two works support one another. And it seems that Heisenberg’s uncertainty supports your comments about discrete time intervals.

            7. Geir: “And if you look away from harm perpetrated to others you will not find it. Nor will you be able to help those that suffer.”

              And if you also look at things like the Dror Center – an Independent Scientology organization – and the incredible things that are happening there, which Hemi told about on your “Bait and Switch” blog thread…

              And the fabulous gains of Marty’s pcs quoted on this blog post: http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2013/10/12/comal-county-texas/

              You need to mention those things too and not be one-sided – if you want to “be able to help those that suffer.”

            8. You made a point of not “looking away” from harm if you want to help others, and I don’t disagree. My point was that neither should you “look away” from the good that is being done – which you seem to think is merely “bloating” your blog posts. This doesn’t add up, even as a scientific attitude.

            9. No need to repeat. I already did look at it and it merely confirmed what I had stated – i.e. you are continuously presenting an incomplete picture and to that degree, it isn’t truth and puts out a false picture.

            10. And I love it that my point has not been refuted by you. Because you can’t.

            11. Just testing your need to get the last word, Marildi. Cheer up! 🙂

              (knowing you cannot help but reply to this comment 😉 )

            12. “Just testing your need to get the last word, Marildi.”

              LOL – who do you think you are kidding with that lame excuse? 😉

              The thing that is actually being tested is your ability to have a discussion and… well, what can I say. It seems that with Vinnie, the overt doth speak loudly in accusation.

              “Cheer up!”

              Actually, I’m quite cheerful already. You made my day with your obvious attempt to duck out, the usual thing you do when you have nothing of any substance to say.

              “(knowing you cannot help but reply to this comment 😉 )”

              That’s one of the usual tactics too, an attempt to get me to shut up – and/or just trying to make me look bad for debunking what you’ve said. Intention speaks louder than words. 😛

            13. Marildi: And I love it that my point has not been refuted by you. Because you can’t.

              Chris: They can and they have. You simply won’t look at it.

            14. Geir to Marildi: “And if you look away from harm perpetrated to others you will not find it. Nor will you be able to help those that suffer.”

              Chris: Actually, this is pivotal wisdom that he’s shared. A sincere acknowledgement at this point from you to him demonstrating your “duplication” of his comm would be not only appropriate but would show an additional dimension to you that you currently do not show. An ack not instantly followed up with “. . . but, . . . ” could demonstrate the fact of a discussion rather than that of a neverending argument ad nauseum

            15. “…demonstrate the fact of a discussion rather than that of a neverending argument ad nauseum.”

              Why don’t you show me how it’s done? At least I try. You aren’t even trying. Your comments to me are nothing but continuous, self-righteous criticism and preaching. Ad nauseum.

              Seriously – I challenge you to set an example and show me how it’s done.

            16. Marildi: People find what they’re LOOKING for.

              Chris: Truth is in the eye of the beholder. My own OT goal is not to find truth as I have that with me every moment. My own OT goal is to discover deeper levels of seeing things as they objectively are even if that results in the dissolution of myself. Since I am looking for this, do you suppose I will find it?

            17. ‘Science is built on the premise to find’ (Geir). And to find is based on the belief that there is something. The ‘there’ is based on the belief that space exists.

      2. Geir: This is looking more and more like a trap to me.

        Chris: See? I told you LRH stole all the implanting materials on the whole track from Elizabeth and used them as the master manipulator of all time. Now I have a knowingness and a feelingness both.

        1. Chris You are making up that that LRH stole implanting material from me.. That statement is a pure made up crap by you… a total lie… I just don’t get it why you are making up things as you go along?

    2. A bit irrelevant, but not totally: Objective with the meaning that is given outside SCN, does not exist in SCN.

      “If you had two thetans standing on the same head of the pin looking at the same room, you’ve got two different viewpoints of that room. You actually see two different rooms. There are as many MEST universes as there are people, as there are animals—just as many.”

      1. Not irrelevant at all. Scientology is a practice based on a philosophy of subjectivism. And interestingly – that’s Geir’s philosophy too, as per his “On Will” article.

            1. Right. You are a wild man. Definitely out of contact with any kind of known reality. 😛

        1. Marildi: Not irrelevant at all. Scientology is a practice based on a philosophy of subjectivism. And interestingly – that’s Geir’s philosophy too, as per his “On Will” article.

          Chris: You made that up. Scientology is a science of the mind with the only answers and the only hope for mankind.

            1. Valkov: and who made this up? 🙂

              Chris: The only valid opinion in the universe, L. Ron Hubbard, that’s who. Now go to Ethics where you will be beaten until you learn this physical universe law and cease frying so many other fish.

  20. There are definitely arbitraries (I don’t want to analyze the same again).

    I think one can take responsibility for himself and use -or not- whatever in SCN he sees fit. That way he will be responsible for himself, and then it shouldn’t matter whose fault it will be either, as it will be his fault, if it will be.

    I only spent around 3 years in that Church and I had my worst SCN times ever. The only thing that made it good, were some nice people that hung around there, and I liked that we had what we had in common. Some times I even volunteered (work) just to spend time with them. Generally, I’ve been pretty lonely with regards to SCN. I don’t hang around with any people involved with SCN nor SPT that live around here. I only talk about it here or in Marty’s, if I do. Regardless of the nice people, the SCN culture was never for me, really. I’m quite laid back and I enjoy doing silly stuff that SCNists would find nonsensical, I suppose. And I don’t like to call my girlfriend ‘2D’ –for God’s sake!!! And I’m not such an analytical, organised person either. I like a little chaos and whatever comes, to play with 😛

  21. Black or White vs. Black and White

    There is no just Black or White in reality.
    However – sometimes we have the urge to see something just Black or White. And we tend to resist agains data which do not fit into this concept (cognitive dissonance).

    Ask the official Church about its dark sides. You will hear that there is none.
    Ask Tony Ortega or the world-wide media about the positive about Scientology. You will hear that there obviously is none, that Scientology is a scam altogether.

    While being in the Church, at one point all of us became aware that there is positive AND negative. And at some point almost all of us could overcome the cognitive dissonance problem and were ready to admit that Positive and Negative could peacefully exist beside one-another.

    This is true for LRH, the tech as well as the Church of Scientology.
    And for a few it is also true for evaluating DM.

    Interesting: Also LRH admits that there is positive AND negative. However, when being in doubt he recommends to sit down and make a final decision as who is friend and who is enemy, who needs to be supported and who should be fought against.

    Without being aware of that I did exactly that.

    I decided that even though the Church helps one or the other – like it helped e.g. Geir – the harmful side dominates. Therefore the organization ‘Church of Scientology’ needs to be dismantled.

    And what about those Geirs who take or could take profit from the positive side of Scientology? They are free to take auditing outside of the Church, paying a lot less for any service.

    My question to Tony Ortega (and other critics):
    Certainly you know very very much about Scientology and without doubt you are a very intelligent person. Do you believe the world is just Black OR White? Why aren’t you able to overcome the ‘cognitive dissonance’ obstacle?
    How would you feel if you admitted that one or the other Scientology tool was helpful?

    1. I think differentiating oneself from the Institution and what represent is a good start. People defend themselves, their gains and their potential improvements, and so they will defend the hope and promises of that. When people are not seeing consequences, they are not seeing. Period.

      And the positive-negative is always a judgement on present time, like a generally outcome. It cannot be taken out of context. The dichotomies relies on specifics. Both positive or negative cannot coexist on the same instance. It’s like believing both a lie and a truth at the same level. If that is not double-think from ‘the IngSoc’, what is then?

      Subjects like Scientology at the way you put it deserves to be completely dismantled to the last tiny piece, every area and process. Deserve the application of Complexity theory. Then, after every bit has passed through the filter of multi-disciplinary science, then and only then: what will stands as a truth will always have been truth, until expanded further or at least remains falsifiable.

      1. Good posts. I would not use the word deserve. But if a person were very highly trained in both the scientific method and Scientology, had unlimited resources of both money and time, and no bias, they are free to do this. You possibly?

        1. I use “deserve” because of the social relevance. Otherwise, it is just unfair.
          And even if I could give it a try, hey, I won’t be the right person because I didn’t pass trough all the bridge, take all the processes, see all the angles, and I don’t have the resources as to pay for all Scientology’s delivering and I don’t have the time for maintaining blogs like this. I was just like a meme I saw recently, it was the picture of a sad dog and the letter says “I joined Scientology because I thought it meant I believe in science”. lol
          I could give a f**k trying to prove Scientology, but it is odd to me that indies and freezoners, or ex-scns, aren’t really doing it. Maybe because they need the ‘highly trained in the scientific’ part as the most relevant. And real scientists doesn’t seem to be interested. The following image fits perfect to this concept, it should be read: ‘Scientology is 100% scientifically compatible with sciences.’

  22. I apologize in advance for being a little off-topic with this contribution:

    Recently Tory Magoo made the attempt to explain within five or ten minutes to someone who has no idea about the subject at all: “What is Scientology?”
    And she came forward with her approach.

    If I had an English blog which was frequented by lots of people I’d ask that question and start a sort of contest for the best answer. (only participants would be allowed to vote).

    Maybe somebody will pick up this idea.
    I believe it would illuminate the complex subject of Scientology from all its sides, bringing a lot of clarity.

  23. marilidi and Geir,

    I was very interested in the discussion which started on the previous thread, between marildi and Geir, on th e topic of “EPs”.

    What totally baffles me is how Geir was allowed to attest to completing OTVII apparently 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” through 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” for whatever reason.

    This seems like a “tacit consent” situation in which both sides (Geir and the CS) were complicit in letting Geir slip through short of actual full attainment. Or, perhaps Geir already had that ability, of being “cause over life”, when he started the level? I wonder about that since in his previous write-ups of what he got the most out of, on the Bridge, he did not mention Clear, but did mention OTII and I believe one of the levels above that. So what was Geir’s “case state” when he started up the Bridge, relative to the EPs the Bridge is supposed to deliver?

    In the above mentioned thread, Geir stated that he did not do the Bridge for its EPs. What does this imply?

    Did Geir pull a fast one on the CoS? 🙂

    To me, this discussion opens up the potential to discuss topics such as “What are EPs?” – What did LRH mean by it? – “How do I know when I have attained one?” – How does the C/S know when I have attained it?

    These kind of questions go to the heart of the relationship between “internal” and “external”, subjective and objective. And what is the relationship between those realms of existence, the “inner” and the “outer”? Also, what processes of validation can we apply to these areas of existence?

    1. Val: “To me, this discussion opens up the potential to discuss topics such as “What are EPs?” – What did LRH mean by it? – “How do I know when I have attained one?” – How does the C/S know when I have attained it?”

      Yes, great discussion points. It seems to me now that they are key to understanding a lot about Scientology. I hadn’t much thought about it before, but in the exchange with Geir it crystallized for me that even though the majority of the EP’s seem to be stated in an objective way, the pc is attesting to it being TRUE FOR HIM and in his universe. It’s that simple. And the way he KNOWS it is true for him is just that – a knowingness. Objective evidence can sometimes be seen too – such as with Geir stating that he was able to demonstrate the EP of Grade 0 in the physical universe. But the basic answer to “How do I know when I have attained the EP?” is – you’ll simply KNOW it when you “see it.”

      As for how the C/S knows, there again it’s essentially by the pc’s indicators when attesting, corroborated by the meter phenomena – which, to me, is objective evidence of the pc’s subjective knowingness. Objective proof of GAINS probably can and should be done as regards some things, like improved IQ, but I don’t think there is a single EP that can be proved objectively. And trying to limit EP’s to objective descriptions or proof would miss the essence of the tech. Some things are outside the realm of science.

      1. Clarification on this sentence: “As for how the C/S knows, there again it’s essentially by the pc’s indicators when attesting…” Should have said:

        As for how the C/S knows, per the tech it is by pc indicators and meter phenomena. So here again it is purely a matter of the pc’s own universe and his knowingness – demonstrated to the auditor and C/S by his good indicators, and corroborated by the meter phenomena which gives a kind of objective evidence OF the pc’s subjective knowingness.

        1. OK. I gotcha. There is one validation element missing from that. You enumerated a couple of “objective” indications of an EP having been reached by the pc. However the heart of validation of “inner” or subjective phenomena is based on on Communication. WE are not isolated “monads”, each living in his/her own solipsistic little world. WE are also participants with each other in shared realities.
          Co-creators. That dimension is created and validated by communication.

          How does this apply to validation or verification of EP achievement?
          One of the elements is communication. “Indicators” and Meter reads are the “external”, empirical or objective signs. But if the person does not communicate a validating thought or “cognition”, the verification cannot be complete. And I believe this is part of the verification of any EP per LRH. An example is “the Clear cognition”. Isn’t it an expected part of the confirmation of the pc’s attainment of the state?

          Thus if a person doesn’t voice (or perhaps otherwise communicate) the realization, why not? Part of the confirmation of the attainment of the EP is missing. Thus attesting to “no more bts” is not the same as attesting to “Cause over Life”. So what’s up with Geir and OTVII, then? Shouldn’t someone have attempted to confirm his completion of the level? Ha ha ha. My guess is they Q&Aed. Geir’s beingness and postulates won. Good job Geir! Way to finesse them.

          1. Yes, of course! In my description, I had already gone past the pc’s knowingness having been expressed in session and was just looking at the attest cycle. The pc had already had a cog in session and that got him sent to the Examiner to attest – which is the final “test” of how the C/S knows for sure the pc made it. And you’re right – it’s not just his/her own solipsistic world, which some critics like to make it into.

            The thing Geir wrote about attesting to “no more BT’s” is another topic altogether. Why wouldn’t he or so many others have protested that this isn’t what’s on the Grade Chart?

            1. The answer to that question could lay on either end of the comm formula between the pc/pre-OT and the auditor/CS on the other end, or both. Briefly, “not on the same page”.

              The critical factor, according to Wilbur, in verification of subjective matters, is honesty and integrity on both sides. If there is any lie, that subjective duplication cannot occur. It can get pretty tricky when one person does not even realize s/he is lying.

              Thus the “objective” indicators are pretty important. However since it apparently true that a person can be cause over his own Emeter reads, that has its limitations.

              I suspect one reason for pcs being ‘passed’ short of achievement of the full EP of a process might be the incessant “stat push” that has existed in the orgs, especially at Flag. If stats MUST always go up, then they must somehow be made to go up, and honest application of tech goes out the window. CYA.

            2. “Thus the ‘objective’ indicators are pretty important. However since it apparently true that a person can be cause over his own Emeter reads, that has its limitations.”

              Well, there you go – again there’s a lie. And that is the only limitation, as far as I can see.

              We need Geir to give us more data about that EP of “no more BT’s” as opposed to what’s stated on the Bridge.

            3. This old collection of particles will have to go to bed soon. Got a busy “day” (I don’t get up until 2 or 3 PM) tomorrow. That means up to 3 errands for me! And visiting a couple of hours with my grandkids.

            4. Marildi: Well, there you go – again there’s a lie. And that is the only limitation, as far as I can see.

              Chris: Would you say this is an important limitation?

            5. Valkov: I suspect one reason for pcs being ‘passed’ short of achievement of the full EP of a process might be the incessant “stat push” that has existed in the orgs, especially at Flag.

              Chris: Yes, or another reason is that there is not clearly an EP. LRH never finished arguing with himself about this, blaming auditors and organizations for quickie etc., when in fact it’s possible is it not that there is no such thing as Clear? No such thing as a “reactive bank?” Is this possible?

            6. Marildi: The thing Geir wrote about attesting to “no more BT’s” is another topic altogether. Why wouldn’t he or so many others have protested that this isn’t what’s on the Grade Chart?

              Chris: Based on your own handling of problems with Scientology, predict what Geir’s result would have been.

          2. The joy of relief from glimpsing a hope that Geir perhaps may be rendered less of an OT VII completion seems to get a bit of a hold on Valkov 🙂 Resembling the True Scottsman Fallacy, perhaps? Except I came out as squeeking clean of anything more to run on VII as was heavenly possible. I truly exhausted that level for all that it was worth – every tiny corner of it. Does the level then produce “Cause over life”? Who knows. I have yet to see anyone who has a clear grasp of what that even means.

            1. If it is Source, even knowing is junior to it. So perhaps what you say ‘who knows’ is relevant as there is no ‘who’ in Source.

        2. marildi, the LRH you posted on the previous thread: “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 onthe 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.”

          This was always one of the most meaningful to me of things I had ever read. It goes right to the heart of the matter.

          Evidently perception of the subjective universes of others is one of the current cultures heaviest taboos. Or else the ability simply has not evolved to be common. That is not my belief, but it might be Ken Wilbur’s for example. Can’t say for sure as I haven’t finished his book yet. However the idea of “conscious evolution” is not new. It sometimes does not mention or consider the possibility of a previous “devolution”, which is where LRH was coming from. The 2 worldviews may actually dovetail, as Wilbur presents a fundamental concept he calls the Kosmos, which he considers is evolving itself. Actually it sounds a lot like Static, or Theta, becoming increasingly conscious as it evolves to higher states of consciousness by increasingly organizing MEST.

          1. “This was always one of the most meaningful to me of things I had ever read. It goes right to the heart of the matter.”

            Ditto! Did you read the comment posted a few days ago by Barney, where he quoted Pierre Ethier’s article about the OT levels up through OT XV. These are the ones that are actually on the Bridge. Here’s the highlights of Pierre’s article in my own words, from OT VIII through XII:

            OT VIII handles Amnesia on the Whole Track.

            OT IX deals with the Universe of Others.

            OT X takes up the subject of postulates.

            OT XI – remote viewing (i.e. exteriorization at will with perception).

            “OT XII – At this Level, one starts to have a new understanding and viewpoint of the Physical Universe and its components: Matter, Energy, Space and Time. New notions about time are part of this level. One of the things discovered on this level is that the flow of Time is not a constant and that time actually is flowing faster today than on the early track. This level revolutionizes most people’s understanding about Physics. A whole new concept about the Future opens up.”

            There it is – that very excerpt from CoHA that you quoted again. It seems that it is fully realized with those particular OT Levels. Here’s the link to the comment that Barney posted: https://isene.me/2013/02/11/my-scientology-enigma/#comment-47372

            1. Thanks marildi! It makes sense to me that time passed differently, when “time” is defined as speed of particle flow. I see it over the course of a single lifetime. I am getting “old and slow”. Back when we could shoot particles around at furious rates and volumes, we could perceive a whole lot of action happening in just a few moments. And still have the rest of the day left for lots more action.

            2. Marildi: It seems that it is fully realized with those particular OT Levels.

              Chris: This comment fits better on the “bait and switch” thread. Nothing at all has been realized with these imaginary OT levels. Imaginary on two levels: 1. that they exist, and 2. that they would produce what you’ve written which by the way is addressed at every level of auditing.

        3. cut and paste: ” . . . and corroborated by the meter phenomena which gives a kind of objective evidence OF the pc’s subjective knowingness.”

          Chris: The meter is not providing objective evidence of what the PC knows. It seems to corroborate the PC’s pleased moment such as the feeling one gets during each lick of an ice cream cone they have been craving.

      2. Marildi: It’s that simple. And the way he KNOWS it is true for him is just that – a knowingness.

        Chris: You are right about this showing that EPs are tautology leading nowhere. Being “saved” in evangelical Christianity has the same EP = “Know that you know that you know that you know.” It is pure confirmation bias and meaningfully stated tautology on every flow of the social structure of these religions.

    2. Valkov: Regarding attesting to OT VII; LRH promises “Cause over life” (bait), what you actually attest to is that you cannot find more BTs to run (switch). And sure as hell, I couldn’t find any more to run (as validated by the EP check etc.).

      1. Also; Attesting to something like “Cause over life” seems very unreal – as it means so many different things to so many people. It’s nebulous and unattestable. What exactly does it mean to you?

        1. It’s classic Hubbard.

          It looks like it would be an amazing and wonderful state and in my frame of reference it would mean whatever it happened to mean to me. For Geir it would mean something different, for Chris something different again. This forms the bait.

          You simply cannot quantify or even accurately describe “Cause Over Life” in any meaningful way. Right now at this moment in time sitting on my couch at 10pm, I have today demonstrated Cause Over Life. I made it through the day and we call that moment to moment experience Life. I did not die nor blow my brains out now piss anyone of unduly, I even got some work done. To that degree I am Cause. I must have been Cause Over Life as without some input from me, this human would not have moved or got out of bed.

          I completely fufilled the description of Cause Over Life and have done so every day for some 17,750 days. Now some might argue that I didn’t do enough, or wasn’t causative enough or for long enough or to the required degree. But, and this is important, that is NOT what the statement says. It says Cause Over Life, it does NOT say Cause Over Life to the degree of

          Oh and BTW, we measure attainment of Cause Over Life by actually attesting to No More BTs. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, who said one equates to the other? And here we have the switch.

          But all of this is immaterial, as it completely misses the fundamental important question:

          Do the Grade Chart EPs even mean anything AT ALL? Every Scientologist has assumed they do, just assumed they are the exact result of an exact process much like how Science predicts exact results. The tape Standard Tech Defined even has Hubbard clearly and in no uncertain terms say that is how it works. So we all believed him and proceeded as if the EPs meant something. I doubt that is true at all.

          I think the EPs are bullshit (as in snake oil) or at best the fiction of a mind that simply did not understand how stuff works. And Hubbard quite demonstrably did not understand much about how stuff works other than how to get people to do what he wanted. I’ve looked over all the Grade Chart EPs and every single one of them works the way Cause Over Life works out – you can’t even describe how they are much less attest to them.

            1. hehehehe, yes boss, OK boss 🙂

              I have a tough question for you:

              How would you explain the reported phenomena of exteriorization?

              I have my own answer on that, we can compare notes 🙂

            2. Geir, you need to clear up Splog’s MU on “life.” He obviously hasn’t read the relevant excerpts in this thread, from the NOTs materials.

            3. Other than

              a) living biological things
              b) the process of existing from moment to moment in a continuum
              c) thetans (whatever those are)

              what other possible definitions could there be for Life?

            4. Hi Splog, I thought you had sworn off blog posting. I haven’t smartened up that much, myself. 😉

              Well, I posted all the definitions of “life” from the tech dictionary and a regular English dictionary definition:

              “The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter…:

              But you will have to do the homework and read the excerpts so you can see for yourself what LRH meant by “Cause over life.” It’s pretty clear to anyone who is able to push aside any predisposed considerations. (hint hint :))

            5. I can’t look it up in the Tech Dictionary anymore, I throw all my Hubbard materials in the trash heap 4 weeks ago.

              You posted 6 definitions of Life. All of them are variations of my a, b & c in some form so I don’t see why we have to argue about what definition Hubbard meant. When he said Life he meant Life and by Life he meant what the English word means.

              “Cause Over Life” is a non-confidential statement on the printed bridge, it’s right there for all to see. You can describe it by it’s corollary if you like: “not the effect of Life”. Now consider where it is on the Bridge – OTVII. The last of the pre-OT levels. The last step of negative gain. The average Scientologist reading it knows up to that point he’s been dealing with removing things he/she is the effect of (comm, problems, fixed conditions, stuck in time and space, whatever OTI to V deal with etc), so quite obviously the only possible reading of “Cause Over Life” is some form of “All that shit totally and completely terminated handled and under my control, forever”. Because OTVIII is the first real OT level right?

              This will mean different things to different people, largely influenced by whatever they reckon they are/were the effect of. And OTVII will bring them to the point where that is no longer the case. And that my dear, is the offer that is on the reg’s table.

              It all makes perfect sense actually if you are building a fantasy castle in the sky. The Bridge is exactly that – it goes somewhere by a gradient. It has to have an end point that the public can grasp for it to be real to them and in this case the only realistic end point is “All the shit before it totally handled and gone”. Within that frame of reference “Cause Over Life” hits the jackpot exactly.

              Hubbard’s blind spot is that he never accounted for people who see through the PR and ask hard questions. He just declared them SP or divorced themor found some other way to make them STFU and go away. So now here we sit and we ARE asking the hard questions. We’re asking “now that at least one of us has made it to the other side of the bridge, what exactly does that phrase mean?”

              Oops. Dorothy just saw the Wizard.

            6. It (the EP) actually cannot mean what you say, about being only “cause” and not “effect” anymore, because in order to be “cause over life” one must be able to manage the Comm Formula, which necessitates that one be able to be “cause” and “effect” at will.

              So it must mean something else. 🙂

              Personally I would be happy with the ability to be “erect” at will, but at my age it’s not so easy……

            7. Splog: “When he said Life he meant Life and by Life he meant what the English word means.”

              Okay, but the English word has several meanings. The excerpts I posted give the context for the EP “Cause over Life” and thereby indicate which definition of “life” is the appropriate one. You don’t have to look through the whole thread – just look at the long, skinny column of posts above and you’ll see this specific discussion.

              Unless of course you would rather stay with Geir’s course in How-to-Make-Hubbard-Wrong-By-Any-Means. 🙂

            8. You must embrace Hubbard’s propaganda by redefinition of words and rely on a confidential issue to be privy of the secret definition of “life” which, by some stretch, could make it all make sense. Follow Marildi’s Make-Hubbard-Right-By-Any-Means-course and you will do just swell, my friend.

            9. ohhhhhh, you mean there’s a hidden data line after all?

              Right-e-o then, gotcha.

            10. Did I miss something over the last 10 weeks or so? Or maybe I just didn;t read the thread enough – 337 posts is pushing it, even for me 🙂

            11. @splog; If we possess free will, then it logically follows that exteriorization can indeed be real (ref. my article, On Will).

            12. Geir: “If we possess free will, then it logically follows that exteriorization can indeed be real (ref. my article, On Will)”

              Me: Fair answer. I’m undecided on free will myself; there is minimally an apparency that I possess it, but of course that doesn’t prove I possess the real McCoy.

              I think exteriorization doesn’t exist as Hubbard passes it off. I think our brains are mapping a 3D model of the world and shifting the viewpoint around. This is not at all far-fetched (everything you see with your eyes is already filtered, photoshopped and remodeled by your brain anyway). How to do it is relatively simple – if you own an XBox you also have many pieces of software that do just that as their prime function. Same with animated movies and Inception.

              Some folk claim they backed out of their head and saw their body from a viewpoint of being on the celing. But you already have enough 3D information to do that anyway, it’s really not hard! Most folk can close their eyes and day-dream the exact same scene in detail.

              I’ve yet to come across anyone relate an exterior experience that isn’t simply and adequately explained as above. I would really love it if someone were to falsify my hypothesis.

            13. Exteriorization has been proven to the degree that police forces and government agencies use remote viewers – some of them even being sent to Mars.

              Fit that into your hypothesis and smoke it. 😛

            14. Cite?

              Proving exteriorization is considerably simpler than having someone view Mars. Just have them read the open book on the table in the next room, or consistently determine how many fingers I’m holding up behind my back.

              Can you do this simple exercise?
              Do you know someone who can?
              Have you ever seen it done?
              Can the person who did it reliably reproduce it?

            15. Sure. I’ll cite one about remote viewers sent to Mars, which will serve the double purpose of debunking all those who scoff at things like what LRH stated about there having been stations on Mars.

              The key point of this video is that the physical data, the NASA photographs, not ever seen by the remote viewers, matched their perceptions as to the existence of an “artificial” (i.e. not geologically natural) structure on Mars. Those remote viewers were highly trained and experienced with extensive track records, and they majorly agreed on this particular point.

            16. I hope you have more than that to offer, as that video, whilst interesting and entertaining, proves nothing. It would only be useful if the remote viewing process had a) already been proven and b) the viewers could be trusted. Neither of those things are established to us yet.

              See, one of the problems when interpreting data from other bodies in the solar system is that we are unfamiliar with how that environment works. We don’t know if the geology is essentially the same as on Earth, we don’t know much about atmospheric conditions there and how to interpret what they mean in photos from orbiting satellites and we usually don’t know what the rocks are made of. The margin for error is huge.

              These chaps may well have viewed underground bunkers on Mars, or perhaps they didn’t. There is no way to validate the claims short of sending another Rover or a manned team there. Or maybe a recon satellite with ground penetrating radar (that technology does exist and is in use around Earth. I don’t know about Mars). So as evidence that remote viewing works, of and by itself your video is worthless. Which brings us back to a) above. That is an experiment that *can* be done and verified.

              Ask someone to view my living room and describe unique objects in it.

              Have you got evidence for something like that?

            17. “It would only be useful if the remote viewing process had a) already been proven and b) the viewers could be trusted. Neither of those things are established to us yet.”

              No, as per the video, those things HAD been established for those particular remote viewers – which is why the military hired them.

            18. p.s. Correction – should say “why the military HIRES them.” At about 3:15 on the video it is pointed out that these particular remote viewers had extensive and verified public track records. And the military does hire that type of remote viewer.

            19. Well, I once backed out of my head and saw everything in the next room that was behind a closed door when I sat down to do the OT TR 0. So, your explanation couldn’t have accounted for that.

            20. Geir: “Well, I once backed out of my head and saw everything in the next room that was behind a closed door when I sat down to do the OT TR 0. So, your explanation couldn’t have accounted for that.”

              Me: Well, it can.

              To verify exteriorization phenomena, the subject must make observations that they could not possibly know by any other means, and it must be verifiable. You could have be in the room at some earlier point and already knew what it looked like.

            21. Geir: So, your explanation couldn’t have accounted for that.

              Chris: Good. So say more and try to account for it — no matter where that leads.

            22. Splog: I would really love it if someone were to falsify my hypothesis.

              Chris: Me too. My best exteriorization experiences were after intensive auditing of say over 36 hours in a single week. At this time, my mind was quite brightly lit up like athletically after exercising. I have had several very wild experiences while lying in bed after such auditing totally wired, even asleep, but mind whirling with possibilities — I don’t know what to call that state of being awake and asleep at the same time, however, I’m guessing I was truly asleep and dreaming I was awake. But quite an alert feeling and travelling. That was before I solo audited. Then I taught myself to solo audit and began getting personal control over the session. All the parts, the meter, the PC, the auditor, the questions, the TRs, the rudiments and my own sanity. No more having auditing held away from me. For those of us who made hard core commitments to doing this but for various reasons stopped short, I highly recommend completing this purpose. On the other hand, I’ve no intention (at this time) of auditing my children or of getting them involved in such a structure as this. It’s almost as if I needed the Scientology to get to a point where I could get rid of the Scientology. However the only traps I seemed to have been snared in were those of the ideology itself. I no longer proselytize nor recommend people “check out” this ideology.

            23. @splog: The exteriorization is well described in my book. Whole scene: I had been in the reception room many times before – this is however not the point. I went in through the practical course room and into the theory course room for roll call. The door between the practical course room and the reception area got closed as usual. We had roll call, did some theory and me and another student went into the practical course room to do OT TR 0. I sat down with my back against the door to the reception area and closed my eyes. During the next 30 minutes or so, a couple of people went through that door, carefully opening it and equally carefully closing it. After about 30 minutes into the drill, I was still sitting there, eyes closed – a person came through the door into the practical course room and went further into the big theory room. That person did not close the door to the reception area. I went exterior – slipped out through the back of my head and saw not only the room I had seen many times before, but the details of every person in that room. People were sitting there doing OCA test – new people off the street. People I had not seen before. And I saw every detail of what they were doing for a few seconds – like what everyone were wearing, even where one person was at in the 200-question test. I snapped into my head, was very puzzled, broke off the training routine that was supposed to last for much longer. I turned around and was astonished to verify exactly what I had seen maybe 10 seconds before. Those exact people in exactly those places, doing exactly what I had just seen through the back of my head. The guy in the red jacket had answered another question on his OCA test in the 10 seconds it tok before I saw him through my eyes. So, splog – this cannot be accounted for by your theory.

            24. Geir…thanks for writing it down here. Great…just great. Will comment more about it later. Please share more of your experiences here. If you like. Thanks.

            25. Geir
              Will you please answer my questions:

              1. Did you communicate it to the SUP?
              2. Did he properly acknowledge it?
              2. Did you go on with OTTR0 until its purpose was accomplished?

          1. Splog: I think the EPs are bullshit (as in snake oil) or at best the fiction of a mind that simply did not understand how stuff works. And Hubbard quite demonstrably did not understand much about how stuff works other than how to get people to do what he wanted.

            Chris: Yes, and some of us are something I will call placebo-prone. I seem to be that way. Partly I think it is my god-given predilection and partly it is a many years long indoctrination growing up into the power of positive thinking. There was a point in my SO experience when dealing with harsh physical conditions, environmental conditions, harsh weather, etc., when I was determined to get in session and so made myself available to anyone anytime and answered cheerfully “yes” to any type of question probing my sessionability. At a point later, in posession of my PC folders I found that at that time my TA per session was something less than average being only maybe a couple divisions of TA per session. Thinking back on that time I was very pleased about those sessions and would have told you then and would still tell you today that my memory of those sessions were of being very happy and pleased with the results. But I can tell you that I could blow down my TA just by picking up the cans so powerful a placebo was auditing to me. I was a true believer and it showed.

            1. Chris: “But I can tell you that I could blow down my TA just by picking up the cans so powerful a placebo was auditing to me. I was a true believer and it showed.”

              Me: That resonates; I’ve come to realize over the last few years that I have an addictive personality (i.e. I’m prone to addiction). If I do something I must do it 100% and 100% of the time. It makes me very good at my job, it also makes me an ideal mark for Scn. Geeks as a group seem especially prone to this.

              It doesn’t take much to get me up to enthusiasm – just maneuver the topic onto something I’m interested in and let me fire up my own rocket. This is exactly what happened in all my good auditing sessions (of which there were many)

      2. But didn’t you say or ask anything about the fact that the Bridge states the specific EP of “Cause over Life”? And thus you should have gained that and asked to attest to it.

        1. I think that anyone upon completing OT VII will be able to attest to it simply because they are on a real high and because “Cause over life” is so nebulous and unattestable. Many would rightfully attest even though their lives went into shambles a few months later or even committed suicide. The bait and switch is insidious.

          1. I would have to say that the amount of out tech committed by the CoS was not only the “bait and switch” but a lot more. I don’t blame the OT’s for being sucked into the trap – the basic insidiousness. But I’m not convinced that LRH laid the trap. Per the references I’ve seen, the NOTs rundowns weren’t even supposed to be OT levels – they were simply “special rundowns.” And the 6-month “refreshers” were done in the middle of a major action – and in the non-interference zone. How can any EP be attained with such out-tech?

            Val and I have been discussing what “Cause over Life” would mean. We’re going about it with open minds and with the intention to try to clear it up. 😉

            Hasta manana. 🙂

            1. Marildi: I would have to say that the amount of out tech committed by the CoS was not only the “bait and switch” but a lot more.

              Chris: I would really agree with this as the out-tech seems to be the Standard Tech of Scientology. Or do you have a different story about your successful results applying this Tech?

            2. Marildi: How can any EP be attained with such out-tech?

              Chris: LRH seems to have run out of ideas after the OTIII fantasy and with the law closing in on him seems to have simply run away leaving his proselytes to guard the castle. It is truly amazing to me that they’ve held on as long as they have. Does anyone else here wonder if LRH were trying to make a new world that he wouldn’t have stood his ground and defended his ideas and motives as the other great leaders in history did?

            3. Not joking at all. I no longer take anything for granted. As the Old Hawaiians used to say, “One man’s meat is another man’s poi, son.”

              Thus I asked for specifics as to WHO you considered to be “great leaders in history”.

            4. Ok, well I admire many of them from recent American history and the world, without being too cliche’ I hope, I will continue . . . There are of course the Founding Fathers of the United States of America who let it all hang out. Abraham Lincoln, who managed a young country going through the delirium tremens of weaning itself of the addiction of slavery and gave all in the process. Dwight Eisenhower, who commanded the largest police force in the history of mankind, Bobby Kennedy who it seems managed his older brother and a world nuclear war crisis that seemed to draw mankind toward destruction that did not occur, both Martin Luther and Martin Luther King who figured out where they wanted to stand on impossible issues and stood firm. The Gandhis: Mahatma, Indira and Rajiv, especially Mahatma who through non-violence defeated and threw off a physically superior military oppression and inspired other great civil rights leaders such as Martin Luther King. All gave all they had for this effort.

              I kind of want to go on as it is stimulating to admire the accomplishments of these great leaders but I guess you get the idea. L Ron Hubbard won’t make any of these lists because even if true as you say that he began with good intentions, he was too flawed and too mixed with avarice and greed and so failed — utterly.

          2. Geir
            1. what do you mean by ‘real high’ , like theta perceptions, abilities…what?
            2. what causes the downslide into shambles, like a surge of considerations, inability to handle them? What?

            1. 1: Like feeling Grrrr8.
              2: Idk. It may simply be that the High isn’t permanent, but I have not observed any impermanence in my own gains yet.

            2. An epiphany on your ‘succint’: no ‘win’, no ‘loss’. As another telling a ‘win’, if it falls on the place of ‘thought’, it can build up expectations, beliefs, even invalidate. Yet, when a ‘win’ is communicated in a way that it does not generate thoughts, it is a win for all. And a win can be told that way. Also a ‘loss’.

        2. Marildi: But didn’t you say or ask anything about the fact that the Bridge states the specific EP of “Cause over Life”? And thus you should have gained that and asked to attest to it.

          Chris: How would you answer this tough question?

      3. OK, I’m hearing you saying that the cognition you were EXPECTED to produce was that you had “no more bts to audit” or something like that. NOT that you felt you were “cause over life”? Is that correct? Does that mean you were “fed” that cognition to have? If so, how was it fed to you?

          1. After not being able to find more BTs, one is asked to attest to this. That’s all. LRH presumably thought that not finding any more “live” BTs on OT3 would equate to “Freedom from overwhelm” and not finding the rest (the dormant BTs) up and including OT 7 would equate to “Cause over life”. That is his hypothesis – unproven, and I may add; quite unfounded and not even an attempted explanation in sight. Rather odd IMO.

            1. Thanks Geir, I appreciate the answer. I think it is very important that the realities of the EP statements on the Grade Chart be known. Evidently they do not correspond with the cognitions people actually have, at least on the upper levels.

              I’m really looking forward to reading your book! That sounds like a wealth of information right there.

            2. It is interesting to me what cognitions and gains people report from the upper OT levels. Especially 8. Most report some version of freedom from past whereas LRH claims it handled amnesia on the whole track, something I believe is false.

            3. That’s an area i can’t contribute to, but am interested in. There have been posts on Marty’s blog over the past 3 years, that there are or have been 3 or 4 different versions of OTVIII done buy the CoS over the years. Of course that only convinced me I would never do OTVIII through the CoS!

              But if true, it would certainly impact the results different people got over the years.

            4. Sure – but in the main OT 8 bulletin, LRH tells what he thinks is the remedy for the cause of amnesia on the whole track. That is another leap of faith, as you would simply have to take his words for it. And there is no way to verify it either.

            5. I do wonder how NOTs went from a rundown for those who needed it before doing the “original” OT levels, to being the supposed OT levels before OTVIII.
              (I don’t expect you to know the answer. That would need to come from someone who was there when that change was made). It is a curiosity of mine, as it was a big alteration of the Chart as I had originally been introduced to it back in the 1970s.

            6. Geir (and Valkov), I asked you in an earlier comment on this subject which definition of “life” you thought was meant in “Cause over life.” You never answered but I was thinking about that again. I’ve been looking through confidential bulletins on the OT levels and found the following:

              “For the purpose of clarity, by BODY THETAN is meant a thetan who is stuck to another thetan or body but is not in control. A THETAN is, of course, a Scientology word using the Greek “Theta,” which was the Greek symbol for thought or LIFE.” (HCOB 5 Feb 70)

              Looking at “Cause over life” using the above idea of “life” would make sense in terms of no longer being at the effect of the “life” of BT’s – or no longer at effect of whatever has been blown, although it may only have been “endowed with life” by the person himself.

            7. That could not possibly be an EP that communicates to anyone reading that non – confidential bulletin where that “EP” was given.

            8. Marildi: Looking at “Cause over life” using the above idea of “life” would make sense in terms of no longer being at the effect of the “life” of BT’s – or no longer at effect of whatever has been blown, although it may only have been “endowed with life” by the person himself.

              Chris: Actually that statement is inconsistent with the definition of a thetan as they are not sticky. They do have hooey but not gooey nor sticky.

            9. Marildi: “For the purpose of clarity, by BODY THETAN is meant a thetan who is stuck to another thetan or body but is not in control. A THETAN is, of course, a Scientology word using the Greek “Theta,” which was the Greek symbol for thought or LIFE.”

              Chris: Good to have that made clear.

            10. Here’s data that further clarifies the EP of Cause over Life:

              “The Pre-OT now works solo on cleaning up the body of BT/cluster masses, one area at a time, until each is clean and transparent to his perception.
              […]
              “When the Pre-OT has a transparent body and a clear area around it to some distance (barring perception of other people’s difficulties) and when he realizes he is alive and very much himself, the EP of NED for OTs has been reached. When this EP is reached then one will have achieved ‘CAUSE OVER LIFE.’”

            11. As I see it, the explanation is that a person has been at the effect of “entities” (whether BT’s or what you consider you were at the effect of). That would mean he was the “EFFECT of life.” And when he is no longer at the effect of these live entities, then his gain could be described as CAUSE over Life – using the appropriate definition of “life.”

            12. Not possibly understood by anyone reading the bulletin where that EP first appeared – and thus it works as yet an excellent example of Bait & Switch (use a definition of “life” the buyer has not yet an access to). Good catch.

            13. That bulletin was even on the OT III course materials, so anyone on NOTs would have read it and should have easily understood which definition of “life” fit the context.

            14. No-no, there is a Non-confidential bulletin where that EP is served and this is the reason it appears on the Grade Chart – to serve as a public Bait before the buyer, who is then throughly sucked in, is given the “real” definition of Life.

            15. There is a non-confidential HCOB too, “The Nature of a Being,” which states the following:

              “What you see as a human being, a person, is not a single unit being…

              “There are also the entities (as discussed in ‘Dianetics, The Modern Science of Mental Health,’ pages 84-90, and also ‘The History Of Man,’ pages 13-14, 43, 75-77). These follow all the rules and laws and phenomena of single beings…

              “We did not construct the human mind or human body. We did not put the universe there to involve, oppress or complicate life. We are working with the end product of an awful lot of trials and tribulations.”

              Take a look at the definition of “oppress” and consider it in the above phrase “oppress or complicate LIFE”:

              : to treat (a person or group of people) in a cruel or unfair way

              : to make (someone) feel sad or worried for a long period of time

              http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/oppress

              That HCOB was on the NOTs course too. You evidently had an MU on it, as well as on the OT III bulletin, because your earlier comments indicated you were thinking with a different definition of “life.”

            16. Nope. My point is much simpler Marildi; To bait the General Public with Cause Over Life and then later, when they have access to LRH’s propaganda by redefinition of words (life), when the bait has been taken, then the switch occurs and the buyer is well conditioned to accept it.

            17. Okay, that may be true. But in the earlier part of the discussion you were putting out a different complaint – one which wasn’t valid because you had an MU an MU on “life.”

            18. OK, now I am really confused. What is the “real” definition of “Life” you were given once you got on the level? Because it was capitalized, I always assumed “Life” meant life units and Lambda. Living things. Like if you were OTVII, you could disenturbulate or heal my dog, stop skunks from spraying you, do “external chi healing” etc. 🙂

            19. Val, that would be definition #2, but the context of these bulletins indicate definitions 3-5. I believe Geir has been using definition #6.

              LIFE, 1. (understanding), when we say “Life” we mean understanding, and when we say “understanding” we mean affinity, reality and communication. To understand all would be to live at the highest level of potential action and ability. Because life is understanding it attempts to understand. When it faces the incomprehensible it feels balked and baffled. (Dn 55 .!, p. 36) 2 . a fundamental axiom of Dn is that life is formed by theta compounding with mest to make a living organism. Life is theta plus mest. (SOS, Bk. 2, p. 3) 3 . a static, which yet has the power of controlling, animating, mobilizing, organizing and destroying matter, energy and space, and possibly even time. (HFP, p. 24) 4 . a thought or mind or beingness that conceives there are forms, masses, spaces, and difficulties. (HPCA-64, 5608C–) 5 . that which is posing and solving problems. (UPC 11) 6 . Life is a game consisting of freedom, barriers and purposes. (Scn 0-8, p. 119)
              LIFE AND LIVINGNESS ENVIRONMENT, the workaday world of the pc. (HCOB 1 Oct 63)

            20. I am using the NORMAL definition of “life” for the EP that is on the Grade Chart – which is an announcement to the General Public. Anything else validates a Bait & Switch. To me, this whole game called Scientology is looking increasingly more like a con game based on a Bait & Switch scheme. You have been helping me to see and understand that.

            21. I see it as a game that morphed over time. Originally, I believe LRH tried to assemble a “product” that had value. Then he tried to brand it as HIS product; in any case to “brand” it, to differentiate it from other similar products. Then he wanted to make sure HIS name was associated with it for posterity. He also wanted it to be the source of a good living for him and his family.

              It became more and more skewed over time; that’s for real historians to figure out in detail, how and why. There were obviously various vectors involved. But in the beginning I don’t think LRH started out with malicious intentions overall. He could have made a lot of money in a myriad other ways.

              He did “bait”, but any salesman will tell you, “sell the sizzle, not the steak”. And even you have said the “steak” was edible. Were you overcharged for it? Quite possibly.

            22. Valkov: “I believe LRH tried to assemble a “product” that had value. Then he tried to brand it as HIS product; in any case to “brand” it, to differentiate it from other similar products. Then he wanted to make sure HIS name was associated with it for posterity.”

              That sequence does not match with historical data (read LRH’s admissions for clarity).

            23. Perhaps my post was poorly worded, with “then” making it sound like I thought these intentions on his part were sequential. No, I think this was a group of postulates he had early on, from before the beginning. He was trying to kill several birds with the stones of Dianetics, then Scientology. “Smashing his name into history” was there from the start. I do mean to say the product he wanted to sell and use as a vehicle to fame was intended to be a useful and helpful product, regardless of the sequence. His choice of product to develop may in fact have come late in the sequence of things. But, his view of life and his ideals can be gleaned from his fiction, some written quite early on before “Dianetics”.

              To me, this is very much “LRH’s song”. It is from the same time period of the same culture LRH was born into. It is a Great Depression era song.

              It is a great movie too, if you haven’t seen it.

            24. Valkov: It is from the same time period of the same culture LRH was born into.

              Chris: My own father and LRH were born within a year of one another. Another reason that it was easy for me to acquiesce to LRH’s will when listening to his taped lectures, I could hear my own father’s voice. You know what I mean, the Western accent, similar slang, temper, and remember the way his voice changes to that muffled tone when he’s exhaling a cigarette while speaking? This spoke to my upbringing and conditioning and confirmed my bias.

            25. OOOPS. Forgot to put in the link to the song. Geir I think you mean his Affirmations? Yes, they came before and were part of the driving force of his actions. Coue-ism was “the hot stuff” back then.

            26. “Were you overcharged for it? Quite possibly.”

              Some people do feel that they were ripped off, but many others say there is no price that could be put on what they gained.

            27. I did not say “ripped off”, although I believe the CoS has in recent years been ripping people off, and many have thought in the past that the monthly price increases, way back when, were excessive.

              I believe definitions 3,4,5, shade over into #2 and any of those can be used to produce an accurate understanding of those bulletins, sight unseen by me! 🙂

              In any case “Overcharged” does not equal “Ripped off”. Furhtermore, IMO, Geir was overcharged, if he had to pay for bi-annual sec checks while on those levels, in the non-interference zone.

            28. Marildi: Some people do feel that they were ripped off, but many others say there is no price that could be put on what they gained.

              Chris: Who? And if so, why don’t you feel this way?

            29. Valkov: Chris, didn’t I just read that Geir said he was one of those people?

              Chris: Yes you did. No argument with what anyone wants to feel about their benefits and experiences. So if this technology is the only hope of mankind then why won’t Marildi, and really you if you feel this way, why won’t you two audit, solo audit, co-audit? This nonsense of “it’s too late for me, etc.,” is unacceptable for if your breath can fog a mirror, you can audit, if you believe in Scientology.

            30. Valkov: “He did “bait”, but any salesman will tell you, “sell the sizzle, not the steak”. And even you have said the “steak” was edible. Were you overcharged for it? Quite possibly.”

              Chris: So does The Modern Science of Mental Health which is consistent and complete truly need to be sold or does the better mousetrap sell itself because it is such a superior product? One reason that I don’t have a positive opinion toward L Ron Hubbard is because of the inconsistency of overselling and over hyping the usefulness of this “product” under the ruse of clearing the planet. Anyone who wants to do the arithmetic can see in a few pen strokes that co-auditing is the only way this pyramid could possibly ever have progressed to make an important impact on the world but that was not pushed or encouraged. Rather the filthy money-mongers filled the SO Reserves toward the imaginary ultimate battles that the Church would have to fight for its survival. Hell, even as a corrupt bait and switch operation its remained only slightly on the fringes of interest for the law, what were these gigantic battles that needed to be fought? Tax exemption status? PLEASE! They always could have paid their taxes and simply kept going. What else? The AMA? Do anyone think that the AMA would truly be able to stand in the way of a Modern Science of Mental Health that was? The point being, I don’t agree with this ethics as it is inconsistent with the shore story goals of L Ron Hubbard.

            31. Well in fact when I was associated with it, co-auditing WAS pushed as the way to go. That would be through the early 1980s.

            32. My point is that there is no other way to make a dent in a planet full of mental cases except through co-auditing. If the goal was ever to have cleared the planet, then there would have been wall to wall co-auditing as though the entire existence of every man woman and child for the foreseeable millenia depended upon it. This never was Scientology, but expensive WDAH’s were.

            33. Also, I don’t think people will automatically buy the better mousetrap if they don’t know it exists. Therefore even that needs to be sold. That on top of the fact that all the other mousetraps ARE being sold, you have no chance if you don’t sell yours, no matter how good it is.

            34. Val, You are confusing a world full of crap mousetraps that are sold Madison Ave. style to the mousetrap that really works. We see and are so assaulted by crap products that we sometimes forget to appreciate the truly good ones that we may have and enjoy around the home. Do you think that you could even keep a lid on a technology of Modern Science of Mental Health if it truly delivered Clears and OT’s? No (I answer my own question) you would not be able to hold people off from it with pitchforks. The reason that there is no rush is because there is no such product as Clears and OT’s.

            35. OK. So what, then, does the lower Bridge actually deliver? Let’s say, through Clear? What are the actual results.

              Reason I ask is, I met many very satisfied customers. Geir himself has said he is a satisfied customer, although he mainly favors some of the upper grades, some of the so-called “OT levels”.

              That’s been my point for quite a while – The various grades and levels may not deliver the stated (guessed at?) EPs, but they clearly DO SOMETHING. So what is it they actually accomplish for the individuals who do them.

              That’s why the statements about them such as yours, I find specious and formalistic. They are words on paper criticizing other words on paper. Where or what is the beef?

              If I may – You are saying there is no beef. Yet there is clearly something there. If that isn’t beef there, then what is it? And why have so many people liked it?

            36. Val: That’s why the statements about them such as yours, I find specious and formalistic. They are words on paper criticizing other words on paper. Where or what is the beef?

              Chris: You find my statements to be specious and formalistic but not Scientology itself? Seriously, you are asking me to repeat a many years evolution of discovery about my own predilection for Scientology bias to my quite slow awakening from this ideology to my views on ideologies in general today? I’ve bared myself for anyone to know my feelings so this is not a tough question but a redundant one. For me Scientology is an ideology that does your thinking for you. There’s no problem with believing in thetans, identifying with thetans and auditing thetans or even body thetans if you want. I do think that many of us can use this to obtain the potential placebo effect. I did and for that bit I am happy but it did not and would not have required Scientology to furnish this to me. I got more case gain per minute from my few hours of blogging with Alanzo disentangling my fixations on ideologies than I did in getting auditing. My beef is with Hubbard’s destructive religion and his thorough and intentional misuse of his gathered power by the insistence on eternal dedication which it seems has stuck on Marildi and others and his assertion of nocebo. For example the assertions that one will get sick and die from reading the OTIII materials and that ex-parishioners will cave-in and fail promptly upon leaving the Church. These ideologies are destructive and if a person is prone to nocebo then so much more so. That’s where and what.

            37. OK! At last you have separated out the beef from the chaff! 🙂 It turns out I was never much interested in the beef (ideology) because I had already had it up to here with Ideologies by the time I was about 12 years old. I was interested in what certain practices could do for me, if they were applied conscientiously, by me or me and others working with me. You know, like learning meditation or tai chi or something, and having a place to do it.

              The question of gain, I think, can be tricky. If you had not done the training and gotten the auditing you got when you worked for CSR or whatever, apparently a fair amount, would you have gotten as much, or anything at all, from your conversations with Al? I don’t know, and I don’t think you do either, frankly. The only way to test that would be to somehow return yourself to your pre-processing state and condition and then repeat those conversations. This is obviously impossible, but it would be the only “scientific” way to test these kind of subjective matters. That’s why subjective matters are not susceptible of validation by empirical means.

              That’s why Al appears to find common ground with people who were devoutly “in”, and not so much with people like me. He and I have gone around on the subject before.

              To sum it up I would say, “Objectionable experiences are objectionable”.

            38. Valkov: If you had not done the training and gotten the auditing you got when you worked for CSR or whatever, apparently a fair amount, would you have gotten as much, or anything at all, from your conversations with Al?

              Chris: This is really quite a good question. Without being so thoroughly grooved into an ideology could I have found resonance with what Alanzo preaches? I guess not. Though if I think about that for a moment, I can remember being really done with my Christian upbringing by the time I hooked up with Scientology.

            39. That’s exactly my point. Could you have been “really done” with that Christian upbringing, had you not been brought up that way?

            40. But my point from where I am looking over these various ideologies is that they were always and continue to be unnecessary. I do my best to raise my kids without indoctrination into what is real but rather indoctrinate them into looking and using critical thinking to understand the onslaught of information that they face. The will face many decisions in their lives just as we have. My goal would be to help indoctrinate them with tools to sort out the information in their world.

            41. OK I grew up that way myself, because of utterly different causes. But the fact is your kids are growing up in some kind of cultural matrix, even if only the family matrix. But of course they go to school etc. It is good in my eyes, that you are encouraging them to think for themselves, but that in itself is an “ideology”. And you might be surprised at some point, what kind of “causes” or “religions” they might take up, which make not much sense to you at all. ThAT wil be the real test of your character!

              I do highly recommend Ken Wilbur’s conceptualization of it all.

            42. I still don’t get the sense in which you mean “placebo”. I understand it in the medical sense. Maybe my understanding is outdated?

            43. To the degree that one’s malady is superficially organic and mostly mental, “placebo” is any remedy that one applies which gives one a convincing reason, permission, whatever to change their mind. There are organic maladies which require organic solutions. Between the two? I see organic biology and mental conditions to be connected gradiently with the line blurred toward the center. Both organic and mental conditions are under the umbrella of chemistry and of physics and all of exists in the universe. Nocebo is the reverse of this. When the witch doctor puts the voodoo on a person and the person goes all in for it, then they can be subject to negative effects from that nocebo. The ” ‘cebo” is an excuse for agreeing with something which one was not formerly in agreement with. That’s all I understand about it at this point.

            44. OK, I kinda get what you are saying you believe about ‘placebo’. It’s kind of a restatement of what LRH said in DMSMH.

              “Both organic and mental conditions are under the umbrella of chemistry and of physics…..”

              And what would chemistry and physics be under the umbrella of?

            45. Valkov: It’s kind of a restatement of what LRH said in DMSMH. Chris: Not really. LRH puts organic chemistry squarely under the auspice of theta and I don’t. Another difference is that LRH postulates theta universes, three universes, etc., and I only currently adhere to the one universe until such a time as we think we know all about that and run out of space, something like needing another area code.

            46. OK. I didn’t find all that in DMSMH. “Theta MEST theory” came a little later I believe.

              As far as “3 universes”….. There is your subjective experiential universe. Then there is my subjective experiential universe. Then we talk, and a third universe may or may not arise, to the extent we agree on anything. But in fact there is a shared universe in any case, otherwise we would not be able to talk with each other the way we do, being on the same planet, sitting in chairs, using devices like laptops connected through an “Internet”, a WWW.

              You don’t ‘see’ all that?

            47. Valkov: You don’t ‘see’ all that?

              Chris: Yes, I do see very well what you are saying and understand the concepts very well. I am traveling on a little different vector at this point. I do not particularly agree with Hubbard’s or others models at this point and am trying to work out my own using what I can observe and how I can reason together with other like minded people. I feel that mankind has not, does not, possibly cannot seem learn from his mistakes and so the civilizations that he creates are neither civilized nor long lasting. Scientology concepts and organizing board are also running on a similar vector and will or has already failed.

              On the other hand, my own world seems orderly to me in that it is understandable though it is extremely large and complex. Randomness seems for me to be a mental abstraction only. For me, extant religion exalts the individual and pushes up the notion that the individual is important, becoming, and on some vector to become godlike but I don’t agree with this, quite the opposite really. I feel that this vector has been the source of strife between men since the dawning of mankind as he appears today. Anthropomorphism falls along this vector and is a mistake of man. Well, once again I’ve posted too long.

            48. The “fact” remains that i have my subjective world, you have your subjective world, and so does each person has his/her own subjective world. Thus there can be “intersubjectivity”. This is interaction between people based on their experiences, values, perceptions etc, out of which arises the shared experiential worlds in which we live, the communities, the cultures, the languages we speak, the literatures we write and read etc. Virtually everything that personally matters is a result of the activity of or in that domain. However, the we cannot exist without the “objective” domain either, because we need a planet in a certain comfort zone that is life-sustaining for our physical organisms and the environment we are embedded within; the air we breathe with our objective lungs, the food we eat by chewing with our objective teeth and converting to our needs with our objective digestive systems etc.

              We can have “knowledge” of objective things, such as how to cook our food. But this knowledge does not exist, initially, in the “objective” domain. As Steven R. Covey put it, “everything is created twice”, by which he meant things are first created in the mind, then can be realized, or manifested or brought to be in the objective world. As in writing and finally printing a book. Or drawing up plans for the electrical system of a building, like your garage, then installing it that way.

              Many of your posts would seem to deny or ignore these dimensions of living. Chemistry and physics are “objective” views of existence. By their nature, they cannot actually be an “umbrella” for the subjective. It’s not really a matter of one being the “umbrella” for the other. It’s quite possible they arise more or less simultaneously. However that does not really explain evolution.

              So whatever “vector” you are on, I hope someday you will actually be able to communicate it. Ypu may have to invent new words for it, or for the “reality” you find where ever it is you’re going, “out there”. Beware of landing on “target 2”! 🙂

            49. Val, speaking of evolution, Tom Campbell says that it happens in everyone and everything:

            50. Maybe the fact that I’ve listened to many of his lectures makes a big difference. One thing you might not have understood is what he means by the “rules set” – there, he’s talking about physical universe laws and “predetermined” things like genes. However, and this is the primary point he makes, things aren’t set in stone by the “rules,” but rather are a matter of what he calls “consciousness” (theta) changing even such things as genes – but within limits (of the rules). Basically, it comes down to function monitors structure in all spheres. Or, as you put it, subjective universes determine what happens in the physical universe.

              Campbell says evolution is everywhere, from physical species to economic systems and governments. Again, that’s because of the kind of thing you wrote about in the previous post (great post, btw) – in other words, it’s the ideas that cause things to evolve.

            51. OK. I’m really not familiar with Campbell, but what you describe seems to be of comparable magnitude to Ken Wilbur’s thesis (or synthesis) in “A Brief History”. Wilbur developed a kind of “unified theory” that integrates the inner and the outer views of it all, and shows how each is part of the whole, which he sees as evolving.

            52. I find it very illuminating how the different thinkers come up with the same basic truths, just expressing them in different ways. Campbell had a “unified theory” too. He wrote a book called *My Big TOE* – TOE meaning Theory of Everything.

              Marty featured him on a blog post not too long ago, which you probably read but just don’t remember his name. By chance, I had already discovered him and his seminar videos on youtube and had even posted some of his videos on Marty’s. I think that’s how he discovered him!

              Campbell is the physicist who spent over 3 decades studying “out-of-body” experiences, using scientific protocol and keeping detailed records. If you feel like checking him out, just google. The introductory video he did in the 3-day Calgary workshop is a good one. I have his book too but it is very tedious reading. I recommend the videos lectures.

              I’m not sure if you would call his approach gnostic, but his model is based on direct experiences – with disincarnate beings, between lives activities, even other physical universes. He has tapped into the data streams of history, and the past track of given individuals, including famous ones. Etc.. Btw, I don’t think there’s much if anything he discovered that doesn’t align with Scientology. 😉

            53. Valkov: The “fact” remains that i have my subjective world, you have your subjective world, and so does each person has his/her own subjective world. Thus there can be “intersubjectivity”.

              Chris: LOL Target 2. Yes, that is one model. The “fact,” if we want to use such a word, is those are the facts of that particular model. I don’t object to people using their models to help them stabilize and understand their realities, I only want to be free to work out my own. What I see is that for you and I to play together then we need a common model. But this conversation about tough questions presents a model where the game is to let loose our hooks into the usual models and explore. Scientology may have begun as such a model but this application, iterated to its mechanical limit, seems to corrupt and to halt. Why I think this happens is the vector, the goal of greater individuals produces greater egos and greater strife. This is to me an example of a dead end so I’m taking what I’ve learned and beginning again.

              So we play together and you say “Wow! look at these pretty rocks over here” and I go “Cool!” I am not searching for certainty nor to become a greater and wiser individual. I am rummaging for the underpinnings of things and finding some, look more closely at those to find some more. It is a big world made up of little things. This could take a while.

            54. I guess I think there are processes at work which I do not see but what I do see are my own mental abstractions of those processes. It is not an ideology, it is just an idea.

            55. OK. I guess I don’t see how anyone can have “mental abstractions” of anything they cannot in some sense “see”. Those I call “imaginations” or something like that.

              OK. Here’re the meanings:

              ab·strac·tion
              abˈstrakSHən/Submit
              noun
              1.
              the quality of dealing with ideas rather than events.
              “topics will vary in degrees of abstraction”
              “the question can no longer be treated as an academic abstraction”
              synonyms: concept, idea, notion, thought, theory, hypothesis More
              2.
              freedom from representational qualities in art.
              “geometric abstraction has been a mainstay in her work”

              So I guess theories and hypotheses go in that bin. That would be what I am currently calling “subjectivity”. Then, when we “talk” about anything, we have an “intersubjectivity” happenin’.

            56. Val, I thought you were the guy who posted up the video of the guy spinning the pinwheel showing the difference between an abstraction and a process? No? Who was that? “DISK — NO DISK”

            57. My point is only that there is the objective, and there is the subjective. Those are different realms. There is the objective realm of say, sociologists, who study groups and cultures from “outside”. And there is the subjective realm of creating and experiencing the meanings of existence. This is studied by, for example, anthropologists. Also philosophers and others of the “existential” variety. One who studies the “external” domains, is studying only one half of existence. One who claims that is all there is, is a “reductionist”. One who studies only the subjective aspects of life and fails to acknowledge the “outside”, “empirical” aspects, is equally a “reductionist”, in the other direction.

              Both are real aspects of life and existence. Each one alone is “the sound of one hand clapping”.

            58. Valkov: And why have so many people liked it?

              Chris: People like it because it asserts a mental model, an owner’s manual of the mind, and a troubleshooting guide to that model. People like to read interesting stories and especially they like to identify with heros in those stories. Hubbard provides all that, plus a group to join with single minded dedication which quiets all the other choices life offers. But as you are fond of saying the map is not the terrain and neither is Hubbard’s model of the mind — the mind.

            59. Do you suppose that the world could have kept at bay if “Sonya Bianca” had performed in 1950 as promoted? As “the world’s first Clear, Sonya had “full and perfect recall of every moment of her life.” Sound familiar? Well he didn’t deliver that “EP” in 1950, and he didn’t deliver it again in 1966 when he certified John McMaster.

            60. In fact dianetics and scn spread by word of mouth for 20-30 years inspite of negative “Madison Avenue”, not because of it. The word of mouth was based on positive personal experiences of auditing and training.

            61. Valkov: The word of mouth was based on positive personal experiences of auditing and training.

              Chris: You mean the word of mouth of artificially buying up their own DMSMH books and artificially inflating sales in order to put DMSMH on the “New York Times Bestseller List?” That dog won’t hunt.

            62. I think you know I don’t mean that. I would be very surprised if you believed I meant that. But just in case you are going to come back saying you do believe that, I will preempt it by saying, in that case I believe you are a bitter mendacious prick on the subject. 🙂

            63. Touche’ on all three, just don’t come at me with how Madison Ave is required to move healthful, helpful, sensibly priced products. Not products which have been priced “according to their imagined worth” but according to a cost-plus formula the way the rest of sensible business works. It sickens me to see churches and charities become wealthy for the love of Christ. And it sickens me to see Sea Org Reserves swollen with the money for blood of its parishioners while it touts snake-oil cures which do not deliver what is promised.

            64. And you have reinforced my idea that you and other critics have standing MUs that are basic, and likely even crashing MU’s such that you find the subject of Scn incomprehensible.

              The EP for OT VII that was included on the Bridge was exactly what LRH had stated it to be. Whoever put it on the Bridge may have simply been putting what LRH wrote on the issue stating the EP. Whether or not it was their intention – or LRH’s – to give an incorrect impression, I don’t know. But I will grant you that I can certainly see how the public would have assumed the definition you call the “normal” one. And this is just the kind of thing that needs to be cleared up.

            65. What else could you say than “You have MUs”? Oh yes, you could have thrown in “out ethics”, “PTS”, “lack of mass”, “skipped gradient”, “false data” and several other thought stoppers that are ingrained in what seems ever more like a con game. Yup. You my dear. Need to Wake Up.

            66. But you were too stupid to understand my point. Again. Marildi, I am getting really tired of your stupidity and brainwashed inability to get my points again and again. It is so blatant that several others have commented on it right here on my blog and many others back-channel. You stand out as the most brainwashed person I have met to date. After more than 4 years of discussing the same over and over again, it shines bright as a beacon: “Not This Way!”

            67. Geir, just by the fact that you are now saying there was a “bait and switch” on the EP of “Cause over Life” shows that you now see it to mean something different from what you originally thought it meant. The criticism of “bait and switch” is quite different from your earlier comments that showed you had the “normal” but incorrect definition of “life.”

            68. Sigh. Let me try ONE MORE TIME and see if it sticks THIS TIME: Putting up a nebulous EP of “Cause over life” on the Grade Chart to the General Public (and they will use the Normal Dictionary definition of Cause and Life) = Bait. And then rely on specialized definitions to make sense of it after the are well into the fold = Switch. But EVEN THEN, one must MAKE sense of it to be able to attest to it (even when picking out possible interpretations) – it is still too nebulous to attest to – which may be the reason that it is in fact NOT what anyone is attesting to. Nope. They attest to “No more BTS to be found” and that presumably should equate to “Cause over life” which in any case should make it impossible for anyone to commit suicide in despair or end up in the gutters or have their lives wrecked. NOW DO YOU FUCKIN’ GET IT?

            69. I totally get what you mean by “bait and switch” and have already said so. Same for the fact that dire things have happened to people – who, as I pointed out earlier, were given gross out- tech.

              On the point of “specialized” definition – this is from an English dictionary:

              “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.” http://www.thefreedictionary.com/life

              So shall we discuss the next topic – i.e. how “no more BT’s to be found” could possibly relate to the EP of Cause over LIfe, with “life” meaning what LRH talked about in those HCOB’s?

              And would you also say your reality on the thing about the body being transparent to the pre-OT’s own perception. Pretty please? Cherry on top? 🙂

            70. Of course it MUST have been Out-Tech – because the tech itself COULD NOT possibly be flawed. Yeah, right. Keep holding that position in space and make sure that viewpoint never moves.

              And I am very sure that if we a) buy into the existence of BTs, b) buy into the theory around that, c) buy that the process followed always and invariably works 100% of the time to produce the exact EP of all BTs blown and d) that we just arrange the definitions in a way that possibly can make that into the tautology that it must obviously mean “Cause of Life”… nah, I have long since cast away my habbit to go overboard to make LRH and the tech RIGHT by any and all means. I advice you to do the same, knowing full well by now that the brainwash is incredibly hard to shake off. Incredibly hard.

              So, my dear Miraldi. The gloves are off. And praise to Alanzo for trying so damn hard to kick my ass and punch my face when I was still under the spell. I miss him…

              Despite all this; You are an amazingly empathetic and warm human being. I would really love to see you do wonders in life.

            71. Another Bait & Switch courtesy of LRH (no tech alterations possible);

              On OT 3 on the Grade Chart, the abilities gained are “Freedom from overwhelm” and “Return of self-determinism”.

              But in the confidential HCO BULLETIN OF 20 OCTOBER 1970, “EPs”, the real EP of OT 3 is revealed as “No BTs left = OT III”

            72. Geir, is this actually a PROVEN bait&switch? Wouldn’t you have to show that “No BTs left” does NOT equal “Freedom from overwhelm” and “self-determinism restored”. Clearly it is a bit dodgy in that one could possibly be ‘overwhelmed’ by something other than BTs, right? However IF the source of one’s overwhelm is BTs, then the definitions would be consistent.

            73. . . . undeterred, she yet kicked and scratched and clawed her way back up — up for one more breath of sweet air and filling her burning lungs she dove back into the stygian River Styx and holding her breath she swam and swam to avoid giving the ferryman a penny. We wondered what would become of her now?

            74. Marildi: And you have reinforced my idea that you and other critics have standing MUs that are basic, and likely even crashing MU’s such that you find the subject of Scn incomprehensible.

              Chris: “Crashing MU’s” — The last bastion of the lost argument.

            75. Marildi: But I will grant you that I can certainly see how the public would have assumed the definition you call the “normal” one. And this is just the kind of thing that needs to be cleared up.

              Chris: Possibly the reason that it won’t “clear up” is that there is nothing there to understand.

            76. Well, there are 2 “normal” definitions of “life”. One refers to actual living beings or anything that has the quality of being alive. The other refers to “existence” as it is perceived and experienced by aforesaid living creatures. As in “Life’s a bitch! etc etc”

            77. I believe the appropriate definition would be fairly narrow or specific, since M, E, S, T and “thought” are specified separately from “life”.

            78. Val: “I believe the appropriate definition would be fairly narrow or specific, since M, E, S, T and “thought” are specified separately from “life”.”

              That’s why I’m looking at those definitions 3-5. Actually, #1 probably fits too. The only two that don’t are the Lamda one and what Geir calls the “normal” one.

            79. Marildi: “When the Pre-OT has a transparent body and a clear area around it to some distance (barring perception of other people’s difficulties) and when he realizes he is alive and very much himself, the EP of NED for OTs has been reached. When this EP is reached then one will have achieved ‘CAUSE OVER LIFE.’”

              Chris: I would like to attest to that because I have a certain knowingness about me. Yep, checked on my emeter and my needle is floating.

            80. ‘barring perception of other peoples difficulties’ ….just makes sense…not one single dichotomy left. One-Life.
              Geir? The quote marildi provided?

            81. ‘Exterior’ wasn’t an accident in the early years? When a pc wasn’t confronted the experience? In early Dianetics, it is clear it was a mind game. What happen then?

            82. Common sense, exterior in DMSMH alone meant ‘out of valence’ –to perceive the incident from ‘outside’, meant to perceive through another’s point of view. But later on in SCN, exterior or exteriorised meant to be out of body, as a spirit. So, it’s also possible that during an incident one was out of body indeed and perceived as such. So, it would be destructive to force him to run it from ‘inside the body’.

    3. Valkov: What totally baffles me is how Geir was allowed to attest to completing OTVII apparently without reaching and being able to attest to the EP?

      Chris: Good work Val. This is a very good eye and you are exploiting an important inconsistency with the Scientology “Qualifications” process. Who is it who is attaining the State of Clear and being certified by Scientology? A few 10’s of thousands to date, though almost no one in recent years. Another thing to question is DM’s withdrawal of Clear certifications (I don’t know a number). Is this perpetrated fraud on the parishioner or is this an actual resurgence of integrity of the Qualifications Division of the COS?

  24. Another question I am interested in is, “What is the nature of the knowingness that occurs at “cognition” and attainment of an EP.

    What are the parameters of the realizations that occur? For example, when one cognites one can “Communicate with anyone on any subject at any time”, or one is “Cause over Life”, it is not specified that one is “cause over life FOREVER”. One realizes at that moment, one is that. Is it implied that one can never again fall from that state or ability?

    I think there are 2 elements to a cognition. Briefly I think there is a thought(postulate) one has had before, such as “I am cause over life”, plus a new understanding of what that means. That’s why the reference to a very powerful being who can yet fix the little kid’s electric train.

    1. As regards the Grades EP’s, the certificate says “Provisional.” That’s because it is a Release state, and as such things can key back in. The way I get it is that the lower Bridge with its negative gain mainly sets the pc up for being able to run the “old” OT levels and regain lost OT abilities.

      Another thing Ron emphasized was the purpose of training – which is to learn the traps. It’s not enough just to go back and regain abilities once had but to know how to avoid being trapped again.

      That’s all part of Cause over life. Yes, an OT is all powerful but he can still fix the kid’s train. In that same tape, Ron says that just being able to be exterior doesn’t mean he’s Cause over Life and he won’t be stably exterior either. He explained it like this:

      “Because in actual fact, this person is not at cause over life, thought, matter, energy, space and time. He’s not at cause over this stuff. He is still very much the effect of this stuff. And as long as he is thoroughly the effect of this stuff all the way up the line, why, of course he cannot exteriorize from the stuff.

      “…And he [the true OT] knows all about life, you know? He knows this whole pattern out here of the causes and effects of various things and how they’re interwoven and what happens and what doesn’t happen – he knows all these things by experience. Without suffering from the experience, he yet has the experience.”

      The idea I get from the second paragraph is that the OT at Cause over Life is not just Cause – he’s also effect, but knowing and willing effect. And that’s because he “knows the whole pattern of the causes and effects.”

      And may your old collection of particles rest well. 🙂

        1. Thanks, but I can’t hold a candle to you on resources of all kinds!

          No facebook. But I’ll use my son’s facebook account to check you out one of these days. 😉

          1. I just fed the old collection of particles a good bowl of soup. Now off to bed with it.

            I don’t believe you need a Facebook account. The site has a search bar upper left side, I think anyone can visit.

            As for resource person, you are like a Reference Librarian in a Scientology library. I don’t have such an in-depth knowledge of it. I have read widely otherwise though.

      1. That second paragraph confirms older teachings which say there are 2 lines of personal development, or personal evolution: The development of Being, and the development of Knowledge, and they must be pursued in a balanced way, because a powerful but ignorant being is pretty useless, as a very knowledgeable being without tothe power of ability to apply his knowledge is pretty useless too.

        G’nite.

        1. Ron said it in different ways: All force and no intelligence ain’t good, and neither is intelligence without the ability to use force.

          Not to mention the two sides of the Bridge.

          G’nite and don’t let the BT’s bite. (I stole that from you. :))

          1. Marildi: Not to mention the two sides of the Bridge.

            Chris: If you believe in the Bridge to Total Freedom, then why not do it? It’s not quite like a death bed confession as it will take more than a few minutes to do. Which brings up the bit about what a PC knows. Are you confident that your case state is in good enough shape for you to die? Do you know what will happen to you when you die? Do you know that you know, Or do you have a belief system to cover this? There’s a tough question.

          2. …and ‘ability to use force’ doesn’t mean ‘use force’ either 😛 I have to become sort of a victim to admit that you could do nothing but use force 😉

        2. I no mean to wrong you. Just want to say -since you brought it up- that I find the development of being to be very invalidative. A being bees (is). If it bees itself while on the same time it thinks that it bees a bucket, it doesn’t mean it doesn’t be itself. You can take out the thinking of being a bucket so it wont think it can be kicked around etc. That was some major miscomprehension I had the past years that I used to invalidate myself. It didn’t help me with anything.

          1. I think the ‘problem’ and ‘unreality’ about just being a being is related to that the just being is not related to any concepts, masses, experiences etc One cannot know what it bees by remembering, analysing, observing. It’s just a simple being.

            1. OK spiros, no problem. It might make more sense to you if I used the word Beingness. Would you like to be stuck at the beingness level of a bucket or a “victim”? We’re talking about the “real world” here. A person can develop theequivalent of “theta muscles”, like by doing TRs or Meditation, without also advancing his Knowledge of things. A person can develop a large “beingness” in various ways and develop much ability without even learning to read.

              Or one can spend a lifetime learning words on many subjects without actually developing the ability to apply any of them.

              But I think you knew what I meant. However, if you want to debate how many beings can dance on the head of a pin, I suggest go look up Vinnie. 🙂

              As the Buddha supposedly said, “Strenuousness is the path to immortality”.

            2. And V, again, I’m clarifying I’m not saying that stuff about spirits and OTs and such to play smartass nor to put myself above you.

              You know what I -as Spyros- am going to gain if another believes me? Nada. I don’t deliver anything. And I’m totally status-free, which means I neither put myself nor have anybody else above me. I can be grateful and like, but that’s as far as it goes.

              I’m a bit pissed -truth is- that the spiritual part of SCN is kinda not-ised. Because I believe all the rest were just temporary and preparations for the spiritual stuff to be delivered –which spiritual stuff, theories and practices prexisted to more earthly stuff such as the SCN handbook. I validate SCN with my invalidations, as SCN invalidates itself. It’s also a matter of point of view whether my invalidations are seen as hostile or otherwise. And anyway, I’m not going to send anybody to ethics for any disagreement 😛

            3. OK, you meant beingness-valence then. No I hadn’t grasped it. I think valence and being is not the same and the bucket was just an example how effect one can get. It’s also funny to me.

              I don’t have any consideration that the ‘crazy’ part of SCN is not applicable in the ‘real world’ btw. Actually, without the crazy SCN there wouldn’t be the more earthly SCN either, as the latter is based on the crazy. Take out the crazy Qs and the crazy Axioms etc and you can’t run any process –simple as that 😛

              As I’m no outsider with regards to SCN either, I do understand the concept of theta muscles you used. When some people used it, where I was, they meant ridges. With enough strenuousness one can develop a lotta ridges to communicate robotically –I’m not reffering to you, just stating something I disagree with. And enough knowledge of the Bridge can (I mean CAN -potentialy) also make one pound his stuck ideas over and over to others and to himself too. Like ‘yes, I know that/what is restimulated now’. That’s been one of my personal favourites. It’s a stupid statement. When you know the restimulation, it no longer is a restimulation. It is as-ised. There is great different between knowing and knowing about –having data about. And again I’m not talking about anything unearthly. Knowing about SCN and not using it to get rid of SCN (as-is), is good to have interesting conversations about. And I have jolly done that well myself. But if one considers all that stuff in existence hard, he just slaps himself with them.

              Anyway, it’s a matter of what one wants. And the muscles can be good if one wants to have them, and know-about too. But as one ‘ascends’ -as-ises- he gets rid of all that –stuck creations. Simplicity is in the end. If not, it’s not the end.

              BTW why would Vin want to chat about that LRH quote anyway? 😛

            4. I don’t really think Beingness = valence. For example, Being + body is a “beingness”, but not a valence as I understand it.

            5. What I just noticed, that you mentioned it, is that in the greek FOT book ‘identity’ and ‘valence’ are translated the same (maybe also in latter english versions of the book?). I checked a FZ english one, and obviously, it isn’t like that 😛 makes more sense.

            6. I need to check that again, but I don’t have the greek book anymore, nor going to get it again any time soon… Just swap ‘valence’ with ‘identity’ in what I said.

            7. In DMSMH there was the goal of getting the preclear out of other people’s valences and back to his own original one. But that goal was changed in early SCN wherein you got that person out of that ‘original valence’ too, as it was a body valence. There are many refferences to that in early SCN.

              From SCN 88:

              “Charter Two
              Life is a static, according to the Axioms. A static has no motion. It has no wave length. The proofs and details of this are elsewhere in Scientology.”

              “In a mind, any mind, the basic beingness is found to be a static which can create motion and on which motion can be recorded.”

              The theta+body was to be trascended. It wasn’t any long, distant goal. If it doesn’t happen SCN orgs, it doesn’t mean it wasn’t the goal.

            8. Yes, my thoughts too, Chris –for as long as he thinks and speaks in humanese… :p

              There is a distinction between ‘identity’ and ‘valence’ in that valence is the identity of another. But the body is such an another anyway :p

    2. Valkov: “What is the nature of the knowingness that occurs at “cognition” and attainment of an EP.

      Chris: Yes, that is something good to explore.

  25. Valkov
    Placebo comes from Latin ‘placere’ which means ‘to please’, ‘ I will please you’. That is if an individual ‘thinks’ that there is ‘evil’, the DIVINE in the inDIVIDUAL is creating the ‘evil’ which will manifest as a ‘filter(thought-perception) in one’s con-scious-ness (co-knowing-ness), also can ‘come alive’ that is appear in life to
    PLEASE the person. That is, an ‘evil’ player will appear in the person’s life. The ‘evil’ player has taken up the role of being ‘evil’ by ‘thought’ also, but in the core of his being he is also as divine as the other person. It’s a game played on the mechanism of the dichotomy of thought. The divine-GOD-One-Source is pleasing the players to have games.

    1. marildi
      I studied the materials in Hungarian (read most in English too but have most in Hungarian). Please find the exact words in English for me. This sentence explains a lot and can resolve a lot in the discussions.
      The material is: The PTS/SP lectures, SPs and GAEs (gross auditor errors). Page
      27.
      ‘….what is evil, and evil is this: the claim/wording or postulate that there can be evil. In the absence of such postulates and claims/wordings man is basically good’
      (my translation)
      Even before that, in the preceeding paragraph, how one is doing that (valences) is explained.

      I think, if in real practice one starts to honestly look (is aware of) what words (com) one agrees to, also one’s thoughts, emotions, one can be more and more aware of how and why one is creating one’s ‘reality’….a kind of ‘cosmic-pleasing-game’ of the ONE. (placebo effect, after Geir).

      1. Marianne, I’m just going out for a while. Will try to get back to you before too late your time.

        1. Thanks. No problem even if you cannot get back or if you do not put the material here. Those interested can find it, read it and be aware of its truth or untruth by observing it in its creation or in its absence.

    2. Thanks Maru=ianne. You and Ken Wilbur might see it that way, but how does Chris see it? What do “placebo” and “nocebo” mean to him?

      Anyway, in response to Chris’ post, I went ahead and figured out what I think he means by those words, and what they mean to me. So the problem is solved. Unless he comes back with yet another denial of them meaning what I think they mean to him….. 🙂

  26. On the subject of Cause over LIFE, here’s an interesting paragraph I came across in CoHA:

    “The analytical mind [the thetan] is capable of developing its own energy. It is the energy of the analytical mind which empowers the reactive mind, but the reactive mind can be empowered as well by the energy of other minds and by the life energy contained in any living thing. Thus the reactive mind can become the servant of all things, it can believe it is anything, it can believe it is owned or has the identity of anyone, regardless of whom it was created to serve. The analytical mind serves itself in a continuing knowledge of serving itself, but it serves as well and knows it serves the other two universes.

      1. True that doesn’t ‘have’, also not his/her ‘own’.
        What do thoughts and patterns of thoughts need to get ‘reactivated’?
        What can an ‘OT’ create which is necessary for the not ‘owned’ reactivation of the patterns?
        How does that which reactivates do the reactivation?

  27. I think Marianne is on the right track. Below is a quote regarding the meaning of reactive mind in that time period. It’s from Dn 55, published just a few months after CoHA, which the above quote is from:

    “Just as you would not say that John Jones was his car, so must you also say – when you perceive this clearly – that John Jones is not his analytical mind or his reactive mind, his body, or his clothes. John Jones is an awareness of awareness unit, and all there is of him that is capable of knowing and of being aware is John Jones, an awareness of awareness unit. When we have arrived at a state where John Jones himself knows that he is an awareness of awareness unit and not his analytical mind, his reactive mind, his body, his clothes, his house, his car, his wife or his grandparents, we have what is called in Dianetics, a ‘Clear.’ A Clear is simply an awareness of awareness unit which knows it is an awareness of awareness unit, can create energy at will, and can handle and control, erase or re-create an analytical mind or reactive mind.” (Dn 55)

      1. Okay. So let’s keep in mind that at that time in Scientology, a Clear was simply someone who could “handle and control” his reactive mind – not that the reactive mind was no longer there. In CoHA, Clear isn’t even discussed – just Theta Clear. However, there are two types of Theta Clears: One is someone who is simply clear of his body and bank – in that he is exterior to them. The other is “a being which is clear all the way on the track.”

        So looking at the fact that those going onto OT levels are not clear all the way on the track and in that sense still have a reactive mind, I thought the first quote above was relevant to Cause over Life, specifically this part:

        “It is the energy of the analytical mind [the thetan] which empowers the reactive mind, but the reactive mind can be empowered as well by the energy of other minds and by the life energy contained in any living thing.” (CoHA)

        In other words, if “life energy contained in any living thing” can empower the reactive mind (defined in its broadest sense), it would explain why those who’ve done NOTs have such great case gain – whether or not the “life energy” was that of BT’s or the pre-OT’s own created energies, as with your theory. Either way, it’s Cause over LIFE.

      2. Does there have to be “a point”?

        I think of these discussions as investigations and explorations, not as didactic exercises of providing definitive answers. Relevant material is brought in which may or may not ad up to a new look, a new synthesis, a step up for someone.

        Since “Clear” is a controversial term with apparently no broadly agreed upon meaning in this universe of discourse, I find any light shed on its possible meanings is helpful.

        I recall meeting a guy in the mid 1960s who had been getting a lot of auditing, who gave me this ‘verbal datum” – that a being coulod be drawing from as many as 13 “memory banks”, but only one of them was actually his own history. The others were borrowed or stolen or copied or otherwise acquired.

        Doesn’t that seem to presage OTVIII?

        1. Val, I think that was just Geir’s way of asking me to more clearly spell out what I wanted to communicate. But you are right that I was going for a “new synthesis” – a better understanding (as we keep trying to do with the meaning of Clear, a term that absolutely requires being looked at in the context of time period.)

          Anyway, you brought up another great piece of data! Yes, there are references about having different banks. Here’s one I could think of off the top of my head;

          VALENCE, 1. a valence is an identity complete with bank mass or mental image picture mass of somebody other than the identity selected by oneself. In other words, what we usually mean by valence is somebody else’s identity assumed by a person unknowingly. (17ACC-10, 5703C10)

          The kind of bank described above could still be restimulated even though the individual no longer has his “own” reactive mind – i.e. his own “stimulus-response mechanism,” as per one definition – which is his own creation, rather than the creation of another and only borrowed, copied, or whatever.

    1. ‘Marianne is on the right track’. I asked the first two questions to be answered by Geir and other commentors. It is one word, the same word. I wrote that an ‘OT’ could create it but it is its ‘creation’ (its postulate) that prevents an ‘OT’ from being an ‘OT’ and differentiates a Clear from an ‘OT’. The third is also a word which after the postulate is done, keeps the ‘OT’ in the universe.

      ‘Any postulate can aberrate the individual, except prime postulate which is to Be.’

      1. The Cause over Life is Creation itself. It creates energy. When an individual ‘me’ ‘postulates’ energy, it is which keeps the individual in the Universe. No need to postulate that which is already being created. One is just aware of it.

        When an individual ‘me’ postulates energy, it gets connected to an energy form (another postulate) in the Universe. So we have the Web of Life (theta+energy).

        1. That sounds like a very good shortcut to the EP of OT VII! Just stop co-creating, or postulating “that which is already being created” and simply be aware of it. (The only problem, perhaps, is that not everyone can navigate that shortcut.)

          In any case, if I duplicated you correctly, I think that would give a different meaning to the word “life” in “Cause over Life.” How are you defining “life”?

          1. When the AM in ‘ I AM ‘ can BE anybody and anything created, that is in no ‘doing about and no inverted having (resisting what is), then the AM is in full BEING, DOING and HAVING all that is. That is full LIFE, the CREATOR in continuous creating.
            OVER has a meaning of ‘through all parts, all through’ (Random House Webster’s College Dictionary).

            In a different way, seeing the face of God (the Creator) in everybody and everything.

            I see the definitions if Life by Ron (you gave them in this thread) as different aspects and possible perceiving ways of the same thing. I find them all correct.

            1. Correction: the definitions ‘of’ Life. Interesting: when there is a typo, it can show some untruth. In this case: Life cannot be ‘defined’.

  28. True that doesn’t ‘have’, also not his/her ‘own’.
    What do thoughts and patterns of thoughts need to get ‘reactivated’?
    What can an ‘OT’ create which is necessary for the not ‘owned’ reactivation of the patterns?
    How does that which reactivates do the reactivation?

    Marianne, I get that your way of looking at it is that there is a Oneness of all life and when that Oneness postulates an individuality, that is when thoughts and patterns of thoughts get reactivated. Tell me if that is right.

    Another way of looking at it would be that there exist individual beings who are able to CONNECT with all other beings, and the individual beings can postulate this as a Oneness while remaining aware of their own existence as individuals.

      1. ‘the individual beings can postulate this as a Oneness’. Oneness cannot be postulated. A postulate is a postulate of the One. What we call individuality may be consecutive postulates. The first is the ‘ I ‘…then somewhere ‘ I ‘ ‘create’ energy. That is in a way ‘doingness’ …a ‘counter doingness’ to what is already being created. The same is with space. Space is there infinitely. When the ‘ I ‘ postulates space, it is a ‘counter postulate’.
        What is needed only that one is aware of infinite space and the manifested energy forms in it. The ‘more’ one is aware, the more one can ‘be’ (which is also let be),
        the more ‘beingness’ one ‘has’. So we get to pervading AS AWARENESS…and get true havingness. For me when another says ‘ I can be, do, have’ anything, it communicates that the person is Life-Awareness in its fullest sense.

        1. I put here how I have seen the issue of ‘disconnect’ for a long time. One cannot connect to or disconnect from what one is and the other person is (awareness, source, God…whatever word). One can be aware of that ”what’. The instant one is aware of what one is and is aware of that another is also that, the issue of connection or disconnection will not be an issue any more. One can connect to or disconnect from a thought, an emotion…any kind of energy form but not from THAT which one IS.
          The way I see it is that Ron by ‘disconnection’ meant a safe environment where there is no restimulation and by ‘handling’ one is doing a process there until the restimulation is completely seen through and one is aware of that one is that awareness and that the other person is the same awareness.

          I put here a link of Per’s articles of what ‘PTS’ really means. I see it the same way.
          Per is an ‘old-timer’ class 9. There is an exercise in article 4.

          http://www.ivymag.org/WebIVy/PerSchioettz.htm

    1. Marianne, sorry for the lack of response to your comments! Recently I haven’t had as much time on the internet. And now through the next week I’ll be pretty busy with an out-of-town visitor, just to let you know.

      But I read all that you wrote and the main thought I had was, as Adva indicated (I did listen to the videos), this kind of awareness that you and he and relatively few others have can’t be learned intellectually through words – it must be experienced. I’m not sure what he or you advise to get that experience but I’m guessing it must be meditation. I’m actually doing some of that, and at the same time continuing the route of gaining knowledge. Yours is always appreciated!

      1. marildi
        Thanks! I thought that you might be busy and were having a good time! Yes, it is not intellectual stuff and cannot be learnt through words. Yes, experience and as any experience, it cannot be expressed precisely by words. It may sound weird but there is no technique for that. It is true ‘meditation’. Adya says ‘resting as awareness’, that is, not doing anything and being awareness itself.
        Wish you a great, joyful next week! Talk to you later, when you have time to come
        here.

  29. This thread was well worth reading for hours for the most part. Leaned lots of new stuff and some exasperating, but funny parts as usual. Thanks to all who said so many important things.

      1. Thanks guys. My wisdom is fairly simple, like me! teehee 🙂 I laugh like hell at myself too!

  30. Ok, I will try to give an interesting question: if you could create some really cool and practical mental or spiritual exercise which would do every person on Earth to the EP, what exercise would you create for them? 🙂

    1. I have an idea of this question: if you wanted to create the next bridge grades for yourself which would follow your last bridge grade, what would that grades be about and what would thtat bridges solve? 🙂

      1. My preferred Bridge would be: Objectives, Grades, Solo 1 & 2, OT 2, OT 7 (realizing there are no BTs, only self created and abandoned parts of the mind) and OT 8.

        1. Thank you very much for the answer. And when you could create by yourself the next whole grade that would follow the OT8, on what topic and principles would that grade created by you be concentrated? What challenges would that grade solve? 🙂

      1. Great book! For geir: Thank you very much for sharing that concept and exercise. It is really cool 🙂 To everybody: I really recommend it to read and then apply! Very practical concept and exercise with a many side benefits 🙂

  31. A tough question: If you wanted to improve and innovate the ”code of honor”, what would you add to it, change in it, delete from it? 🙂

  32. Very tough chain of questions: How did the spirit come into being? What/who did postulated him? Did he postulated himself? Did he just appeared to be? Did he separated from the ultimate static? Why? 🙂

Have your say

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s