Get to the bottom of it!

The insistence on finding the WHY is pervasive. Psychoanalysis. Dianetics and Scientology. ITIL and Root Cause Analysis. The belief that one has to get to the bottom of a problem can be blinding. Because it is far from the only way to solve problems. Sometimes it is better to evade the problem, to find another path or to stop creating the problem altogether.

If you face a difficult situation or problem in life, do you need to find the cause of the problem to solve it? Perhaps. Or perhaps not. It depends. There is no ultimate answer to such a question. Maybe you need what you ultimately think you need in order to solve it.

If your car breaks down, smoke and fire erupting from the engine, do you need to find out why the engine broke down? Not if it is an old wreck of a car. It would be cheaper to buy a new one. And not if it is cheaper to replace the engine than spend much time investigating the source of the engine trouble. It all depends. On the business case. Maybe it was an omen that you should start get in shape by riding your bike more often.

The insistence that one must get to the bottom of it can create tunnel vision and lead to endless hours of therapy or auditing or figure-figure why it is this way or that way. At least sometimes it’s better to just give a fuck.

132 thoughts on “Get to the bottom of it!

  1. That’s the prob with data evaluation too –it relies on the past. If you think strictly in terms of present, you can’t evaluate, as there is no time sequence (past, present, future). In other words, if you wanna mess yourself up, try to figure things out or coax others to join in as well!

    When/where is that COS, by the way? 😛

    1. Add over that (if you’re into SCN) that for something (like a past) to persist, there need to be lies, and then you can figure out that you cannot figure out anything else but lies wheee

  2. Like many things in it, a good idea with some workability taken to insane extremes.

      1. Sex is creation and immediate duplication of that which is being created. Body, emotions, thoughts, spirits…carried out between two people its result can be the experience of the non-dual One Source. In true sex one as a separate ‘me’ ‘dies’,
        what is left is ‘no-thing-potential’. (in my honest present experience)

        1. Marianne, it is just an appearance of non-dual one source for a few minutes. One may get that from a good glass of wine too. After some time one becomes ‘unenlightened’ again. That makes it a temporary chemical effect.

            1. I had to look up those words on Google. I am not very knowledgeable in these things. They seem to be chemicals designed to compensate for the failure of natural body chemicals. I don’t think I need to try them.

              What is this thing about judging?

            2. Good for you Vinay, these chemicals are designed to compensate for the failure of natural body chemicals, if you do not need them do not use them. About the judging, it is not required if not needed.

            1. My ‘Cheers’ was to Vinaire regarding the glass of wine. See it got in wrong place.

        1. HaHa…I will kill you as you know that I cannot do anything else than telling the truth.
          But I am killing you first! Whatever one is asking, answering it is one’s present reality condition. So, your question implies your present reality. Which is not bad
          as you write ‘good sex’ but not ‘much’. Well….create more havingness of it!

          As for me, I have had a lot…if we go into details and also others join us, your OP
          will go into an interesting direction. To answer your question honestly, I love both
          body and spiritual sex and as I find it it can never be ‘much’.

          1. You are very clever Geir….very! I have just looked at the title of your OP ‘Get to
            the bottom of it’. Yes. The potential to create. And factually ‘fuck’ the creations. That is giving Life to them. The bottom is Life. As earlier you wrote in your Tool
            post what you like (mind…). Recently in your Like post that this Like has been expanding to other creations. So, the real bottom is Loving Life?

            1. I don’t know what your experience is Vin but Geir’s style of writing has a ‘fucking’ effect on the thoughts that come up here, by this I mean that there is so much aliveness in his style that it disintegrates the thoughts and there is more and more
              alive awareness here.

            2. Yes, Vin and I am completely SELF-ish in it! As the more alive and aware I am, the more alive the people around me are and they are having fun. Our coms here have
              far-reaching positive effects…..

            1. Okayyyye! You sure you can handle the adrenalin, without freakin’ ? 🙂

            2. Yes! At high speed there is no creation, just ‘sailing’ and as you are fully alert, I will
              be in complete safety. If yet there is some adrenalin later, I love it!

      2. I am still completing MSC (Mindful Subject Clearing) on the first dynamic inspired by the L-10 word list. When that is completed I shall start on MSC with the second dynamic word list.

          1. Marianne, it is going wonderfully well. A lot of things came out of doing L10 with KHTK approach. One of them was the following essay.

            Evolution from Spirit to Self

            Currently, I am doing MSC (Mindful Subject Clearing) on Physics. This has led me to Philosophy of Cosmology. You are always welcome to visit my blog and checkout the latest essays. They are mostly on Physics. They may not be too sexy for you. .


            1. Thanks Vin, i have read some of them. i like physics, btw.

              Have just read through your discussion with Elizabeth. Like

              in your comment to me, you mention sex two-three times.

              What does it mean to you in your practice of mindfulness?

            1. There is an incredible amount of bliss in resolving inconsistencies. There are enough inconsistencies out there to last many many lifetimes. Mindful Subject Clearing (MSC) leads you there. With Internet it is so easy.

              Do an MSC on the subject of Sex.

            2. i actually love inconsistences and i don’t have the slightest
              inclination to resolve them. if you find bliss in their resolution,
              do so. i also love randomity…being in a state of unexpectancy
              for me is that gives spice to life.

              ‘do an MSC’ on the subject of Sex’. what makes you believe
              that i need to do so?

            3. Vin: “Wanting the effect on self.”

              Yo, that’s perfect, thanks. What a great cog. I’ll run with it.

  3. If a problem is in the past, then it isn’t now, then it can’t affect you, as the past is not now :p

    If the problem is now, then you don’t need to dig into some non existent past to deal with it. Processing would work to the degree that it handled the present. If one already brings (creates) some past into present, and you deal with it, you win. If you put one to deal with problems that he doesn’t have in present, you just do the opposite (you put him to create those problems). If you don’t have him deal with it thoroughly, you’re just an implanter. You put him create case that he never had anyway.

    To assign cause in the past would be reverse processing. ‘I am nervous because mother used to…’ Nope. ‘I am nervous because I use mother as an excuse for my being an ass’ would be closer, because it is in present. Nevertheless, I’ve never handled anything by figuring it out.

    1. Does E-meter reaction unequivocally proves that some incident is trillions of years old? What does the time stamp of “trillions of years” really means?

      The idea of date locate puts unnecessary significance on time. The actuality is that the pc is working under the idea that “date locate” needs to be very exact before the incident would blow.

      Well that has nothing to do with the unit of time or with the past. It has to do with sorting out the inconsistency right in the present in exact detail by narrowing it down.

      1. The date locate would put the past in it’s time (past) and have it disappear from present. It’s a form of as-isness. What exactly do you mean ‘by norrowing it down’? How would that be done?

        1. It is difficult to say what is happening in date locate when something is “trillions of years ago”. I doubt if the pc is going into the past trillions of years ago. The pc is looking at some time stamp in the present.

          That brings up the interesting question, “What is a time stamp attached to an incident mean?” Time essentially put things in relative sequence. So one is simply trying to put some mental inconsistency in proper sequence in the present to sort it out. This is all being done in the present. The accuracy of it will make the inconsistency blow.

          ‘Narrowing it down’ is a phrase used by Hubbard in Data Series. It also reminds me of an iterative programming algorithm that narrows down the error in each iteration until the error is within some pre-defined mathematical criterion.

          1. Well, my guess is that one can put the time stamp as well and as much as he can put the rest of the incident. And yes, its all done in present. If a past is in the past, it’s not in the present. If it’s in the present, then it’s not in the past. But anyway, nothing ‘is’ by itself.

            Evaluation of data has nothing to do with finding out truths/as-ising. ‘Knowledge is not data’ he said as well. Processing is about as-ising…well, unless it isn’t.

            1. One may put anything that one wants. What makes it stick is inconsistency. As-isness sorts out the inconsistency.

              Sent from my iPhone


            2. OK, but I can mock up and unmock inconsistent stuff!

            3. Exactly!!!! or just childish imaginations. Maybe children would keep on being like that if grown-ups didn’t indocrinate them into their serious ways of living 😛

            4. Hi Spiros, I’m keeping my mind open on this subject of space time. To me it seems that our human abstractions of the processes that we call past, present, and future will evolve as we learn more. I like how you write “… Nothing is by itself.”

            5. 🙂 I think those pasts, presents, futures are way too scientific labels. I think things just are or aren’t, or else we can evolve them into mindmakes-loves 😛 Based on SCN data, I used to analyse stuff pretty much. I was just messing myself up, creating complications. I think things are simple, and thinking can make them complex.

            6. Maybe the mistake is to mix logic with something that doesn’t have to be logical –spirits, imaginations, mock ups. I mean ‘free’ would also be logic-free, free from logic. I don’t mean irrational, but deliberately illogical, like humor. Logic has it’s chains. It starts from some past, and it ends God-knows-when. One can say ‘I ARC broke, so now I’m kinda sad and then I’m gonna be antagonistic…’ that’s not free. He could also say ‘I ARC broke…did I? lol’ or better have no thoughts whatsoever about happened to him…you get my point.

            7. Yes! Although right and wrong aren’t subjective, for me.

            8. Spyros: “Yes! Although right and wrong aren’t [objective], for me.”

              Nor to anybody else as far as I can see. There is illusion, of course.

            9. It seems to me that objectivity is something that one feels one cannot change in spite of trying to think differently.

              It also seems to be confirmed by how most other people find it to be.

            10. Overall, it’s ‘funny’ how much we can agree, but we can still argue when we stand for different labels. Third party? 😛 I even noticed long ago I could agree with psychologists friends of mine hehehe though I still wouldn’t like to get ‘helped’.

            11. Geir: Perhaps resolving the need to resolve inconsistencies holds an important key?

              Me: It damn well does for me!!

            12. Of course, one can mock and unmock inconsistencies. But if there is an unwanted condition then there is some inconsistency that needs to be discovered and unmocked (as-ised), to get rid of that unwanted condition.

            13. I am not sure if Hubbard got it right when it comes to as-isness – that one needs to view something exactly to make it vanish. Unwanted conditions go away also without as-isness.

            14. Geir: I am not sure if Hubbard got it right when it comes to as-isness – that one needs to view something exactly to make it vanish. Unwanted conditions go away also without as-isness.

              Yes, Hubbard got it wrong about as-isness. It does not make things vanish.

              I look at as-isness in terms of mindfulness. One sees something for what it is. One now has an unfiltered understanding. In terms of unwanted condition, one has a better understanding of it. One makes progress in terms of handling it. There is no magic here.

            15. I do not think that seeing things as they are is the only way to resolve unwanted conditions. I have had many things resolve without ever having seen them fully or understood why or how.

            16. I have had many unwanted conditions vanish as a result of doing something totally different from looking at that unwanted condition. Like doing OT8 had the surprising effect of removing any and all nightmares (7 years now). I think most people could come up with examples of unwanted conditions vanishing without addressing them. Lots of unwanted conditions are vanishing simply by growing up. In my life I have had lots of shit removed simply by practicing Fuck It.

            17. What was that something ‘totally different’ that you did? Sorry, I do not have any experience with OT8.


            18. Read my post on OT8 (link in the right column). Besides that, the example of growing up would suffice plenty, methinks.

            19. You are leaving it to me to interpret your experience. Sorry it is not enough of an example.


            20. I wasn’t dealing with nightmares at all on OT8 as you can see in the link I pointed to. Still they vanished. But let’s just stay with the example of growing up. I believe everyone has experienced unwanted conditions in life vanishing simply by growing up. Thus it is quite possible to have unwanted conditions disappear by not addressing them directly or examining them.

            21. It’s an example pure and simple. Have you not had any unwanted conditions disappear simply by growing up? I mean I could list at least 100 examples of unwanted stuff vanishing without addressing them directly. C’mon – it’s not that hard to see, is it? I coach people almost on a daily basis and frequently have people tell me about side-effects from the coaching that we didn’t directly tackle.

            22. All I am saying is that one can get side-effects rather than addressing stuff directly by looking at the unwanted conditions. I have actually had more gains in life by practicing Fuck It and Chillaxing than any other method in dealing with shit. Just sayin’

              Some may want a more sophisticated method than that for the reason given by Alan Watts in the video recently linked here. I prefer to just let it slide 😉 …whatever IT may be.

            23. It is fine if this works for you. I am not sure if it will for everybody. Your method is not scientific as far as I can see.

            24. I try to mock up a demo of the inconsistency out=as-isness, but I can’t. By ‘inconsistency’ I understand you mean ‘out of logical sequence’, right? Can you explain this further to me? Maybe give me an example?

            25. Spyro: “… By ‘inconsistency’ I understand you mean ‘out of logical sequence’, right? Can you explain this further to me? Maybe give me an example?”

              I have defined ‘inconsistency’ here: EXERCISE: Contemplation

              “Inconsistencies are things that seem out of place and do not make sense. We naturally question such things. But often, as children, we are told to shut up because we are too young to understand. Our questions tend to get suppressed.”

            26. Spros, do you understand everything, or is there something that you do not fully understand?

              Well, if there is something that you do not fully understand, that would be an inconsistency.

            27. Vin(cent?) I could create that there is something I don’t understand. 🙂 I understood what you told me though, unless you told me something other than you wrote in the blog. Is there something else you want me to understand?

            28. Spyros, No. I was responding to you asking for an example of ‘inconsistency’. I hope you have one now. 🙂

            29. But that was a definition, not example 😛 But yeah look, anyone can inherently as-is as much as he can create. So what’s the ‘right’ way to do it? I think the best way is no way, but there can be ways too. If it gets the job done, it’s ‘right’ 😛

            30. What is inconsistent for me may not be inconsistent for you. If you want an example of inconsistency then find something you do not fully understand.

              Or, do you know it all? 😉


            31. The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.
              – Socrates

              I do agree. When you really know (as-is), you no longer know anything. That sticky ‘knowing’ is but altered as-isness, agreed upon (is-ness) or not.

            32. Spyros
              A huge amount of theta can make vanish any condition may it be wanted or unwanted. Matrix: Trinity+Neo bullet scene, in human life the ‘magical’ healings. Also, when one STOPS (really stops, no creating, zero), one ‘is’ ‘zero’, yet there ‘is’ the ‘world’ but one is not OF it, one is IN it, it is a no-condition state of being.

            33. 🙂 Yes, fully agreed untill “yet there ‘is’ the ‘world’ but one is not OF it, one is IN it, it is a no-condition state of being.”

              Zero can be neither in nor out. And if the world IS, who IS it for? And what is the world, anyway? How much of it does anybody know? Most cling on things they have been told about that world that is. And that is ‘reality’ –what people are told. And if you put that above your own creations and perception, you’re controlled. That for me is the matrix.

            34. Yes. Zero is neither in nor out. Example. Get the feel of the example. Feel. No mind.
              It happened two days ago. I am writing about it in present time.

              The scene: a party. No sense of ‘me’. Zero creating. Zero. Stop. A feel and no feel of smooth moving of the body like sailing. Some people come and hug the body…give kisses on the cheeks…talk…’me’ is listening, sometimes answering.
              The ‘people’ are also neither ‘in’ nor ‘out’. Each moment is just happening very
              smoothly. Continuous folding and unfolding.

              Zero in full creation of the world.

            35. Detachment, Marianne? Disengaged physically, while perceiving in the theta plane?
              Yes, I’ve experienced that too. Perhaps it is also a ‘withdrawal’ of sorts? Ya know the perceptions seem to really come “on song,” (and strong!) when one ‘reaches’, hey? At least, that’s been my own experience. Wot do you say?

            36. Just to add, that today, (23 December,) I celebrate my one month ‘marriage’ to Geir Isene’s blog. I must say this is as wild as a ‘honeymoon’ could get. Can’t get enough of the ‘anything goes’!!! humpin’, jumpin’ flippin’ & snoggin. wheeee! And it isn’t even Christmas Day yettttt!!! ….. drooooolll 🙂

            37. Haha yes, this is an actual FREEzone –where you don’t have to agree wheeeeee

            38. Yes, you got it. Cannot describe it better with words. The best in it is that ‘others’ are reaching and reaching…smiling.

            39. racing
              I add to the previous that there is ‘doingness’ in it but not in the ‘I do it, based on I want it’ way….doingness is kind of unfolding…no reason, no purpose yet active and
              fully engaged…

            40. I think he is too free to be located –he is nowhere to be found 😛

            41. Marianne, all just sweet music to my ears. Speaking of which, here’s a Scot who can make the lassies drool. Marty Pellow. do us the honors girl: Wet Wet Wet – “Sweet Surrender” 1989

            42. Thanks Marianne. The 1989 video ‘intended,’ would have communicated far more than the audio alone, but appreciate your effort/s as always. Well M, my dear, off to charge the battery, so reconnect with ya later. Hopes y’ catches y’ boooty sleep too.
              …….pleasant dreams, please. 🙂

          2. Years in the past is meaningless when: 1. It is already established that the volcano fantasy is geologically inconsistent, and 2. Years have a current and modern meaning to man and have no relevance with regard to other solar systems or to time dilation. For me, date stamping as such is irrelevant except for its placebo effect.

            1. You have a penchant for great thunking, Chris. And i go along with your view of the volcano fantasy. The one thing I do agree with the Ol’ man on though, is his assertion on “mystery.” —- “Mystery is the glue that sticks people to things!”

              IMHO, this is the biggest understatement in the whole of Scientology! 🙂

  4. Apart of any sex discussion of these comments, is there anybody to notice the beauty of the picture? Rubik cube, one of the most wonderful math creation of all time. Fascinating for generations of teenagers in the ’80s…

    1. YES!!! I noticed it the minute I read the OP. Erno Rubic, its inventor is Hungarian like me. I also liked playing with it as a teenager. dragos…I love that part of you which is able to point to present time in the funniest way ever! Other parts as well,
      do not be mistaken about it! How are you doing these days?

      1. Hi Marianne, I’m fine, thanks! Waiting for Christmas, right now I “work” hard to find a place for Christmas tree in the house 🙂 Tommorow night Santa Claus is coming! 🙂 (even for people of my age) 🙂

    2. Yes. I love the picture. It just cheers me up and makes me smile. Somehow it is also reversing the flow of the “whys and wherefores”. It is chosen well to the theme and so apt to Geir’s last sentence.

      1. I don’t see any flow there. It’s simple mathematics on Rubik’s cube. Honestly, I was never able to solve the whole cube, face by face, colour by colour. Never.

        1. I was handling this cube once or twice getting slightly irritated and gave up pretty fast.
          With “the flow“ I did not mean the handling of the cube itself but the desire to HAVE to “get to the bottom of it” – that regarding to the headline and the article in connection with the picture of the painted cube and its message. I came into Scn to find out more about life and got hooked because I wanted to find out more and more, “getting to the bottom of it”- like an addict. That was also one of the reasons why I didn’t leave earlier.

  5. ‘Inconsistencies’ cannot be defined in terms of some objective logic, which is considered absolute. That idea of logic itself is erroneous.

    “Inconsistencies are things that seem out of place and do not make sense. We naturally question such things. But often, as children, we are told to shut up because we are too young to understand. Our questions tend to get suppressed.”

    EXERCISE: Contemplation

  6. Geir
    Yes, a lot of unwanted conditions vanish just by growing up. The vanishing is connected to one’s basic purpose, isn’t it? As when one is following that one is happy as everybody and everything around is supporting it, peace-joy-harmony.

    I woke up this morning and saw it much more clearly what following one’s basic purpose means and how one can see when one is not on it.

    Thank you Geir for creating this place. As I remember, you once got aware of basic
    purpose but did not write about that here. Will you please do that? If you like.

Have your say

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

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s