Why this blog is suppressive

In Scientology, suppression is defined as:

A harmful intention or action against which one cannot fight back.

A Suppressive Person (SP) is defined as:

one that actively seeks to suppress or damage Scientology or a Scientologist by suppressive acts.

and

A person with certain behavior characteristics and who suppresses other people in his vicinity and those other people when he suppresses them become PTS or Potential Trouble Sources.

And as you can see, a person affected negatively by suppression is termed a Potential Trouble Source (PTS):

it means someone connected to a person or group opposed to Scientology. It results in illness and roller-coaster and is the cause of illness and roller-coaster.

and

a person […] who “roller-coasters,” i.e., gets better, then worse. This occurs only when his connection to a suppressive person or group is unhandled and he must, in order to make his gains from Scientology permanent, receive processing intended to handle such.

anonymous_vs_scientology69

So, working backward, a person that is involved in Scientology and experiences impermanent gains from it, is connected to a Suppressive person or group. This is somewhat peculiar to Scientology in that the gains are not really permanent, like with physical or other mental training. It’s not like you would expect a person to lose his ability to multiply, to do trigonometry or to ski if he were to be connected to someone opposing those activities in his life. Sure, he could lose motivation and momentum and drop out from his training, and then the skills would corrode. But to suddenly lose his ability to communicate or his ability to recognize the source of problems in life? A person who has audited out all his BTs and then becomes the target of suppression… does the BTs return? Now that is odd.

Could it be that the gains in Scientology actually comes from skillful application of the placebo effect? That the gains are to be had because one really belives one deserve them? And that deep inside we all carry the ability to change our lives if we really can muster the motivation and belief that we can? And that this motivation comes about only when we feel we deserve it?

Is Scientology gains dependent upon the person’s belief, conviction or “inner knowingness”? It would surely answer the conundrum of why one can so easily “lose gains” in Scientology.

Could it be that the scientific cloaking serves to enforce belief in its efficacy? Could the religious cloaking serve the same purpose to different target groups? The time spent surely would enforce one’s conviction that It Works. The same with all the money spent. How about the stringent management, the uniforms, the tough schedules, the bombast, the posh, celebrities and grand PR? And the guru worship? It really does seem like an impressive package that could make a believer out of most anyone. And if we do hold the powers to heal our mind and spirit, one could hardly blame the Scientology scheme for tricking the subjects into unleashing their inner powers.

Question_Everything_by_Victawr[19]

On this blog I challenge Scientology beliefs. I question everything myself, and I write about it as I go along. I challenge the practice, the philosophy, the gains, the OT levels, Clear and anything else that turns up as I turn every stone. Scientologists who read this may end up questioning their own beliefs and even lose some gains. And in that aspect, this blog can indeed be looked upon as suppressive. While blogging my Scientology journey has been a great process for me, a nagging doubt remains:

Is it right to challenge another’s belief with facts, if the belief they hold serves to make their life better?

It’s a complex question and I have many views on this. But I would like to hear what you think.

511 thoughts on “Why this blog is suppressive

  1. Great post! I believe that it is your duty to inform people of facts especially if their beliefs are based on lies. Example: if I believe that my life is better when ‘tout le monde’ can see that it actually isn’t, then I would like someone to wise me up to the truth.

    1. The problem, specifically, is whether it is right to uncover untruth in a person’s belief when that belief truly serves to boost the person’s abilities – factually and actually does enhance the person’s belief in himself and thereby boosting his very real abilities.

      I have not seen many here address that fundamental question in the OP.

      Let me add an example: A person believes that a certain crystal she is wearing is able to enhance the person’s attentiveness and awareness. This belief helps the person actually, demonstrably, helps the person be more aware and attentive, more awake. She explains this by the “crystal’s ability to emit a rare combination of alfa and weak gamma rays” or some such. You put the crystal to test, only to find that there is indeed no emission of any kind, no alfa, beta or gamma radiation (thank God). Should you tell her? And break her belief?

      Same goes with Astrology, belief in faeries or Scientology. Is it alright to break a person’s belief if it breaks the person’s abilities?

      1. Geir,

        if a belief in crystals is what helps the person be more aware, then that person doesn’t have much grip on life. Why do they get a free pass on this?

        Is this perhaps an example of the special attention that religion gets in western society where it has a free pass on just about anything it feels like doing? Why are you worried about someone’s false belief in crystals and what effect the truth will have?

        No-one has a right to retain a falsehood, and holding a belief requires that you can justify it and be able to deal with conflicting opinions.

        I don’t know why you are asking this question, the answer is self-evident. Is something going on IRL that started this line of enquiry?

        Alan

        1. This whole question is covered in the Alan Watts video I have posted a few times. Because whatever you tell a person to do – if he believes it will get him to the point where he deserves to be enlightened, it actually will. And any illusion will do (and only illusions will do – because it is an illusion that the person cannot already simply be enlightened) – and to tamper with the illusion may actually do great harm to the person. As I said – this is a complex and rather nuanced question.

          1. “and to tamper with the illusion may actually do great harm to the person”

            I disagree with this point, it needs backing up with something otherwise it itself is just another belief. People have their beliefs and assumptions challenged all the time in real life and I don’t see large amounts of great harm being done as a result.

            One’s illusions are simply models. If a person believes he is infested with disembodied space aliens that need exorcising and that will make him free, then that is the person’s model for how the universe works. Like all models it cannot be proven, only falsified. One day the model may stop being suitable and the person gets to change their mind, or not.

            Either way I really can’t see why one would have a problem with this. You are not responsible for that person’s models, they are, and if their model is so weak that contrary evidence would shatter their word view and cause great harm to them, then they had a shitty model to start with.

            I have some models – the one ending with the Higgs Boson is especially useful as is the Uncertainty Principle. But one day those models will be replaced, perhaps it really is an Electric Universe. Will this cause me great harm? No, of course not.

            I’m operating under an assumption here that what you are asking has nothing to do with being cruel and deliberately hurting someone for their belief; I don’t think you have that in you. You are talking about honestly presenting information you can back up and wondering what the other guy will do with it, correct?

            1. I am questioning whether it is right to tell a person with Downs Syndrom that he has no real reason to believe he can accomplish the things in life that he says he really wants to. As an example.

              You seem to reduce the matter to simple black-and-white reasoning. I am hessitant to go down that path. Mostly because I cannot see the truth in objective truth as an absolute.

            2. That changes things slightly because it’s no longer the general case. Your OP doesn’t narrow it down, it just asks a question for I answered for the general case.

              The trouble with these special cases is that one presumes enormous amounts for the other party. Who is to say someone with Downs *won’t* gracefully accept their limitations. Why presume they will be hurt? That smacksof thinking persons with Downs have far less thinking ability than they do. It’s insulting.

              Chances are such people are perfectly capable of viewing themselves realistically. Treat is as a teaching exercise on a gradient, we humans have always taught this way. That’s assuming you feel obliged to get the person to be realistic, most folk would just let it be, not feeling obliged to do it and thus don’t need to wonder whether they should or not.

              Honestly I’m still not seeing the problem. You don’t have to counter every belief with facts (and truly you pass over huge numbers of them daily). If you care about someone/something enough to wonder whether you should or not, then I think that already answers the question. It’s not whether you should, it’s how you go about it. Assuming you care of course, and have no desire to be cruel.

              Wondering about this stuff tends only to lead one into inaction, afraid to open your mouth and speak. It also leads to that current blight of western society, Political Correctness. I take no truck with that, I tend to assume my fellows can deal with what life throws at them.

            3. I like what you say splog. Also if someone asks, is searching or questions at all, I think s/he will either value your truth and it will help, or it won’t affect s/he negatively, if given with good intent.

            4. Thanks deE,

              there’s also an element of judgement in this; if someone is beginning to doubt that DM is on the level, ESMB or WWP isn’t the first place we should send them. Bt judgement about how much how fast is not the same thing as backing off from saying it all.

              Finding and understanding truth is a process, not a single event.

            5. Splog: Finding and understanding truth is a process, not a single event.

              I’ll vouch for that 🙂

            6. Geir: I am questioning whether it is right to tell a person with Downs Syndrom that he has no real reason to believe he can accomplish the things in life that he says he really wants to. As an example.

              Chris: For better answers, give more data. For instance, how much Downs Syndrome are you talking about and is the person in your example hoping one day to have a little tourist shop to sell curios or are they wanting to be an astronaut or the King of Norway?

            7. Geir: You seem to reduce the matter to simple black-and-white reasoning. I am hessitant to go down that path. Mostly because I cannot see the truth in objective truth as an absolute.

              Chris: Regardless, if the person’s goals and dreams weren’t impinging on me in a negative way, I would encourage them to follow their dreams. There are many examples of me doing this with Marildi on your blog. Likewise, when Marildi promoted her Scientology beliefs for others, I objected. She complained that I picked on her personally and “stalked” her, however, in my view her expertise on the mindfuck of Scientology, true belief in it, and willingness to push it toward others felt dangerous to me when presented without the countering opinion. If you did not notice, Marildi’s arguments for Scientology within the framework of Scientology were quite sound. On the other hand, because she was a true believer ivory tower academic without the expertise of having done the solo auditing that she promoted, she carefully did not expose herself to the inevitable inconsistencies which arise when one does solo audit and was therefore able to maintain her illusion of control. When I encouraged her to follow her dream and to solo audit the OT Levels of Scientology, she accused me of being snide yet I promise that each encouragement on my part was genuinely meant to help her reach her goals as a Scientologist even though I no longer believe in them nor agree that their physics are sound.

          2. Geir said: “You seem to reduce the matter to simple black-and-white reasoning. I am hessitant to go down that path. Mostly because I cannot see the truth in objective truth as an absolute.”

            Objective truth is only absolute in the precise instant that it exactly and specifically describes a manifestation. Only the definition remains the same, the manifestation never does. Definitions are limiting by their very nature,- they define. They rely on beliefs. Belief that the sun will rise each day, that red will always be red, and that our hearts will pump for a number of years.

            None of the above are based on simple black and white reasoning. None of the above are perfectly and totally defined: the condition of being definite, distinct, or clearly outlined. A powerful factor in these beliefs is hope/faith that life and existence will continue as it has in the past, for better or worse. These underlying beliefs can be falsified, and all forms of belief tend to mask the dreadful truth that we have absolutely no means of predicting or controlling the continuity/survival of our shared existence or our individual existence.

            I recently encountered the work of Dr. Sheldon Solomon, which is based on the works of Earnest Becker, Søren Kierkegaard, and Otto Rank, among others. Sheldon’s team tested a number of theories to do with belief systems (culture) to determine their role in the growth and health of the human species.

            I am posting a video that I think is the best summary of his work – the version on youtube is damaged, so you will have to let it load and then start from 3:00. Even if you listen only to the first thirty minutes, I think you will find that he has taken a view that provides tremendous insight and a powerful view of how our lives are affected by our belief systems.

          3. I love the expression;;illusion;; yes… every thought.. consideration therefore beliefs are just that.. that means they are not in a solid form but they are still energy mass… and the persons in reality are not attached to that concepts but to that energy mass. In my reality that is the reason so difficult for many to gain different viewpoints.

        2. Alan, my dear fellow s’effrican, I see some glaring rays of IN-tolerance, beaming through some cracks you maybe didn’t even realize you had there, ol’ chap? Trampling on another’ s beliefs with heavy inval and deval? Surely you’re possessed of better than that, man? Granting beingness and importance to another and / or their beliefs, will take NOTHING away from you. On the contrary, I ‘believe’ you may even discover, thereby, ‘compassion’, a silent, invisible passenger travelling with you every where you go! Just being there, chillin’, closer to ‘YOU’ than you may even realize, bro’ 🙂

          1. Peace, Racing.

            You live in a far too dangerous environment, with gangs all around you, to worry about whether Alanzo grants enough beingness to others.

            Alanzo

            1. Sorry – you WORK in far too dangerous an environment, with gangs all around you, to worry about whether Alanzo grants enough beingness to others.

              Peace.

              Alanzo

            2. Chilled either way, Al. Hey, the comment above was aimed at fellow South African
              “Splog”.(the other Alan) your partner in blog mayhem! 🙂

            3. Oh, sorry.

              So you can invalidate Splog and his opinions, but you won’t invalidate mine?

              I feel left out, and frankly, discriminated against.

              Is it because I’m not a South African?

              Alanzo (:>

            4. Nope Al, but does inval / deval of inval / deval get the nod here? And yes, didn’t you know that South Africans discriminate against everybody? Hell yes, I’ve got that in my blood too, just to make your activity here that much more “bloodied!” 🙂

          2. Calvin: Granting beingness and importance to another and / or their beliefs, will take NOTHING away from you.

            Chris: Not consistent with your environment of criminals and kill or be killed .

            1. Chris, If only I could find a way to take YOU on a personally guided tour! Then at least you would have a reality, from which to examine your comment. I would suggest a similar tour , by an experienced lion park game keeper, “who grants beingness and importance to “another, and /or their “beliefs”, in this case the “animal” version of the King of Beasts! Is this NOT consistent, with guiding you how to stay alive, in “that” environment ? I submit to you, that, in either event, NOTHING would be taken away from you! Unless you consider the loss of ignorance and disrespect, counting as “NOTHING!”

            2. Calvin: Unless you consider the loss of ignorance and disrespect, counting as “NOTHING!”

              Chris: I would love to see what you want me to see. I can tell that the imagery you want me to experience would be vivid and life changing. However, this blog OP is about the loss of ignorance and disrespect, isn’t it? On the one hand the OP asks whether one should force one’s own model on another when it seems apparent to the one that the other’s model is destructive.

              To be clear, in my opinion, I do not seek out people to proselytize to when they are not looking to me for an opinion. For example, I do not knock on doors and spread literature to promote what I believe. Then on the other hand, on an open forum such as this blog, I feel free and okay with myself for sharing what I believe and arguing the differences. Everyone reading here should be up on the rules and the game that we play so I don’t feel the need to hold back from saying what is on my mind regardless of the effect that has on another’s illusion of control.

            3. Chris, thanks for the ‘illusion of control’ link. That sure cleared up, a lot

            4. You’re welcome deE. Prompted by Maria’s and Alonzo’s (among several other’s) broad knowledge base of psychology and other social sciences, I’ve been trying to read what I could to bone up on all that I didn’t know about these subjects. I found out a couple things. One was that I didn’t know shit about psychology, and another was that the subject is huge and not the demented, pinheaded, degraded subject that LRH led me to believe. As Maria said, “it’s been a long road” and now having traveled as much of it as I have, I find my life to still be fresh and inviting and new. It seems it may just stay that way — though I am PTS and suppressive, I seem to never have lost that.

            5. Chris: “though I am PTS and suppressive, I seem to never have lost that.” Your kidding of course.

              Me: How can you lose something you never had, or don’t have? ❤

            6. deE, I wrote that kindof backwards. I mean that my life was good when I found Scientology it was good while I was saving the world in Scientology, then since recovering from Scientology it is good again despite my psychotic status with the COS. I seem never to have lost my zest for living. However, I do consider that a bit of luck but that is fodder for another thread.

            7. Whoopee-doo Chris. Whatever keeps you alert and/or alive, is good in my book too 🙂

      2. Bluntly then, Geir? NO, it is not okay, to break that individual’s belief/s. …..and….for the exact reasons you articulated to Pete, above.

        A little less bluntly, Is it okay, to shatter a kid’s belief, in Santa, Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, Fairies ??– With the ‘facts’?
        Or to invalidate some one trying to overcome a disability / illness / setback, who has found renewed strength through crystals, charms, a ‘sign’, symbol, or whatever?

        Closer to home, Does one have to justify, giving compassion, or showing tolerance, to one in need? IMHO, no, since such a selfless act, is sufficient, in and of, itself.

        Does the withholding of a medical finding, that a person who does NOT wish to be informed, if he has terminal cancer, so as to carry on living in the relative bliss of willful ignorance, NEED to be shattered by the insistence of others, that it is “right’ to do so?

        The needs of the duck vs. the duck hunter, also revolve around the common denominator.. survival! Survival has been interpreted as to what is ‘right’ from the viewpoint of the intended ‘survivor’ This of course, begets the entire panorama of games called ‘life’, and the respective players, including the SYMBIOTES, of said players. Perhaps your question posed, is in fact, adequately addressed in simply recognizing the true role of that much overlooked, inconspicuous, “symbiote?)

        Scn Tech dictionary p.4i8.
        SYMBIOTE, 1) the Dn meaning of “symbiote” is extended beyond the dictionary definition, to mean “any and all life or energy forms, which are mutually dependent for survival.” The atom depends on the universe, the universe on the atom. (DMSMH,p.32) 2) all entites and energies which aid survival. (EOS, p. 101)

        Does that open the way to resolving your “nagging doubt,”, Geir? 🙂

        1. …symbiote..referring to your example, if one who has ‘terminal’ cancer releases the charge, it has a positive effect in the whole ‘bio’ layer….
          …can we inform and help that person get back his health without the person reaching for it? well, i heard factual examples from one who has helped dozens and dozens….he says that without the person reaching he does not do it (except in rare cases)….even then when one is ‘cured’, the ego (ignorance) can re-produce the illness or a different one….when one sees, is really aware of, that one is a contributing part of the ONE, that one is responsible for the well-being of all ones,
          then there is a better chance that the person starts to really Trust and Value Life…
          as a Whole…

          ill-ness and treat-ment….isn’t it interesting? when one is not treating-handling something in the proper way (ill-treats it), one may get ill…..

          ‘you must be the change you want to see in the world’
          i see its truth deeper and deeper factually…as i trust Life more and more, Life graciously manifests what i deliver (as you said Ray) and also helps explore on…
          yesterday i had the very first lesson with a slightly ‘autistic’ (meaning no social conditioning, clear perception girl) who said to me the following as a start: love yourself, love others and appreciate everything as it is…love life. She also said that
          I looked peaceful and happy. Well…as you may know, ‘autistic’ kids are here to ‘teach’ us about truth….that is their gift to those who listen to it.

          ….another factual example….many years ago an OT8 said the following: in a session he saw that he would get cancer in the future…so he handled it….
          from a different source: cancer is a ‘shock’ on 2D….no medication can cure it,
          only a ‘therapy’ which is able to release it, plus some vitamins and minerals…

          …going back to the above mentioned rare cases…he said that without seeing
          what effect it will cause in the Whole, that is in the Totality of the Web of Life,
          it can be a little risky….that is why the reaching and free will of the person is
          very important….as taking that step the person starts to be responsible in a wider
          and wider sphere for others ….FACTually, where fact, in my reading is: I am, I am
          love and so are ‘others’…

          1. Excellent, Marianne! Can you see that in the cancer scenario, the “symbiote,” in this case the Immune system, could be seen as the symbiotic presence?

            “The Prevention and Cure Of All Cancers ,” by Dr. Hulder Clark, advocates an approach of eliminating all factors, including dietary, which compromise the strength of the immune system.

            A very broadbased approach, it nevertheless highlights what we have tended to to, to ourselves, AND the environment, and describes in detail, the factors which must be present, for cancers to develop and overwhelm the body. All aspects, are thoroughly covered, with a large reference base. of research and credits. The practical solutions offered, challenge our hardened ways, but can set one on a path of cancer- free existence. That, to me, makes this study a must, if nothing else.

            Just to whet your ‘appetite’, what (unsuspected), every day, household product, can kill the AIDS virus, within 10 seconds of exposure? The self same product, causes just as much damage to your your white blood cells, which are responsible for killing toxins and other hostile invading cells/ viruses detected in the blood.

            The culprit ? — household “bleach” (chlorine), the same stuff we throw in swimming pools, which controls (kills) algae formation! … AND a lot more besides.

            Good book, good counter weapon, arming you to the teeth, with the knowledge, and woof and warp of cancer, and how we unwittingly permit it to take hold and flourish in our bodies.

            “Common sense” is probably the most overlooked, undervalued “Symbiote” in our defense system! Yet we fail, time & time again to duplicate & understand that.
            When it comes to health matters, I confess to having a voracious appetite to question “there!”

            ML, “Dr” Ray.

            1. Thank you Ray! ‘Prevention’ thus means being well-informed…maybe back to the times when nature was still precious and plants, herbs could help stay healthy…this,
              in its pure form we see e.g. in Tibetan ‘healing’ as when there is an illness problem they can cure it. I do not yet see that far (only intellectually which i get as true) that the immune system is truely a key. What i also heard is two more things: the cells, the organs of the body are masterpieces of consciousness….also, that as everything is energy, of different frequency and it is karma which ( like a guard) keeps up the balance in the Web of Life, a person who is aware of all of this can stay healthy and can help others to heal themselves. Well, that awareness, knowledge and applying the skills (definition of wisdom in the East) is…..no word
              to describe it.

          2. MT…. who gets the cancer? who believes that they have cancer? who believes that they are ill? who believes that they will die? Who believes that they have a life and live only for let say average 70 years?

        2. HI C…. now how long it’s been going on: people looking for the truth… wanting to know who is right or who is wrong? how many battles were fought, how much blood was spilled, bodies destroyed in order to find the truth.. to prove who is right and who was wrong? Was the truth found and when it was found was it really the truth?

          1. Elizabeth,

            People can only really begin to recognize real truth when they reach about tone level four on the tone scale.

            So you for one, are evidently a long way from yet.

            Dio

            1. Dio… your truth is yours alone… and that is the fact I will never experience your reality.. But also you cant experience others reality so your evaluation as always evaluate your own reality because you are the only judge. You cant see how I see the universe and I cant see yours… illusions belonged to those who create them..

      3. The problem in this case is Scientology, specifically the Church of Scientology, and more specifically still are the writings and lectures of L Ron Hubbard on Scientology.

        These writings and lectures teach people to go bankrupt, and to get others to go bankrupt, to sign away their lives into indentured slavery, to destroy their own families and businesses through disconnection – for what?

        To attain the states of “Clear” and “OT” which do not factually exist, and never have.

        There is evidence that Hubbard even knew these states did not exist.

        So, in the case of Scientology, yes, it is always ethical to challenge the believer with facts because of the real damage that Scientology does.

        A belief in crystals? Not even in the same category of damage.

        The best development to come along in a long time is Marty and Mike taking over and promoting the Independents, and people like Dan Koon making the tech available to everyone for free.

        This development cut out widespread bankruptcy from indepenedent Scientology, but it still left the policies of disconnection and the RPF and everything else damaging that Hubbard taught. But Independent Scientology is better than Hubbard’s Church hierarchy which uses social coercion to harm people.

        Maybe some day, with enough critics of Scientology providing the factual information necessary for people to make informed decisions about it, Scientology will become as innocuous as a belief in crystals.

        Until then, people like Racing will have to put up with all the factual “invalidation” of a toxic spiritual deception that has ruined far too many lives.

        Alanzo

        1. The crime the cos is guilty of is:

          constructive fraud

          Definitions
          1. Unintentional deception or misrepresentation.

          2. Obtaining of a legal but unconscientious advantage through an unfair transaction, such as in dealings with the ignorant, poor, or weak.

          Courts may set aside or refuse to enforce an agreement where the terms are such that no person with free volition or proper advice would have agreed to.

          3. when the circumstances show that someone’s actions gives him/her an unfair advantage over another by unfair means (lying or not telling a buyer about defects in a product, for example), the court may decide from the methods used and the result that it should treat the situation as if there was actual fraud even if all the technical elements of fraud have not been proven.

          4. Under contract law, a defendant can be liable to a plaintiff for constructive fraud if there was:

          (1) a false misrepresentation;

          (2) in reference to a material fact;

          (3) for the purpose of inducing the other party to rely on such representation;

          4) on which the other party did justifiably rely;

          (5) which resulted in damages or injury; and

          (6) a fiduciary relationship between the parties. Hagarty v. Ithaca City School District, 423 N.Y.S. 2d 843 (1979).

          Bad intent or dishonesty is not a requirement to satisfy constructive fraud.

          The elements for actual and constructive fraud are the same with two exceptions: constructive fraud drops the element of scienter–knowledge on the part of the injurer of the representation’s falsity–and adds the element of a fiduciary relationship.

          And even out right fraud> because almost everything the cos says contains hidden fraud, deceit, and hidden agendas, entrapment and other covert intentions that if a person was properly informed they would never agree too.

          Dio

          1. Dio wrote:

            And even out right fraud> because almost everything the cos says contains hidden fraud, deceit, and hidden agendas, entrapment and other covert intentions that if a person was properly informed they would never agree too.

            …if a person was properly informed they would never agree to…

            EXACTLY.

            I’m stealing this, by the way. And I am going to use it elsewhere on the internet. And I am going to say that I wrote it.

            And I won’t even mention you. If someone says, “Hey – didn’t Dio write that to you on Geir’s blog?”

            I’m gonna say, “Dio who??”

            Alanzo

            1. Alonzo: And I won’t even mention you. If someone says, “Hey – didn’t Dio write that to you on Geir’s blog?”

              I’m gonna say, “Dio who??”

              As long as the end, justifies the means.

              I suppose I can let you go on that one.

              End: = Bring down the COS!

              If you win any lawsuits, I just want 20%.

              Dio

        2. Alonzo,

          Quoting you:
          Alanzo
          2014-01-03 @ 16:16

          The problem in this case is Scientology, specifically the Church of Scientology, and more specifically still are the writings and lectures of L Ron Hubbard on Scientology.

          These writings and lectures teach people to go bankrupt, and to get others to go bankrupt, to sign away their lives into indentured slavery, to destroy their own families and businesses through disconnection – for what?

          Me. I like the way you articulated the above, so I pirated it and put in my file of ammo for my dealings with the cos.

          Thanks,

          Dio

            1. Alonzo: This kind of thievery can not be tolerated!

              Oops, !@#$$! I am sorry and I will not let it happen again.

              Dio

        3. alanzo… first happy new year to you.. and I hope that your battle in this coming season with the weeds will come out right…[ i truly believe nature is winning on this ] and about your above post you are again well …. thank heaven it is not my reality.. not my truth..

      4. A belief can help ‘one-pointedness’ (focus)….which can lead to PT when all the ‘pointed effort’ of focusing is fully released. Then one can see, looking back, that that belief was an aid. The person needs to be aware of it by himself.

        1. Marianne: The person needs to be aware of it by himself.

          Chris: It is not ultimately important what a person is aware of until they interact socially. So within your own mind, home, group, please believe what you want. But communicating socially, civilly, politically outside that frame of reference and you become subject to scrutiny and modification by others – willingly or unwillingly.

          1. Chris
            In my reality-experience true ‘ social’ interaction can happen only when the person is in PT. Fully aware of the physical reality, listens to, understands the coms and can respond with true respect and with the proper to the situation action. When one is ‘aware’, it does not matter which group, country….clearcut speech and actions.

            1. Marianne: In my reality-experience true ‘ social’ interaction can happen only when the person is in PT.

              Chris: I was generalizing at the macro level and not being philosophic. If you want to be specific about PT, then you will find PT does not exist and no one “is in it.” PT is a generalization which is fat and thick as a person is able to wrap their wits around. Social interaction for me means communicating with whatever and taking trying to predict and accept or deal with the consequences.

            2. ok…i prefer the micro level, down to zero….from there the sphere of experiences
              can be very different….fresh anew
              ok, i get how you socially interact (based on what you write)…but why is there the
              ‘predict’?

            3. Marianne, I ‘m aboard here too, and I know that you feel my presence anyway. Quick story for you. Some years back, i used to have daily firefights with mini bus taxi drivers, who would stop across our driveway entrance, (of our business complex,) effectively preventing entry/exit from the property, especially during peak-hour traffic. Every legal measure to get these guys to obey the “Keep Clear” box painted across the roadway, was met with hostile defiance. Cops, fines, arrests, appeals to the taxi assn’s, municipality, etc, etc. All just fizzled into nothing. Being the take-no-crap sort that I am/was, resulted in many physical sorties, with the corresponding (ho-hum) death threats that followed. (yawnnnn!)

              One of our residents, an equally fiery Portuguese service station owner, would often arrive at the blocked entrance, at 17.30, hooter and voice, blaring at full volume. Of course, at this time, i would be standing in as a ‘traffic marshal,” doing my best to keep the entrance clear. After sometimes being forced to wait up to six minutes, for the indolent drivers to allow him passage through. By this stage, the guys eyes were bulging, his shouting obscenities audible to the whole neighborhood. His repeated mantra, on any given day , was so thoroughly drummed into my head, that i will never forget it : “You justa can’ta ween weetha this bastards!! You justa can’ta ween!” I must have heard him shout that, hundreds of times over.( I eventually solved “the problem” by blocking off the entrance, and creating a new entrance in a quieter roadway at the rear of the property.)

              Moral of this story, Marianne? “(Sometimes) you justa can’ta ween weeth this bastards!! You justa can’ta ween!!”…….. So just …”move on” 🙂

              ML, Ray.

            4. Hahahaaaa…..I soooo love your style! Incredible story and i fully get its moral! Fully!
              I am starting to get what you mean by ‘symbiotic presence’….you are…cannot find a word for that Ray but it will sure arise spontaneously. I started to read the book…..
              yes, i feel your presence and i know that you know it…haha…so grateful that you are aboard too…my perceiving has limits but it is expanding.. so i am learning from
              what you put my attention to….it fascinates me what you are doing here……

              going back to the story…i see another option too…not yet fully…when it’s full, i will
              write it down….

              it’s getting late by your time, you may go to bed soon…..sleep tight!!
              blowing theta kisses to you………………..

            5. Hi Sunshine, thanks, & for the theta send off into the land of “nod!” 🙂
              Well, another new day in “Paradise,” hey? Btw, my direct comm line, if you feel so inclined, is: billboardpostings@neomail.co.za See you, ML, Ray

        2. MT… how can one be in PT when TIME DO NOT EXIST? Clocks are machinery which measure inter action movements of other solid forms. And when you are saying that you are in PT.. with that you admit that you are no more than that meat body of which the photo is taken.. Meat body and nothing more.

      5. Geir, the problem I have with your OP is – What is NOT a “belief”, in terms of the framework of your OP? The way you have stated it, it is like trying to conceive of a wave without a shore. Is all “an illusion”? Is nothing an illusion? Where/what is the datum of comparable magnitude, that allows you to decide what is a “belief” and what is not? Is there anything that is NOT a “belief”? Are some beliefs more valid than others? What is the measure of that? I think that s why your OP has not been addressed very much. There needs to be a frame of reference. Splog obviously has a frame of reference from which he addresses the question, but his assumptions(standards) are not explicitly and overtly stated either.

        1. The question is not really whether something is a belief or not, but rather whether it is OK to break it when it gives the person real gains despite it being (totally) contrary to facts.

            1. But why?

              Why would not the long term benefits outweigh the short term benefit of personal gain? Or under what conditions is it Not OK?

              And why the Jeez!?

            2. You know, the more I think about the function of believing, the more I think it does have a useful place in society. Like Santa and the easter bunny. And the bible, too, especially certain parts.

              Based on the operating datum that any idea is only as good as it works, yes, those “beliefs” are useful.

              I think “beliefs” have their usefulnes in different ways, for different stages of life and different stages in the evolution of consciousness.

              But it is like a “double edged sword”, it cuts both ways, it has considerable advantages and also considerable disadvantages.

              The disadvantages are in the area of serious business, like when the USA administration of G.W. Bush when he “beleived” that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and decided to invade Iraq. And we all should know or be well aware of the consequences of that “belief”. The fire is still not even hear extinguished, but still spreading. And actually getting worse with the threat of nuclear war increasing every day in more than one place.

              The real big problem arises when the belief is false and dangerous.

              And when I watch TV news channels, I listen to the “should be more intelligent that what they are” people, wreckleeslly use the word “believe”, when talking about important subjects like business and war, it drives me mad and crazy. it’s bad enought too, whenthey are talking on just about any subject.

              I can easily see that they do not have a clue as to what they are really talking about. It causes stupidity and insanity in the masses.

              Dio

            1. Illusions… thoughts-beliefs are illusions they are your created fantasy and how one finds out that they are just that?

              Whatever one believes in: and that is how the ‘’I…me…self” sees the environment, surrounding, locations, situations, conditions; disorders of any kind or illnesses or psychological, spiritual, intellectual or the bodies conditions whatever that may be: regardless if those beliefs are logical or illogical.

              Whatever one thinks of others: how bad…evil…sinful ….corrupt they are, that others are just a‘’ low life’’, nasty, mean persons and how corrupt…ruthless… hardnosed …heartless their thinking is, and how… mistaken…misguided…foolish good…helpful…nice.. great friends…sweet.. kind…and full of fun and full of life they are..

              Whatever however one feels: thinking and believing what others have done to that “self=me”: have harmed…injured…mistreated…wronged…wounded… abused…neglected……unloved or being adored by others or idolized… admired…respected…valued…applauded that ‘’self-me’’ in any ways.

              Whatever one’s thinking is…regardless if one has the BELIEF that other has done something bad or good toward that SELF-ME…whatever one beliefs about self…is one’s own creation…making…reality…truth…accuracy…fact…and has nothing to do with how the other persons are in reality… who they are or what those persons beliefs…realities are.

              We all are creating…generating…forming=bring into being… our own Illusions about self and others and the universe.

              Care to have on example? lotto ticket…buying one with that you have bought a fantasy of winning big time and what you will do with your winning.
              Idea of ”being in love” what is: is your creation, how it should, how you will be loved etc…etc.. having that fantasy is living in your fantasy. different example; vacation: how it will be how it will make you feel…is created by you it therefore it is fantasy…
              We create our own universe and the universes of others too and we create the communication between those universes: now if that is not ones fantasy than I am an the wrong track…hehehe… yes, we can say when others don’t measure up, they are not what we believed in that they “JUST DONT MEASURE UP TO OUR STANDARD, THAT THEY ARE NOT OUR IDEAL PERSONS…so lets get rid of that friend.. lets divorce that person… in fact they never were that kind of person in the first place… we just wanted our fantasy to become solid and we believed: had a illusion that person will be that fantasy we made up about them. very funny….
              PS:When one looks for ones ideal… a model perfect person or situations…conditions and one continually… over and over compares everyone to that ideal=fantasy creature… or when one believes one’s very own believes are the ideal – right- true – accurate –correct thinking=belief and the rest of the Universe is all wrong.. than one sets self-up for LOSS – DEFEAT – HURT – UPSETT… because not one person out in that great Universe can match up to.. those ideas –fantasies.
              AND HOW ONE KNOWS FOR SURE THAT ONE IS DEALING WITH ILLUSIONS_FANTASIES???? VERY SIMPLE: WHEN THE THOUGHTS….IDEAS…BELIEF….CONSIDERATIONS…SENSATIONS NO MATTER WHAT THEY ARE: HOW BIG OR HOW SMALL WHEN THEY ARE CONFRONTED: THEY JUST SIMPLY VANISH… Nothing will remain… not even a slightest trace of those considerations one have had 🙂

              Like this:

            2. if i hadn’t misduplicated you which i actually hadn’t as i only wished to express it in my own way, you would not have written this amazing post…maybe you would have…who knows?

        2. Valkov… those who dabble in spirituality: in beliefs [had spiritual experiences] that we are not the body these beings have lost some of the boundaries between the universes and because of that the questions, realities do not addresses the subject the same way as when one believes that one is only a meat body

        3. Good god Valkov.. is it not the reality that all our thoughts=believes are intangible and belong solely to the Entity who created them? And the disagreements one has with those thought are again only the creation of the person who is not agreeing?

        4. Valkov…. is it not the fact that laws… rules and regulation are there to control [ we must obey!] and they do take away the ability to think and express ones illusions freely?
          Yes, I know in the human society having laws are needed.. but they do supress the freewill.
          you could not write a better post than Geir…. just different… and illusions are just that different from each other but one illusion do not have more value than the next.

      6. NO.. as you would not like to have your knowledge… your beliefs evaluated -invalidated EXAMPLE: GEAR… you calculator is nothing more than part of your banks since all machinery is part of the solid universe=MEST…created by aberration.. 🙂
        Your example from above: That belief is real to that person therefore she uses that crystal to help her.. than it helps her.
        Who has given the right to evaluate any one accordingly one own belief? Where the belief originated from that the “I-ME-SELF” knows better than others do that “I” my beliefs are the only truth and others know shit?
        That belief is pure hogwash… and it is created by FEAR…. IN order to survive…. You see, seeing others not doing so well, than one believes that MY THINKING HAS TO BE RIGHT BECAUSE LOOK AT OTHERS SO FUCKED UP THEY CAN MAKE IT SO I MUST BE RIGHT THE WSY I THINK…….. I GOT TO BE RIGHT BECAUSE IF I AM NOT THAN I AM FUCKED UP TOOOOO!!!!AND THAT CAN NOT BE… you see each being knows unconsciously that they are not persons human bodies but ENTITIES : intangible, infinite therefore their beliefs are the right one because they have survived is all.

      7. here is your answer: what is real for a person is real in the physical universe…so don’t. UNLESS you give her something BETTER.

    2. interesting viewpoints….. in whos reality other persons reality is not right, not correct? If we believe that we have the Right to think than where the GRAND IDEA IS COMING FROM THAT OTHERS DONT HAVE THE SAME RIGHT AS WE DO?

      1. Elizabeth,

        RE: Thinking:

        You are evidently operating on false and limiting data.

        Not all people have the ability to think. Allowing them to think is like allowing children to play with matches.

        Example: Re: allowing women to think. History has lots of great men who studied and evaluated the thinking abilities of women and concluded from evidence; as quoted from wikipedia:

        “Aristotle says that the courage of a man lies in commanding, a woman’s lies in obeying; that “matter yearns for form, as the female for the male and the ugly for the beautiful;” that women have fewer teeth than men; that a female is an incomplete male or “as it were, a deformity”: which contributes only matter and not form to the generation of offspring; that in general “a woman is perhaps an inferior being”; that female characters in a tragedy will be inappropriate if they are too brave or too clever” (

        Soctates concluded that: one sign of democracy’s moral failure is the sexual equality it promotes

        Besides the creation of Eve from Adam’s rib establishing male authority, the Bible further establishes this relationship through Eve’s role in the temptation of Adam and the “fall of man.

        ” After eating fruit from the forbidden Tree of Knowledge, Yahweh asks Adam if he had eaten the fruit and Adam replies, ‘Eve gave me fruit from the tree, and I ate it.’

        God then curses Eve, saying ‘I will multiply your labour and sorrow; you will bear children in pain; you will yearn for your husband, and be ruled by him!

        Eve’s action introduced death into the world of humanity, but she also convinced the other animals to partake of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge and initiated death into their world as well. Eve is the Hebrew version of the Greek Pandora.

        Weininger

        Otto Weininger has been accused of misogyny in his book Sex and Character, in which he characterizes the “woman” part of each individual as being essentially “nothing,” and having no real existence, having no effective consciousness, good reasoning ability or simple logic, or rationality.[47]
        Schopenhauer

        Arthur Schopenhauer: He claimed that “woman is by nature meant to obey.” He also noted that “Men are by nature merely indifferent to one another; but women are by nature enemies.”
        Nietzsche

        Friedrich Nietzsche stated that every higher form of civilization implied stricter controls on women He is known to have said “Women are less than shallow,” and “Are you going to women? Do not forget the whip!”[48]

        Hubbard said the day that women are allowed to compete in business and politics on an equal basis with men, is the first day of the beginning of the end of civilization.

        The historical evidence that all hell breaks out when women are allowed to think is overwhelming.

        This began on the day that Eve talked Adam into eating the forbidden fruit and Adam bought the bait of the devil and things have been a mess since.

        In judging this matter, like in all situations, remember that the truth is not determined by opinion, beliefs, nor by who wins an argument.

        The truth is established by the facts.

        Just a messenger.

        Dio

        1. I was waiting for more of the Dio I know to shine through here. This is precisely why you, Dio, is under moderation on my blog. You would do just fine as a Propaganda Minister for the Third Reich.

          1. Geir,

            Don’t shoot the messenger!

            Shooting the messenger is a sign of serious insanity, serious aberration. .

            Be sane and go and shoot all the great minds of the past who made the evals.

            Dio

            1. They are already dead. You evidently stand by these messages as you promote them here. So, no reason not to shoot you.

            2. Geir,

              Be sane and objective!

              Political correctness is a form of lying, a form of intellectual and perceptual dishonesty .

              Honestly and impartially evaluate the data presented.

              Please explain in full detail what is not true about the observations, evaluations and the conclusions the great spirits of the past made?

              If the data presented fails to withstand all scrutiny, and you can prove the data wrong, then you can shoot me.

              It is not safe to speak the truth on this planet. Because only one in a million are intellectually and perceptually honest enough and high enough on the tone scale and theta scale to understand and recognize truth.

              Jesus told the truth and they crucified him.

              Things have not changed.

              That is why earth has been described as the asylum of this sector of this universe.

              Dio

              Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. A. Einstein.

        2. Dio…. if you believe what you believe in that is fine with me… But what make you believe that your realities have more value ? that you know better than others? and your knowledge or those you quote are the one who are right and speak the truth? Just because there is agreement on something that do not make it the truth.. that agreement is there for those who agree but in their reality those who agree they only agree to their reality because we never ever can comprehend -understand–know how that data we received was in its origin.. SOOO…. WHAT WE AGREE TO IS WHAT WE READ INTO THAT DATA… and that has nothing to do with the origin of that data….DO YOU COMPUTE THIS??? CAN YOU DUPLICATE THIS?

          1. Elizabeth,

            I do not believe anything.

            Believing is a confession of ignorance.

            Believing is a function of those very low on the theta scale.

            Believing means you do not know the facts.

            I only operate on observed and evaluated facts.

            I evaluate data on it’s own merits via common sense and that is based on how many problems the data solves based on the the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics. In this case for the preservation of the human race.

            A woman’s biological responsibility is for the creation of the next generation of sane beings and for the proper care and feeding of husbands. When she abandons that post, that responsibility, she is committing genocide in slow motion. The most serious overt.

            It is just plain and simple common sense.

            Without a sane future generation, civilization is doomed. Because woman have abandoned that post a few generations ago, and is now going down the downward spiral fast as we comm.

            I heard an interview on the radio many yrs ago, by a black woman from Africa who wrote a book on that subject and was on a promo tour in Canada.

            She was the only honest and intelligent, sensible and sane woman I have ever heard of.

            Common sense is a sense of right and wrong and good judgment that everyone should have.

            Failure to have and use this faculty could give cause for institutionalization to protect public safety.

            Dio

          1. Elizabeth,

            If you were sane and capable of honest reasoning, honest perception, honest thinking and honest evaluation of data, you would “see” and understand that all those great spirits of the past, as well as Hubbard’s words I quoted are true.

            A sane honest woman can only feel truly fulfilled in the territory (under the arm) of a sane man. A sane and natural woman does not have a territory of her own. She can only have a territory within a man’s territory. Very similar to the way wolves in a pack are hardwired.

            A female wolf is lost when not in the territory of an alpha male wolf.

            That is the way she is naturally hardwired. Her properly functioning hormones dictate that.

            She is hardwired to be a baby factory and pregnant every eighteen months, and for the proper care and feeding of husbands.

            And behind every successful man there is a successful woman wearing her proper hat, the way she was created, the way she was hardwired.

            When she goes on the birth control pill, or becomes aberrated, her mind gets converted to a masculine function and then she eventually becomes more and more aberrated, psychotic and out of sync with her innate hormonal driven, hard wired process. She is then living a lie. Some become man killers.

            Those are the biological facts. Not beliefs.

            Any argument in disagreement with the facts will not change the facts.

            Like any argument against or denial of the laws of gravity will not effect or change the laws of gravity.

            Denial of the laws of gravity will cause death.

            Denial of the laws of nature, of woman’s true purpose, true hat, will cause the end of civilization. It is only a matter of time.

            Dio

            1. which civilization? by the way..there is no woman here, my cat she has been fixed so was this old thing I use as on anchor.. and that was 32 years back..so the bodies here are just IT as any other objects… the meat body, which has wrinkles galore is 74 year old and I as a Entity could care less about the condition of the body and the human race… You see I believe that I am only viewing a illusion. and every illusion is perfect that is the reason I am not worried about the human conditions. But I thank you for sharing with me your realities… most entertaining..

            2. sane, that concept as you see what is ”sane” well, mighty insulting.. but coming from you and knowing that concept is your reality therefore I except it.. But don’t be disappointed… wont change anything in my universe which I consider I have created.

            3. I am having fun reading your comments , by now I have reread it 5 times .. what a fun viewpoints.. I just told my cat that we are reversing those operations and we will become productive, we will put a add in on the internet for her a strong tom cat and for me a alpha male and we will have kittens…. lots of them, and I also will hunt for food and wash his dirty socks.. yes.. I will correct my aberration and become sane once more… Thank You… Thank You for showing the way. What fun blogging is… Thanks Gear and I will send you one of my babies and a few dozen kittens.. 🙂 Of course Dio you will get some to.. 🙂

            4. DIO ”’When she goes on the birth control pill, or becomes aberrated, her mind gets converted to a masculine function and then she eventually becomes more and more aberrated, psychotic and out of sync with her innate hormonal driven, hard wired process. She is then living a lie. Some become man killers. “”” Elizabeth Yes I recall I killed my alpha partner and I eaten his liver,,, you see he become useless… lost the function of his thingy… oh bad memory.. but the liver was good.. organic.. there were no chemicals in it. Are you having fun blogging…I hope so.. I am 🙂

            5. As usual Dio, your facts are completely wrong.

              It took me two seconds to type “female wolves” into my favorite search engine, and this was the first hit.

              http://www.freewebs.com/alphawolfsabrina/socialorderandvisual.htm

              Dude. You have to examine your premises more. Well, first you will have to know what your premises are. No, wait, first you’ll have to know what a premise IS. Then you will need to find what your premise is on a given subject. THEN you will need to test it and to examine it.

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premise

              Really. It’s the only way you are ever going to get smarter. You have so much false data in your head that you may even need false data stripping. That’s how far down you are.

              The good news is – you can only go higher!

              Alanzo

            6. Geir,

              There are a lot of things wrong with Al’s post and therefore your agreement on his bullshit.

              1. first your “hear, hear” post is not in order with Al’s post. I looked for Al’s post and could not find it. I would like to read the whole post.

              Geir in response to Alanzo:

              As usual Dio, your facts are completely wrong.

              2. Al: This statement above is completely wrong, a lie, a false accusation, just plain pure bullshit.

              Me: Al, unless I am just kidding,or joking around, my “facts” are always right. Bring anything that I said as facts, that was not factual, to my attention, now.

              It took me two seconds to type “female wolves” into my favorite search engine, and this was the first hit. http://www.freewebs.com/alphawolfsabrina/socialorderandvisual.htm Dude.

              3. What is wrong or so wrong with what I said, ……according to your “wolf order” link?

              You have to examine your premises more. Well, first you will have to know what your premises are. No, wait, first you’ll have to know […]

              Hear, hear!

              4. Geir: You are agreeing with Al, as for just an opportunity to spite me.

              And going by the part of Al’s post that you included,….. what he said was, as usual….. bullshit.

              Al’s is usually the voice of ignorance and stupidity.

              Al, you have been demoted to a 100 feet back of the pack of the last row big dogs.

              In my post the proper context of what I said; is that humans are “similar” to wolves in the way they are hardwired for territory. There are similarities that over lap. That context is plenty close enough for fair and honest and sensible academic discourse.

              Neither of you guys are qualified to comment on what I say. You both either did not go to school or did not go to the right school.

              Dio

            7. Dio,

              Just fuck off. Please.

              Take your drivel somewhere it is appreciated.

            8. Marianne,

              And DM can also see the light and one day come to Jesus. But, in the interim, I really don’t see why the regular posters who are here learning stuff should have to put up with Dio’s inane drivel.

              Dio has an inherent right to his own opinions, to speak freely, and to learn. Note carefully what those rights are, he does not have the inherent right to be heard.

              The signal/noise ratio from Dio is closely approaching 0/100.

            9. Amen to that splog.

              My opinion? He’s trolling.

              From Wikipedia:
              In Internet slang, a troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a forum, chat room, or blog), either accidentally or with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

              Don’t feed the troll.

              Geir, are you keeping him around for the lulz?

            10. I always felt Al was trolling me when he called me or referred to me as a “Scientologist”. It was also clearly a 3P action on his part. However I do not feel this was bad for me, although it may have stultified some of the discussions on the blog. It taught me, however, not to “feed the trolls”. Now I feel it is like watching the Republicrats and the Demicans arguing and trolling each other. I don’t see much difference between Dio and Al in some regards, and I think it gives Al someone to argue with since I don’t bother anymore. It’s all good fun. I’ve been hanging out on Facebook a lot. Elliott Snow.

            11. As Geir remarked a little earlier, there is a line…

              And we’ve both been participants on this blog long enough to know that Geir has issued yellow and red cards once a while to good effect. Its rare but it does happen. Dio was flagged last year for this same type of post, and here he is back at it again – I went and looked at his post from last year – he could have just copy and pasted it and had the same result.

              I really like Alanzo’s approach lately and I was really disappointed when he was pushed on to pick up his “dramatic” armadillo persona – I really love it when he posts in his own words, from the heart with great sincerity and honesty. I don’t always agree, but there is no doubt in my mind that he has really considered what he is speaking of. There is also no doubt in my mind that he does seriously consider the ideas and information I post. I do not doubt his goodwill even if I sometimes question his approach.

              The same is true of you Valkov. I like your posts. I take them quite seriously as a valuable point of view. I don’t doubt your sincerity or goodwill.

            12. I think you are confusing therapy and discussion. People come here to DISCUSS various topics with one another. I come here to discuss, and sometimes that is therapeutic.

            13. It is ALWAYS ‘therapeutic’…and as i observed it, you are also
              sensitive to the ‘tone’, the ‘energy-frequency’ of a person. And as
              we know, significances, concepts can be interesting and entertaining and can sure clear lots of things in the mind, what
              really matters is the ‘rise in tone’ which can happen in the com
              cycle….my reality, Maria. You take-give here your genuine theta
              whenever you are here…a simple answer, a question can raise
              another’s tone. Is it not true?

            14. If you feel Dio’s tone, you can feel that he is theta…and he is good-willed. In Zen there are a lot of meaningless sentences.
              Why?

              Dio, if you read this…PLEASE write in simple sentences. Shorter
              posts. When possible, about YOUR experiences and views. OK?

            15. I do not subscribe to this notion of “theta” and I do not see a POV that seeks to strip me, as a human being and a woman of all rights as good willed. Absolutely not.

            16. I’m with you on this Maria; I found Dio’s post about female wolves offensive in the extreme. I still don’t really know what the blazes he was on about (the post has too many comments like “this dude this this and that geezer says that”) to make much sense, but I *think* he’s saying something along the lines of a woman is only worth as much as the man in her life considers. or something like that. Smacks of that awful paragraph at the end of DMSMH, the one about the role of women. It looks innocuous enough till you figure out where it goes.

              No doubt Dio will show up within 24 hours with a vicious tirade against me that I’m a fucking halfwit with a single band radio for a brain and should learn to read what he types.

              But anyway.
              Anyone who reckons strong women need a man to make it obviously hasn’t met many strong women.
              Anyone who reckons female wolves need a male wolf to define them obviously doesn’t know much about female predators. In pack hunters, the females do most of the work. The males mostly get involved to take down the occasional really big prey that takes extra strength.

              Of course men and women need each other. But it’s as team work, not lord and chattel.

            17. Sure, but that is not the intention of trolling. The intention of trolling is the disruption of a community.

              Note: I do not participate in discussion necessarily to raise another’s tone. I come here to discuss, to share and to learn.

              I no longer see tone level as a marker for learning or even enlightenment. I see now that some very cruel actions can be taken in a most cheerful manner, it all depends on the culture and the conditioning.

              I no longer subscribe to the view that there are “higher” and “lower” tones, rather there are resourceful / empowering response and debilitating / disempowering responses in a given set of circumstances. Anger has its place, so does fear. These are not “bad” emotions, and they do not necessarily result in “bad” actions. But that is another subject entirely.

            18. Splog,

              1. Everything you know is wrong.

              2. You need to go and find a useful brain.

              3. Get your TRs in.

              4. And get some serious auditing.

              5. And climb up the tone and theta scale a long ways.

              Dio

            19. Alonzo,

              (and everyone else who is all worked up, upset, rattled and disturbed by the very high theta truth -facts I presented, those who cannot handle real theta, those whose cages have been rattled and minds have been seared by too high theta, those who think that the truth is determined by their whimsical beliefs and opinions and by who wins an argument)

              You; Dude. You have to examine your premises more. Well, first you will have to know what your premises are.

              Really. It’s the only way you are ever going to get smarter. You have so much false data in your head that you may even need false data stripping. That’s how far down you are.

              The good news is – you can only go higher!

              Me: It is the other way around.

              The statements I made are based on extensive and intensive leading edge research of the highest order.

              The research is based on questioning and evaluating everything. It is based on studying cause and effect, short term and long term. It is based on studying the work of many great minds of the past.

              Including the very few truly honest intelligent women who I have been fortunate enough to come across in my life. The African author of the book I heard her promoting on the radio, 23 yrs ago. Who said that women are the cause of all the problems in Africa, because they fail to bring up their sons and daughters right.

              My main other sources are:

              L. Ron Hubbard and his book as I quoted in part: Science of survival,

              and the work of Dr. R. G. Hamer discoverer of German New Medicine, (now living in Norway) which is basically an extension or expansion of Dianetics. It is actually DIanetics for the GE. or medical dianetics. It was done independently of Dianetics. It has it’s own language and concepts that go beyond dianetics.

              His work is promoted by former Magill university of Montreal professor Caroline Markoline, now residing in Austria.

              You will find at least some of the principles I presented, on the website she runs for the promotion of Dr. Hamer’s work:

              http://learninggnm.com/

              And Geir if you really think that someone should be expelled and barred from your blog for presenting theta, and good common sense and reasoning, while you defend entheta, that is certainly your right.

              Dio

            20. You, dear Dio, is truly debased.

              You are hereby awarded a red card and is barred from posting on my blog (as you have been kicked from every other venue I have seen you post to the past four years). You are red carded for reasons that would be obvious to every reader of your comments on this thread – reasons that I believe will never even dawn on you. Your treatment of others on this blog and you views of your fellow men and women and your reference to Hubbard as a source for your views exemplifies quite well how mind fucked one can get from blindly accepting his ideas. Condescending and arrogant to the extreme and unable to feel empathy for others. I hail you as a Scientologist and I wave you goodbye.

            21. Dio appears to be in the mood for some schooling.

              He wrote:

              In my post the proper context of what I said; is that humans are “similar” to wolves in the way they are hardwired for territory. There are similarities that over lap. That context is plenty close enough for fair and honest and sensible academic discourse.

              What that link shows is that wolves are similar to humans in their pack mentality, not their territoriality. Human territorial instincts are very different than wolves – we could not have cities if they were more similar to wolves. The similarities are that wolves are social animals, just like human beings are, and their societies are striated like ours.

              But female wolves are just as tough as male wolves, and just as able, and just as smart. Some say smarter, and tougher, because not only do female wolves hunt with the best males, but they also have and raise children, too, which makes them even more important to the survival of the species.

              This is what makes some biologists conclude that the female gender is the most important gender of any mammal species. In fact, many say that the female gender is the MAIN gender of many mammal species and that the most important biological role for mammal males – especially primate and social mammals – is for the male to SERVE the needs of the female. Even to the point of fighting and dying for them so that they can live to reproduce and raise a new generation.

              So that’s why your points are just wrong, Dio. Just completely off. So off that you need to be ten yards back of me while running with the pack. You, sir, are not an alpha male, nor even a beta male. You, Dio, are an Omega male!

              But you can work your way up the ladder. The door is open just a crack for you, as long as you prove that you can use factual data within a logical structure, in order to come to rational conclusions about things.

              You also wrote:

              Neither of you guys are qualified to comment on what I say. You both either did not go to school or did not go to the right school.

              What school did you go to, Dio?

              Do you have a college degree?

              Did you graduate from high school?

              What other training have you had – not counting Scientology?

              Because even if you do count Scientology training, Geir and I have you beat there, too.

              I’m telling you once again, Dio. Go to the back of the pack. You need to clean the latrines for a while as an Omega male, and start working your way up the strata of our social human group.

              You are very low in that strata right now. You need to provide clear rationale per the rules of basic logic, and using well-tested facts as the basis of your reasoning.

              If you can demonstrate that, then maybe we’ll let you have the anus of the next rabbit we kill to eat. But you’ll have to wait until after Geir and I have eaten all we want.

              Then you can have the anus.

              So start!

              Alanzo (:>

            22. Dio, you are really funny. Now: Sit Down in That Chair! TY. Stay! TY.

              Weird that in the past you came across to me as a Christian, at times a scientologist and now a born again dianetic philosopher. Maybe it’s train sound emitting that I’m picking up from your recent posts – Whooo wooo!

              I have to agree and conclude with Wikipedia, that by definition, you make an excellent troll. This is my only feeding to you, so buh bye!

  2. Geir: “Is it right to challenge another’s belief with facts, if the belief they hold serves to make their life better?

    It’s a complex question and I have many views on this. But I would like to hear what you think.”

    Yes, it is right. But your statement is too long. it should be:

    “Is it right to challenge another’s belief with facts?”

    The conditional is irrelevant and a red-herring that detracts fromt he real questiona nd weakens it. A fact is a fact and a believer has no right to expect to be insulated from facts.

    And that’s the crux of it all. It really isn’t about whether you have the right to challenge belief with fact (you always do), but whether the other party has any realistic expectation that you don’t.

    1. and who said those facts are the truth… that basic-basic truth?where that truth originated from? very interesting… Who has agreed to that and why that agreement was made?

  3. Geir: Quoting you: Is it right to challenge another’s belief with facts, (This part is good

    if the belief they hold serves to make their life better? (This part is an oxymoron.)

    Yes, I think in most cases it is ok, good and right to challenge people with facts.

    It works better with higher toned, higher theta people than low toned, low theta people. Some people are best left well enough alone. Some people can handle it, some can’t. Some people are happier operating on false and limiting data. It takes some discretion. And it takes the right time, place and circumstances.

    And it usually requires the right gradient too.

    There is a right and wrong way to do everything.

    I have been to many seminars where the host hands out questionnaires for criticism, for evaluation and suggestions for improvement.

    I have been to many restaurants where they do the same. They have a card on the table requesting such.

    A few good operating datums are:

    1. Only the truth will set you free.
    Only the truth will set you free from the bondage of false and limiting data.
    Only the truth (facts) ( the right answers) will solve your problems.

    (You only get good marks for right answers in school.)

    2. At first the truth hurts and then it solves your problems.

    3. and: A person’s critics are their best teachers.

    4. Calm seas do not a good sailor make.

    Bring on the critics!

    Dio

    1. Dio: “Quoting you: Is it right to challenge another’s belief with facts, (This part is good

      if the belief they hold serves to make their life better? (This part is an oxymoron.)”

      The last part is not an oxymoron – see my reply to Pete above.

      1. Geir:

        You: if the belief they hold serves to make their life better? (This part is an oxymoron.)”

        The last part is not an oxymoron – see my reply to Pete above.

        Me. Re your comment on people believing in crystals and astrology:

        Yes, that is a good question. I often run into it, and I am often tempted to challenge them or just simply say that it is BS. I have done it, (it tips their apple cart over) usually to no apparent good results. At least not immediately that I am aware of anyways. I suppose there may be some in the long term.

        So I usually use discretion and bite my tongue.

        Dio

        1. Seems like a wise move. Like when a woman comes asking you enthusiastically in the last minute before you leave for the party with an awful dress… whether you think she looks as great as she thinks.

          1. Geir,

            You: whether you think she looks as great as she thinks.

            Me: Yes, that is a good one.

            Another one is: Do I look fat in this dress?

            There are many such traps.

            Dio

            1. Yes – and all pertinent to the OP question. Whether one should challenge another’s belief if you estimate that it would in fact make their life (a bit) worse.

            2. Geir: Yes – and all pertinent to the OP question. Whether one should challenge another’s belief if you estimate that it would in fact make their life (a bit) worse.

              Me: It is always a “judgment call”.

              Like i said in my first post. There is a right way and a wrong way to do everything. The right time and the wrong time has to be included in that datum too. And people too. I said it works better with higher toned, higher theta people than otherwise.

              Knowledge without wisdom is dangerous.

              Virtue 8 from the Oahspe book:

              8. The eight virtue is: Discretion, especially in words.
              Consider well and then speak.
              If all people would do this, thou wouldst be surprised at the wisdom of thy neighbors.
              Discretion is a regulator, without it, a person is like a tangled thread.

              Be sure brain is in gear, before engaging mouth.

              Dio

            3. Toleration of no-thingness and no-bodyness is a gradient process in most cases, isn’t it? This no-thing indeed has qualities….how many surrender their remaining ego that much that let those qualities reveal themselves for the sake of the resulting
              changes in human life for the better (no ego control) thus let the overall flow of Life BE in control out of its overall conscious knowingness?

            4. One of the qualities of this no-thingness is that it is aware that another one is an aware no-thingness too. Another quality is the ability to create and send a particle
              to another with the intent and certainty that the other one will understand it – that is
              this quality is to initiate com cycles wherein it is also able to receive and understand the particle which is coming back.

            5. Marianne,

              Yes. Your version is the high tech version.

              It even took me about four run throughs before I got it.

              🙂

              Dio

            6. Dio
              You: consider well and then speak.
              Me: be aware, attentive (listen) and out of it the right words will arise.

              How do you feel about it?

            7. Dio
              I like this ‘judgement call’….which is a decision ‘point’. It is possible not to use the mind (thought). When one is aware, one feels that what one is aware of is ‘lifting one up’ or ‘pulling one down’. Truely, tangibly, in one’s senses. What is ‘lifting up’ is close to one’s basic purpose, one’s core. Thus one can get back to one’s basic purpose….eventually to Life’s basic purpose.

              When the mind (thought) is involved in it, it is choice. One chooses based on data
              (all from the past). In PT it is decision (no thought involved)….so Life is ‘judging’….

            8. Dio
              And a big THANKS ! Reading your post i had a huge (whatever)….it looks that everything, everybody is in Sync….it only depends on how much one is aware of it.
              Thank you for writing your post!

            9. Geir, it seems you certainly have had a full dumpster’s worth of opinions poured into this old cyber living room of yours, with your OP? Taking into consideration that it is a ‘complex question’ involving your ‘many views on this.”… It appears that you are still searching for a key “definitive answer” (There Alanzo! .See? Plugged for ya!)

              Ego’s or no – Ego’s aside, it is a very feely-touchy,-sniffy meaty bone, you threw into the frey! Caused enough ARF-ARF,_YAP-YAP, dig-dig, scratch-scratch, YIP-YIP’s & AROOOO’s to scare off even the Koolest of OSA Cats sifting through your trash cans, man!! Have you even considered the neighbors? ‘Cause i even heard you guys, (waaaay over here in South Africa, man!) ….AND the neighbors too!… “F&^#*(og@&^^ug**#pik =pphucck Geir s%^$@*&-krunnch -schtommmph-schpitt.. Ptoo!

              So then what happened to:
              Q1. Simple consensus answers like yes/no (Y/N) eh?
              Q2. Just toughing it out with the subject of your “nagging doubts?”
              Q3. Just giving a pphucck and making way for Alanzo? (Plug #2! See Al?)
              Q3 Missing acknowledgements for sacrificing our precious bloghours just for your willfully retained…”nagging doubts?”
              Q4. Growing BIGGER ones so you don’t have to propitiate Al, to prevent him taking over completely, then putting YOU in HIS “Hall Of Shame?” (Nyaa-nyaa, Al!)

              Resolution; I no longer have ANY “nagging doubts,” that this was just another “bone” lobbed to us ‘mere mutts,’for AXIOM 10, (Creation of an effect)….right Geir? Y? / N?

              Not wishing to end up as additional “bones in the soup” — I’ll now just pphucck off!

              ritb39 🙂

            10. You know, Racing, I have always understood Geir and why he does what he does, even though he has never explained himself to me or coordinated with me beforehand about what he was going to wear that day.

              We seem to share the same values, and I think that is why I understand what he does here on his blog, and what he did earlier in the message board he used to run.

              He wants people to think.

              He wants people to use the best reasoning and fact-finding skills they can to come to better and better solutions in order to keep improving their lives.

              Therefore, the freedom of speech, the free exchange of views – ALL VIEWS – are welcome by Geir because by leaving out some views, something valuable might get missed. So all views are always included on Geir’s blog.

              I understand that Geir wrote this question – a question that was not answerable with a simple yes or no – in order to initiate the thinking process and to uncover new angles that he, and we, may not have considered before.

              Why?

              So that we can live a more examined life – the only kind worth living.

              This is the value of Geir’s blog to me.

              And the value of Geir running it.

              My question to you: Why is this not as clear to you as it is clear to me?

              Alanzo

            11. It’s all clear as daylight to you, me and Geir as we’re all geeks and/or think like geeks. Not everyone is like that, huge chunks of the population as their primary method think in terms of feelings, intuition and even good old fuzzy-feel-good.

              I’ll give you an example, one that strides both camps: Terry Pratchett, Discworld. On the Discworld, nothing can travel faster than the speed of darkness; it’s faster even than light. Because dark has to jump out the way when light is coming 🙂

              Pratchett really understands geekyness, and also has this amazing ability to flip it all upside down and like an artist connect two things together than are not remotely connected. I don;t know how he does this, it’s as mysterious as Norwegian script.

              I don’t understand Racing either, his mind works in a way that is completely foreign to me, mysterious as Norwegian script

            12. Hrummmph! Alanzo… tut-tut ol’ boy… what’s this then? Just a day back, you, dear soul, set the stage alight by ‘just joking??’.. Now, just a day later, by watching my ol’ buddy, Sheldon, he gets to turn you all serious?? BTW, also just watched Sheldons clips, a little earlier, thanks! +++++ Star presentation, man “seriously!”)

              Tch, Tch! okay, okay then, If ‘serious’ is now in vogue, here’s another tempting little morsel to run the whole shebang completely thru the roof for ya’.

              Are you ready, Alan?

              Google up… Adyashanti – The Gift of Wanting… ( Marianne Toth (pronounce ‘Tott’)
              recommended this on an earlier post to me.)… Suffice to say – Left me speechless!

              PS Marianne, I have now….. arrived…. Thank…. You…!

              ritb39

            13. Have a told you lately that i love you guys! (Rod Stewart is coming soon with the song). hahaha….can’t breathe…..

              Al

              ‘he wants people to think’ – good for you that you know that…he said something like
              ‘put his thoughts here’ ‘likes the feeling’…..you had better ask him for a reminder.

              as for the statement ‘using the best reasoning and fact-finding skills they can to come to better solutions in order to keep improving their lives’…i see the following:

              -it is not by reasoning and fact-finding does the mind get clearer and clearer but by observing a datum whose result is more awareness…theta….which again observes
              another datum where the result is more awareness…theta….it is all along a process
              of observation and no reasoning is necessary for that to happen….theta solves the
              problems and not reasoning…
              …a datum by definition is any-thing one can be aware of….through all the senses..

              -awareness and theta improves one’s life all by itself….reasoning is a useful tool but
              ‘who/what’ uses this tool?

              -the higher the awareness, the faster the decision is (which is not choice in which
              thought is involved)….one’s live can markedly improve by being more and more
              aware…

              -awareness (pure, no-body’s), theta (free flowing, no-body’s)
              (in my present experience)

              please carry on communicating guys…you are amazing!!!

            14. Marianne,

              You: re your comments on reasoning.

              and:
              quoting you: -awareness (pure, no-body’s), theta (free flowing, no-body’s)
              (in my present experience)

              Me: Yes, I have experienced what you describe several times.

              But can you maintain that state in this entheta world, in the rough and tumble of every day life, while dealing with enthetans?

              Dio

            15. THIS is underneath your coms, no matter what form it takes…the energy of feelings
              is an amazing experience….of ‘fighting’, anger…fear….all. You are great, like them.

            16. Marianne, more tell-it-like-it-IS from the bosom of one who expresses more open love & theta, (without the need to score points, mind you,) than many other otherwise decent, and often highly intelligent posters, gracing / racing / chasing after position for Top Dog Honors, here in Geir’s kennel. WOOF! WOOF!ARF!

              Dang, having ‘racing in the blood’ is just a silly, overrated, stupid liability, you know?
              ….. sigh!….

              Anyone want a 290kph Yamaha 600 R6 2-wheeled rocket? Never been caught (yet!) in a speed trap! …. joining Alanzo’s repentance retreat. (just a slim chance, I know, but you know, the fate of every man, wom……….now depends on it!

              take me…. Blessed Lord Al.

            17. Hi Ray,
              Being on this blog is a continuous learning-experience for me…it is absolutely fascinating that any-one from all over the world can come here and make his/her voice made. ‘racing-in-the-blood’ yeaaaah!!!!…..me is sure joining you and more volunteers are likely to come for faster and faster rides…..!!!
              Thanks for all….as it is late, i am leaving you with one of my favourites….in it is
              a question….the answer is the experience….this i wish for ‘each’ ‘you ‘ !

              To each of my friends here, sleep tight!

            18. Ray

              Good morning!…..it has no language and is able to learn and speak all….walking
              in another one’s shoes….you are a master of it, thank you for helping me deepen
              the experience how one is able to carry it out….also, i am getting closer and closer
              to seeing that all ‘one-s’ are in Sync….perhaps being aware of it completely is what
              full Surrender and life as 8D are like…
              Please stay here and communicate….the truth of live, let live and let go is on the
              way to make a Shift in each of the co-operating-ones in which process a truely big
              SHIFT will be the result.

              …funny Life is…i cannot find a better quality of this vid….so perhaps its message is
              that we work on qual a little…and then B O O M !

  4. Geir asked: Is it right to challenge another’s belief with facts, if the belief they hold serves to make their life better?

    If a belief is working, then a person should know why it is working.

    Challenging a belief with facts is a very constructive process because, over time, it is the only way that anyone ever moves closer to the truth. If your beliefs remain unchallenged, then you have no way of knowing how strong your beliefs are.

    If after challenging your beliefs they withstand the challenge, then you know that your beliefs provide a solid platform upon which to build a stable, happy, and productive life. If your beliefs do not withstand the challenge – while that may be temporarily uncomfortable for you – in the long run, things will turn out much better because you can improve your beliefs and modify them to be closer to the truth, thus building a better, more stable platform upon which to build your life.

    It really is true that the unexamined life is not worth living. A person must routinely challenge their belief structure in order to make sure it is strong.

    In my experience, the first thing that a person should do who has built their belief structure upon the teachings of L Ron Hubbard, is to find out what a belief is and what a fact is. Hubbard mixed these things up and made Scientologists believe that their beliefs were facts. This is very damaging to a sound basis for living, and it is the first thing a Scientologist must challenge to begin working on their own belief structure:

    What, exactly, is a belief?

    What, exactly, is a fact?

    Which of the things I rely upon to see the world are beliefs, and which are facts?

    That is the first step.

    For instance: “I am a thetan”.

    Is this a belief or is this a fact?

    What makes it a belief?

    What makes it a fact?

    Alanzo

    1. “I am a thetan” is an interesting one. By definition it cannot be proven or shown[1], so it may well be a fact but cannot be shown to be so. The defining characteristic of a fact is that it can be independantly shown to someone else.

      When people say “I am a thetan” what dothey really mean? They are saying that for them in their experience they are a thetan, and offer various anecdotes as “proof” like being exterior or past lives or statistical coincidences wrapped up as miracles. Both of which are trivially easy to debunk.

      So when a person says they are a thetan they are stating a belief.

      [1] a thetan has no matter, energy, space and time or location. Essentially for all practical purposes regarding facts, it is not there.

      1. All right Splog. Good answer as always!

        So in anticipation of the next cognitive dissoanance dodge in the Scientology mindset: what is the difference between a “fact”, a “belief” and a “knowingness”?

        Is a “knowinginess” a fact?

        Or is it a belief?

        If I have a “knowingness” that I am a thetan, what is that, exactly?

        I think it boils down to a feeling: A “knowingness” is a feeling that “indicates”.

        So the question becomes: Should a Scientologist question their feelings?

        Alanzo

        1. How about we first establish what “a feeling” is? The English word is like a hunch, something that you experience. The way it’s used in practice implies very little or no examination of thought behind it, one just “gets the idea that…”

          Expressed like that we immediately see that fellings are ripe pickings for observer bias – the pc wants something to be true, desperately wants to experience thing X, and then gets the feeling that he has it. Imagine all those feel-good chemicals squirting into the brain at this point! Which re-inforces the feeling and makes it truer.

          Should Scientologists questiont heir feelings? Most certainly they should; they should doubt them. Thos efeelings and trust in them are the primary way false bullshit makes it’s way into your brain and let’s it take hold.

          1. Sure there are feelings that should be questioned.

            But what about a feeling that “indicates”?

            Shouldn’t the feeling of a feeling that “indicates” be left alone?

            After all, a feeling that “indicates” is the truth to a Scientologist – it’s even given them floating needles in the past – so why would anyone ever question a feeling that indicates?

            The feeling might go away! In fact, if one keeps questioning these feelings that “indicate”, then you might feel the feeling of “entheta”, and the feeling of entheta can NEVER be the truth, right?

            Wrong.

            If your wife has been cheating on you for years, then learning the truth of that is going to feel really bad. But it is still the truth.

            Next question: What relationship do feelings, especially feelings that “indicate”, have with the truth?

            Alanzo

            1. Those two have nothing to do with each other. They intersect or don’t according to random probabilities.

              Unfortunately, your average scientologist in unwilling to let that go and they persist in spouting woo-woo reasons as to why the two things must relate somehow. It’s a classic delusion.

            2. I mean feelings and the truth; they are not correlated.

              I don’t know what a f/n is. I used to think I did, I was mistaken.

      1. !!

        With big pictures of concentration camp survivors, gulag inhabitants and the victims of communist pogroms.

        Or maybe just puppies and kittens.

        Alanzo

    2. Alanzo…. facts can be found only if the person ask the question,, but the question should not be asked from others because those others were not the creators of ones belief but self… so only that self, the creator of ones universe has the answers.. others have the assumptions…

  5. Your blog is not “suppressive” it is enlightening. If one possesses an inch of wisdom, why listening to doubt or to the experience of some one else would make one lose his gains? I think one can have gains in Scn, but I had incredible gains by climbing all night long against all odds in a North face or doing other things, like music or simply contemplating nature. The possible gains of Scientology are overstated and overpriced and in the long run it could be simply more harmful for one’s self-determinism. Grades 0 to IV at at the most for 1/10th of the price, without the regges, the propaganda, the lies and all the pressure would be perhaps be Ok,
    Even then the principle of KSW should be thrown overboard, because it just means you cannot think for your self. One should examine every single principle and test it in practice and draw conclusions from that. Hubbard knew SO staff left because of abuse or ARC breaks, he told Mayo and Bill Franks once about it and admitted he wouldn’t have hold of the Sea Org. People don’t leave because of overts, Hitler did not, neither did Stalin. They stayed till the end! I think it is our right to question what ever we decide to question or to accept whatever we decide to accept.

    1. perfectly stated!!!! I am a declared SP. Still me though. Trying to be kind, sincere, honest, and generous….they way my folks brought be up; not LRH.

    2. Of course it is OK to criticize abuses, denigration and harm done to others. What I am pondering is whether it is OK to break another’s belief when that belief has as its sole consequence of helping the person unleash his inner powers.

      1. Belief has this def.: confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediatelly susceptible to rigorous proof.

        In a way it is close to what is happening while creating and manifesting something by doing the actions which lead to it. So it appears in the physical world. With all its
        pleasurable or painful consequences.

      2. When it comes to Scientology, this is why the invaluable “Alanzo Pass” was invented.

        If you have a person who can provide a clear rational for their beliefs, and they have demonstrated an ability to not just automatically dramatize what Hubbard taught them, then they receive “The Alanzo Pass”.

        The Alanzo Pass gives them a PASS to keep on being Scientologists.

        But if a person is just a fanatic, similar to the OT SO member George Baillie or the guy who keeps writing Rinder threatening emails, then, no. They are actually dangerous to themselves and others, and get no pass from Alanzo.

        The Alanzo Pass is quite a coveted badge of honor among Scientologists on the Internet. It takes away that nagging doubt they always had about if they really deserved the privilege of calling themselves a Scientologist, like Tom Cruise mentioned.

        Marildi has one.

        Tom Cruise does not.

        Alanzo

        1. Is that an international status Alonzo? Jus’ sayin’ you might want to clear that up for the African guys, Canadian guys, etc., so they know where they stand. It would be too bad if they presented that pass in an unauthorized setting and were worse off for doing it.

          1. It’s an interplanetary status, in fact. Even interstellar.

            The Alanzo Pass will work on Target 2, as well as it works here.

            It also comes with a multiple lifetime, full money back guarantee.

            Alanzo

            1. Nice! . . . only you say that now but what happens in say a billion years when my SO contract is up and my health benefits are terminated and Intergalactic OSA is convincing me to do end of life cycle? Do I still get a pass?

  6. Geir, for me, the most interesting point you made, is your OWN doubt, as to whether or not, it is “right” to challenge another’s belief, with facts, if the belief they hold serves to make their life better?”

    This question, in essence, has been argued in courts, among those with learned qualifications in studious practices of law, theology, philosophy, religion, etc, since the earliest of times, and in the presence of presiding “judges” has been proclaimed upon, with inconsistent results.

    Ultimately, everyone, has, at some point relied on “belief”, in their best judgement, regarding life, death, immediate future, etc (for example, the instinctive, reactions of an airline pilot, taking manual control of a fully laden airliner,( in the height of a deadly storm, with zero visibility!) when all corrective computerized controls fail to arrest a deadly nose dive over a city.)

    Who can argue, in the above scenario, where all passengers aboard that aircraft, have had their imminent death, presented as “a fact”, yet chose to have faith, “belief”, in their pilot and/or God, to pull them through ?

    There are cases on record, where this exact scenario has played out, and I think you would have found there to be at least a few “converts” made during that ordeal

    Facts, it seems, do NOT always trump “belief,” in my book, and I think you are wise, to leave room for your OWN doubt.. To do otherwise, IMHO, is a gross infringement on the right of anyone, to believe , (have faith) as they choose.

    1. Looking over some of the more, yes, ‘reprehensible’, invalidations that have been expressed on this blog, and many others, it is evident that the erstwhile ‘assassin/s’ has/have spent little time ‘in the shoes’ of the hapless target/s. The merciless (rhetorical) assassinations, more often reflect more poorly on the offender, than the target. This is of course, heavily justified, as ‘deserved’ treatment! In reality, however, That precept in TWTH no 11; “Do not harm a person of good will,” becomes VERY evident,on BOTH sides of the equation, if, for example, the situation is turned around, putting our erstwhile ‘assassin’ in a vulnerable position, say, as a child, at the mercy of a cruel / destructive parent.

      There in essence, we find another form of entrapment, being ‘that’ persona, which is incapable / unwilling, to grant beingness / freedom to another. This includes the overt attempt to overwhelm another’s belief/s with attempts to knock out the other’s stable data, when that may have served them, in living a better life, quite adequately.

      I, myself am guilty of this former behavior, and by the fortune of knowing others, who knew ‘better’, have put myself on a ‘better’ road, today. Like Geir, I realize, that I am “a work in progress.” For all this, I have come to realize the power of forgiveness, & gratitude, and the resulting freedom to shift my viewpoint, with ease & gladness. 🙂

    2. yes…
      …’fact’ to me is this ‘stillness’, boundless theta ‘space’ in which the ‘ i am’ appears…
      what i ‘know’ for sure is that ‘i am’ and ‘i am love and i love’….

      waking up this morning and just being and observing i see that when a ‘thought’ arises, its origin is in a past observation with retained perceptions, judgement and
      conclusion…..i see that i am not that….i also see that actually it has no other ‘substance/reality/fact’ than ‘me’ ‘dreaming it up’ (creating an illusion)…..i also
      see that it is a ‘decision’ point….interesting that there is no sense of a ‘me’ deciding
      …..being that still-theta-space that which ‘i am’ as a fact is doing its job….

      Geir….i am going to reflect on your post more…i have some jobs to do now…..
      once again you touch into a point which is a ‘heart-of-the-matter’ stuff in its
      nature….YOU for sure can make ME ‘work’….so i am standing in the line of those
      who ack this ‘i am a work in progress’….

      1. …practically: the only ‘efFACTive’ way to challenge another’s belief is a complete STOP wherein, as a visual example, the players freeze for an instant and look at-and-observe the ‘contents’ of ‘what is being created’ in that instant….a ‘bubble’
        over one’s head with a thought, an emotion ‘in’ one’s body….in that FACT-STOP
        there is a chance for ‘another’ to see that ‘fact’ of WHAT….. ONE is and also what ‘one’ is ‘creating-making up’….there is also a chance to decide to stop making it up….
        you also mentioned this stop-nodo-noresist earlier, right?

        1. Who/What is questioning a belief? ‘Me’. ‘What’ is that ‘Me’? No substance, no nature…..JUST . Aware presence? If it is the truth, how can I ‘help’ another ‘question’ his/her belief? Isn’t it the best to be the example of this aware presence?
          Any other way will result in ‘duality’, that is at best exchanging thought particles
          for examination wherein this examination may be an infinite process. Or not. When
          another gets a ‘feel’ of this JUST…., ( a kind of gap…disidentification from thought),
          from then on this person can procceed on by oneself.

          Another example is what racing is doing, right here on your blog. The experience of ‘he is standing in my shoes’ is that he is completely duplicating the ‘particles’ which i put into the cycle…also, he puts only such ‘particles’ into it for me which arise from a source of complete awareness and sends back such ‘particles’ which i can duplicate, that is he allows me to feel the ‘aware presence’ underneath our com-cycles.
          That to me is also the definition of ‘full responsibility’… ‘complete com cycles’ resulting in affinity which can serve as a basis for further C and R….

            1. on the internet? can be someone else with the same name..any
              photo? haha…does not really matter….knowing that you like joking, my profession is English ‘teaching’…as you may remember.

    3. Racing wrote:

      This question, in essence, has been argued in courts, among those with learned qualifications in studious practices of law, theology, philosophy, religion, etc, since the earliest of times, and in the presence of presiding “judges” has been proclaimed upon, with inconsistent results.

      Could you provide a few factual examples of your point here? Because the record is completely different than you present it.

      Since Plato, the answer in western civilization, and also in Vedic culture, has consistently been “the unexamined life is not worth living”.

      Only in totalitarian, ideologue, and Dark Age civilizations has the answer been “let sleeping dogs lie” and “the emperor DOES have clothes!”

      The only reason to deny the value in questioning ones belief is if there is an ideology to protect – an ideology that is full of holes and the power structure and the individual are too cowardly to confront the holes.

      Holes are never good: They always lead to collapse. A collapse like Scientology is having right now, and that many many Scientologists are going through right now.

      So could you please give us some concrete examples from real life where questioning your beliefs is bad?

      Alanzo

      1. Impossible to do Alan, since duplication, understanding, live, let live, let go, move on, just won’t satisfy your ravenous appetite man! 🙂 Write me off as hopeless case, if you will! BTW, Thanks for the comm, & HAPPY New Year to you too, bro’ : )

        1. Ah, so your inability to provide factual examples for your own point is because of me.

          Wow. This is so “blamey” and low-toned!

          Let the record show that Racing can not support his statements with any kind of factual basis, or even sound reasoning.

          So the question becomes: why should anyone listen to him?

          Happy New Year, R!

          May 2014 be your best ever!

          Alanzo

          1. My, my! War games/ Herr Kommandant? Watch the b/p doesn’t climb too high while you’re at it! Multiple bypass ops cost an arm & a leg these days! In the absence of medically prescribed b/p control, a single dose of 100mg aspirin, can assist. From a natural supplement aspect, Tryptophan is good, Take 500 mg with a glass of warm milk before bed. increased Seratonin resulting in the brain, helps a Type A live a longer, more productive life. ie. less chances of a stroke or heart attack too. I’ve lost four Type A friends, in the last 2 1/2 years. Of course, they always “knew best.” Such a pity! Brilliant, sharp guys, similar to you.

            Face actual death regularly, Alan! It’s just amazing how it can jar one back to reality, and getting relative importances in proper perspective. You demand & clamor for proof, and facts, Al? Of course you do! So may I suggest a visit to anyone, several in fact, recovering from a multiple bypass op, or the various degrees of a stroke, and it’s consequences. Can be a wake up call for anyone of us Al……Just sayin’

            I’m just living and letting live, these days, Al, I try to chill under all circumstances, only resorting to deadly force, when forced to defend my life. That’s the way it is.
            Hope you’re getting this straight, Al.

            Peace, bro’

    4. My inner doubt remains as nobody really addressed the question in the OP (as I tried to explain in the reply to Pete at the top of this discussion thread) – whether it is OK to break a person’s illusion of personal power when that illusion in fact does catalyze his inner powers.

      1. OK, Geir, your inner doubt is really bothering me.

        We can’t have Geir running around with inner doubt! That’s worse than running around with inner liability, and way worse than running around with inner danger!

        So let me try to give you an answer that will work for all times, all people, and all situations. …

        I got nuthin.

        Oh my God!

        Now *I* have inner doubt!

        Inner doubt is contagious!!

        Thanks a lot Geir.

        Alanzo

    5. Calvin: There are cases on record, where this exact scenario has played out, and I think you would have found there to be at least a few “converts” made during that ordeal

      Chris: Yes, in both directions.

  7. Geir:: “Is it right to challenge another’s belief with facts, if the belief they hold serves to make their life better?”

    Chris: Like the old conundrum, “If God has made the world and everything in it, how do we decide which things are ok to alter and which things must remain inviolable lest we commit a blasphemy?”

    My own policy is not to enter where I have not been invited. For example, blogging on a public forum is tacit invitation and approval to debate ideas to the max. Another example is that i would never proselytize my own opinions to someone quietly living their life and believing whatever.

    1. 🙂 Yes debating is nothing more than looking for and collecting agreements on our viewpoints… Look at how many agreements Geir gotten on his earlier post therefore the truth is established that this PLANET IS A HEAVEN and nothing wrong with it.

  8. Once again, these concepts of suppressive, suppressive person and PTS, as laid out in Scientology are ambiguous. Lost his/her gains. Presumably this is the ability gained as laid out in the EPs of the grade chart. But the gains themselves are stated in an ambiguous fashion!

    I don’t think this is about “losing” gains. That’s pretty much absurd as Geir has pointed out.

    A couple of ideas come to mind:

    I think we are sometimes talking about re-evaluating, denying or denigrating the value of a particular gain, of recognizing unmet expectations, and refusing demands that are far in excess of what is fair and equitable. In other words, the person is complaining or is upset with the organization or auditor.

    But there is also that much of Scientology addresses automatic, habitual or conditioned patterns of behavior or response. Many of these patterns are habitual or conditioned patterns that have developed or been conditioned into place out of a lifetime of relationships – familial, marital, long and short term. When those patterns are disrupted or shifted or eradicated by examination through auditing, counseling, self-study, training, different knowledge, etc. it disrupts the comfortable patterns between people and there are those that protest the change. Its uncomfortable.

    I do think that If you engage in self-improvement, development, or actualization processes (Scientology or otherwise) and don’t address this phenomena, you can find yourself slipping right back into the same old unhealthy, co-dependent, addictive, and dis-empowering patterns. I guess that could be seen to be “losing one’s gains.”

    p.s. Happy New Year!

    1. Maria wrote:

      I do think that If you engage in self-improvement, development, or actualization processes (Scientology or otherwise) and don’t address this phenomena, you can find yourself slipping right back into the same old unhealthy, co-dependent, addictive, and dis-empowering patterns. I guess that could be seen to be “losing one’s gains.”

      Brilliant post, Maria!

      Yes, this phenomena can be called “inflection points”, where triggers or big, difficult to confront changes arise. A lot of people want to change, but the consequences of that change can be terrifying to them.

      It had nothing to do with being suppressed by an “SP”. It has more to do with courage and the suffering of change than anything else.

      When I left Scientology, I lost everything that I had ever built in 16 years of being a Scientologist. All my friends. My six figure job. They even tried to take my family away. Hubbard made sure that questioning the ideology of Scientology, and getting others to question it, would be very damaging to a Scientologist with his policies on disconnection and fair game which were dutifully applied to me by the Scientologists around me. But still I knew that seeking to live with the truth was more important than any of that.

      I look at the lives of the people who I personally know who are still in Scientology, and it is perfectly clear that the damage that I suffered for a short acute period when I got out of Scientology is nothing compared to the sustained damage they suffer every day from NOT questioning their Scientology beliefs.

      These people are literally enslaved. And I mean quite literally. The OT 8, Class 8 mission holder I used to work for in Peoria is 90 years old and he STILL can not get rid of his mission! The business that kept him afloat died long ago because he was forced to neglect it by Scientology, and the Scientology solutions he applied failed him. He can not find anyone who will take over his mission for him. He has prostate cancer. There is no one left to help him.

      So yeah, a slave is going to hit a few inflection points on his way out of slavery. But you have to make your way out – all the way out. And have the courage necessary to make it.

      For the overwhelming majority, it will all turn out better as long as the former slave just keeps seeking to live with the truth.

      That’s what I say.

      Alanzo

    2. M…++++++++ and in my reality there is no such a thing as suppressive person… but yes… none-confront….. cant face up to the task… can control something because lacking confront-abilities., yes that is PTS-ness…and PTS-ness is being restimulated.
      SOOOOOOOOOOO… when one cant confront-face up to… can handle some incident THAN LETS PULL OUT THE GOOD OLD BLAME THAT OTHERS ARE BAD EVIL. NO GOOD than one do not look like a victim and the attention is not on poor me but the bad you!!! OHHH …. no responsibility for ones own feelings-creation.. YES .. lets blame others… it works since it has been time tested and agreed by every one that it is!

  9. “Is it right to challenge another’s belief with facts”

    Most times, I invent my own beliefs so that it is right for me to challenge another’s belief, even though I’ve usually re-interpreted and re-invented another’s belief. It’s all invented 🙂

    1. Yes, it is all invented. And the inventions can serve the purpose of boosting a person’s self confidence and esteem and sense of personal value, integrity, attentiveness, empathy toward others, etc. Is it then OK to challenge the underlying beliefs of a person, knowing that it helps the person, but also knowing that the invention/belief is pure nonsense?

    2. YES.. it is all invented… and when one wants others to see and fights for these inventions, have the need to establishes these inventions as the truth and others must have it that is “wanting to CONTROL” simply because they don’t have the confront to have and to face different reality outside of their very own invention-illusions. Elizabeth

  10. Geir, you have been quite up front, repeatedly, about your lack of respect for sacred cows, and yet we are all still here continuing to follow your blog by choice. If you were forcing someone to unwillingly confront the holes in their belief system, that would indeed be suppressive. Providing a voluntary forum to examine those holes in the pursuit of truth – not suppressive at all. In fact, just the opposite.

    1. Yes, but by examining the OT levels and showing them to be based on fiction and nonsense… if that breaks its powers to help a person believe in himself and catalyze real abilities and gain – is it still OK to poke those illusions?

      1. Speaking just for myself, I did not lose the abilities I gained on the OT levels. Granted, I don’t always get the best parking spot but any ‘ability’ there was only confirmation bias anyway. The recognition of myself as a spiritual being, and a sense of stability and confidence as that being still remains, and in the end it doesn’t matter if I gained that by tilting at windmills in my own mind. It’s real, and I get to keep it.

        1. Aeolus: The recognition of myself as a spiritual being, and a sense of stability and confidence as that being still remains, and in the end it doesn’t matter if I gained that by tilting at windmills in my own mind. It’s real, and I get to keep it.

          Chris: Then so much the better for you. May I assume that you do not support the harvesting of money and the breaking up of families; the intellectual-cleansing of everything not Scientology that Scientology teaches and practices? Your personal beliefs and successes with those are of no harm nor concern to me. Do as you will. Only if those religious beliefs and practices impacted me negatively and importantly would I care. For example being denied health care or a job because I did not toe the party line.

          1. Chris, there are many aspects of Scientology that I disagree with, the biggest two being LRH’s insistence that it is the “only path to freedom” and his creation of a militant priesthood to deliver it. Any gains I’ve gotten were in spite of those things, not because of them. LRH also planted the seeds for abuses such as fair game, financial rape of parishioners and the mistreatment of staff, all of which have been greatly exacerbated by the little sociopath who succeeded him. I cannot condone or excuse those abuses, which is why I’m no longer a member.

            However, the question under discussion here was whether Geir was doing a disservice by exposing the underbelly of the tech and thereby causing us to lose whatever gains we may have gotten, and for me the answer to that is No.

        2. I met more than a few power-house OTs in my time; three stick out in memory. Two were successful businessmen and the third was a lady with the patience and empathy of a saint. Oddly enough, they were that way inclined all their lives, doing OT levels didn;t turn them into something there were not already.

          Life is like that, we have experiences and very often we learn and grow from them. If someone learned and grew from doing OT levels then so be it, that is the experience that did it for them. As far as I can see externally, that is all they can claim for the OT levels – a rewarding experience.

          No aspect of supa-powerz need be involved at all.

        3. 🙂 🙂 🙂 yes… never compromise Your reality.. No matter how much crap so far I read that the wins=gains are not there, cant be gained.. I never lost mine..

  11. A Question for Scientologists:

    Remember when you first got involved in Scientology and you first read Hubbard’s writings from the 1950’s where he told you to question everything, to go against “the old school tie” etc?

    Have you noticed that somewhere along the line, once you became a Scientologist, that courage to question everything – especially Scientology – disappeared?

    What happened to your courage to question everything?

    Why did you stop seeking to live with the truth just because you became a Scientologist?

    Alanzo

  12. Here’s the definitive answer to the question in your OP, Geir.

    Yes.

    It is right to question the beliefs of another with facts, even if that belief makes their life better.

    If you are married to someone who is cheating on you, it makes your life “better” to simply look the other way and to keep believing that they are not cheating on you. It feels much better and is not so “entheta” as it is to be challenged with the facts. The facts are hard, and feel absolutely terrible for a period of time. Real damage can be done to your life because of the facts.

    But living with the belief that makes your immediate life better (that your spouse is not cheating on you when they are) is overwhelmingly devastating in the long run. Failing to confront this kind of cowardice wastes whole lives!

    Being a Scientologist is like being married to someone who is cheating on you. No one deserves that. You can always find a better, more loyal, less deceitful spouse. And you can always find a religion that is not a spiritual deception like Scientology is.

    Questioning Scientology is the game where everybody wins. It may be difficult at first, and even feel “entheta” for a while.

    But in the long run – everyone is much better off.

    Alanzo

    1. And I have to say this right now:

      Racing is not allowed to challenge this answer. It is definitive.

      Plus, he’s too theta and uptone: I might melt if he challenges me!

      Anyway, he can’t.

      That’s why he doesn’t.

      Alanzo

      1. The definitive proofster, philosopher, prankster all in one!. How do I even stand a chance against that pedigree, man? Dice you around the block though Loser has to buy the rounds, okay ? 🙂

        1. I am too low-toned and suppressive for such games!

          This is a deadly serious activity!

          The fate of every man, woman, and child on this planet depends on what you do with and in Questioning Scientology!

          If you can successfully challenge, showing sound reasoning, any comment I’ve made on this post by Geir, then I’ll buy.

          If not, you buy!

          Alanzo

          1. LOL, more bait from Al, my “pal”. Sorry bro’ you’ve already got access to all my comments. You sift through them. Accuse, invalidate, denigrate all you want, just go for it, to your heart’s consent man. BTW, Al’ Just cause I use some of the tools of scientology, doesn’t make me a scientologist, I told you before, remember? When YOU proposed a ‘peace deal’! I told you then, that I pop in here for a chat among friends, to destim. from the hardships of having to work in a constantly dangerous, depressing area.You don’t like that? I don’t like your demands! Square?
            …….peace bro’.

            1. Hi Al

              ‘If you bring forth what is within you, what you bring forth will save you. If you do not
              bring forth what is within you, what you do not bring forth will destroy you.’

              I have found it a completely pure place so far to experience the above.

            2. Yup, Marianne. got the clip, thanks 🙂 Unlike the clip though, the only “challenges” that I take up, are those concerning the ongoing hostilities surrounding our business complex., as and when absolutely necessary. The hostilities expressed on this blog, when they occur, are acknowledged for the distracting ‘bait’ they are. The hilarious joke, as you are already aware, is underneath it ALL, there is absolutely NOTHING!
              LOL. what a rollicking revelation to upset the endless sniffing, growling, and snapping of pooches as they dig, dig, dig for more why’s and reasons, and, and….
              Pardon me though, while I gather my composure here…(still laughing!) . Adya, would appreciate me sharing this, I’m sure. He’s a mutt- man himself, so he’d definitely have a cracker comment of his own here, (i’m still just line charging here– it’s just soooo frigg’n funny!! Tears in my eyes! God, ha-ha-ha-ha. I hope you didn’t miss it.
              this joke is so unbelievably priceless (ha-ha-ha. ) there… enough now!! ha-ha-ha!
              🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 Ray.

            3. Marianne, just try to get a picture here.along the lines of “The World’s Funniest Animals.” comedy clips featuring those ooh so hilarious antics, our bone-obsessed K9 friends get up to. Furiously “searching” digging, digging, digging, for “That” bone! sniff, sniff, dig, dig, sniff, sniff, dig-dig-dig -kablam fall through a hole, splat!!. Land next to a mirror. turn to look….. Yelp- yelp-ki-yi-yi-yi ARF ARF YAP YAP… can’t scramble out of the ‘hole’ quickly enough.. And in the mirror? a ghostly image of a Beagle’s face –Two long droopy ears touching the floor. One drroopy eye looking at ya’ the other Winking! — (Nothing!) Hope you get it now ? 🙂

            4. All right, all right. Peace!

              I was just playin’.

              I just figured that you were an intelligent guy and that you would be able to lay out a rational argument that supports some of the claims you’ve been making.

              There really is no harm intended at all. It’s a game: A very intellectually stimulating game with many cognitive benefits.

              But if you don’t want to play you don’t have to.

              And I apologize if I intimated that you were a Scientologist if you aren’t one.

              Jeez man!

              There’s nobody to play with on Geir’s Blog any more!

              What’s this world coming to?

              Alanzo

            5. Marianne wrote:

              Hi Al

              ‘If you bring forth what is within you, what you bring forth will save you. If you do not
              bring forth what is within you, what you do not bring forth will destroy you.’

              I have found it a completely pure place so far to experience the above.

              I know where that quote is from!

              Those are the words that the living Jesus spoke in the Book of Thomas.

              A very excellent quote from a very excellent book.

              Alanzo

          2. Really Al! P-E-A-C-E?? C’mon man That’s the last thing on your mind when you show up here! LOL. For me though, it’s the First! 🙂 I don’t hit the pub, though, I hit the blog, instead. And lo and behold, theeerrre’s Al….Sorry Al, if i didn’t get the games, you embarked on, as ‘fun’! Kind of a carry over from the sick games, i have to witness on an almost daily basis, you understand? Perhaps you don’t. How about some gangster, pissing on a screaming woman, he has just kicked to the ground,
            while his mates are cheering him on. Cops? what cops? They are outnumbered by a zillion to one man. Oh I forgot,you’re going to demand proof, evidence, yada yada!
            Shit, now that’s a difficult one too. See, i’m a marked, man. That means, I’ve usually got a tail, in quick order, as soon as I venture into the streets from our complex. Pics are something I’d literally struggle to secure, if you follow me here?

            I’m sure you are ONLY going to be finally satisfied with concrete facts, not heresay. So remember Al, the invitation stands. Whenever you’re ready, I’ll take you on a personally guided tour.Something you can write about when you get home, only I’m not guaranteeing you’ll get to keep any pics, though.,

            sincerely, your buddy in The Berea Ghetto precinct,
            ritb39

            1. All I can say is that living in something like that would make me cranky, too.

              So you associate debates and lively exchanges of ideas here on this blog with a “Kind of a carry over from the sick games, i have to witness on an almost daily basis, you understand? Perhaps you don’t. How about some gangster, pissing on a screaming woman, he has just kicked to the ground,
              while his mates are cheering him on. Cops? what cops? They are outnumbered by a zillion to one man.”

              I have to say that I don’t understand, really.

              The only time I’ve seen you mention all this violence and rioting that you live around is when I ask you about some claim you’ve made, and would like to find out what you use to support those claims here on this blog.

              That’s when I hear about the ghetto that you live in and the violence and stuff.

              But okay! I’ll take you at your word.

              And yeah – peace. You say that you come here for peace, and I can certainly understand that if where you say you live is like that.

              So yeah – PEACE!

              You know, here in the cornfields of Illinois, we don’t have anything like that.

              Can I ask, why do you still live there if it is that bad?

              Have you thought of moving?

              Because if you did move, then we could debate Scientology and stuff on Geir’s blog!

              Wouldn’t that be more fun than living in a violent riotous ghetto and being followed all the time?

              Alanzo

            2. Wow testing 1-2-3! 1-2-3. Seems okay to me. Okay, lets try this in a new unit of time. You listening Al? Right! >>WORK THERE! Al! Part owner of the property there, which I also manage and handle the necessary security aspects for. Unable to get rid of it at present, as values have dropped so much, and comparable size props, in a “safer” area, are just astronomical. Real catch 22!

              The amusing thing about this, (I do spot the humor in sit’s, too!) is that just like the slowly boiling frog, You can get used to practically anything, if it’s on a slow enough gradient 🙂

              Live there, though? Good grief! Then I surely would be cranky, if not insane. LOL! BTW, You can bounce this off Splog, who lives in Jo’burg. (I’m in Durban) He would have SOME idea of the degradation I’m telling you about.

              If it were not for the fact, that I could run my businesses from there with such low overheads, and with such freedom to virtually do as I please, including getting a good return from rentals, etc., I would move. Logistically though, (central) it makes for more financial sense, to just soldier on. In any case Al, perhaps Splog will confirm this, also? The “rising tide” of criminal elements / anarchy / mayhem, are very difficult to stem, mainly due to the collapse of municipal control and apathy, in many former ideal neighborhoods, scattered throughout the country.

              Hope that clears up any M/U’s for you! ps. Also, please gimme a break from Al’s ‘debating/grilling’ society too will ya? — for the umteenth time — I only come here to Geir’s “sanctuary”, with the prospect of a bit of shared sanity and to chill and enjoy the company/comm of some good friends I have found here. NOT for any needling! Capiche, bro’ ?

              ritb39

  13. This ad is from Hank Levin former editor of the Free Spirit Journal which many of you may not know about. The FSJ was the main fz comm line before the internet.

    Hank is an auditor, author and lecturer and manufacturer of the Clarity meter.

    He has a 15% off sale on now and extended to Jan 12.

    Clarity Meter Year-End Sale Extended…to January 12!

    In consideration of our friends and customers whose busy holiday schedule caused them to miss the end-of-year deadline for our 15%-off Holiday Sale, we are extending the sale date to Sunday, January 12, 2014!

    Everything on our website is being offered at a 15% discount through Sunday.

    Click here to go to the website!

    http://clearingtech.net/

    Note: To save web-mastering fees, the prices on the website itself have not been changed. Place your order on the site, and the discount amount will be credited back to your credit card or PayPal account!

    Have a splendid 2014!

    Hank Levin

      1. You should not raise a fuss over posting an item that is for the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics.
        It is in the spirit of reaching out and helping other fellows who are out helping others.
        I had nothing to gain, except to extend his sphere of influence. I do the same where ever I am able.

        It is in the spirit of random acts of kindness and good will.

        That is the only way we can make this world a better, saner, safer place to live.

        What are you doing on that front?

        Are you auditing others?

        Happy new year,

        Dio

          1. Geir: I have helped a few people lately to a markedly better life.

            Me: Congratulations. Keep up the good work.

            Dio

      2. In other words, Geir that was a very low toned, low theta response.

        A high toned, high theta response would of been:

        Thanks Dio. Good idea.

        Dio

  14. …person….’persona’, putting on a mask like in the Greek times to play a role as a
    character in a play…but WHO is behind the mask?….each actor is using words and behaving in accordance with the character….so we get all sorts of social scenes….at
    the end of the play when each character takes off their masks, what remains?

  15. Is it right to challenge another’s belief with facts, if the belief they hold serves to make their life better?

    That is a question asking for a black or white answer coming from someone who has shown himself to be a very nuanced thinker!

    With that in mind, my answer is: it depends. It depends on the person with the belief, it depends on the context.

    Is it a kinder thing to disabuse the person of the false belief, or let them go on believing it?

    Is holding onto the belief dangerous to the person or those close to him? Example: “I believe it is the greatest good to give my retirement account and children’s college fund to the IAS.”

    Generally, I think it best to try to get people to live their lives with the greatest amount of truth/truthfulness as possible. But one has to be able to observe the persons and contexts that are in front of him or her and be willing to continue to make theses decisions as they present themselves.

    What harm does believing one is a thetan present? Whose truth is it that can be held up to show that this belief is false?

    Ken Wilber’s book, A Brief History of Everything is a good book to read for anyone who is obsessed with facts OR beliefs.

  16. Geir
    Reading the OP yesterday what caught my attention was the use of ‘deserve’ (be worthy of, root: serve zealously).
    Earlier you wrote that your aspiration was ‘giving’….yes, it can be seen from your writings and from your C/V. Giving goes hand in hand with receiving so as to get a balance, in my reality. Do you feel that it is in balance in your case? The ‘me’ is
    a ‘power’ state where there is the ability to help change games. You ‘flow’ a lot of
    power….do you allow yourself to receive the ‘backflow’? As others around you also
    want to ‘give/serve’. Do you accept it? Whatever is given or whoever gives?

    Another thing: many years ago a friend of mine said to me: you are already accepted by the totality of existence as you are…the proof is that you are here.
    As you are. Body, emotions, thoughts….all. I did not understand it fully then.
    On ‘awakening’ i got it. Accepting-loving ‘myself’. This serves as a basis for change,
    when i feel like changing something. Not because of not liking, just for the feel of change. So: if the totality of existence accepted you Geir as you are, do you trust
    it that much that it may be right? I don’t know as you do not write about it….just asking.

    Last here: i don’t know about BT-s…my experience is, which i saw in the presence
    of ‘pure, enlightened’ beings. Two things can happen. 1. presence is so intense that
    it ‘burns’ any ‘additive’. 2. it ‘stirs up’ thoughts, emotions…which like ‘bullets’ go into
    this presence-space…can reach the body of that pure being…which can nevertheless dissolve. Why is that important? Because a being like that is like
    a ‘vaccuum’….in other words: ‘no case’ (or close) can ‘attract’….seeing life in the
    core of the incoming whatever, one is not only granting life but kind of preserves
    one’s own…see what i mean? my reality….

  17. …anyone, just anyone who does not grant full beingness to you, to an emotion you express, to a thought you offer….IS suppressing the flow of communication, underneath the free flow of life…..anyone who does not receive what you give as
    a gift is ignorant….dreaming…cannot see you and what you give….not there…..
    thank you Geir for this post…basic purpose, decision, change, com….haaaa….their
    connection…..

  18. Well I wouldn’t challenge the creationist beliefs of a homeless person or prostitute/drug addict if they got succour from that. And trying to prove others wrong can be the ego at work too so I try to keep an eye on that. But people choose to come here for your honest take on Scientology so I think you should give them that. I reckon they can handle it.

      1. Geir
        In answer to your question (what i see at present): if the steps on a route lead the person to a point where, ‘looking back’, the person knows with certainty that it is s/he who has built up her/his ‘universe’ and is able to do that AND is also able by decision to ‘jump into the unknown’ (the flow of life which is underneath ‘my’, ‘your’ universe and the ‘physical’ universe) and live by/explore that without the drive to make up her/his illusionary universe – then I wouldn’t break the magical power of
        that belief. Each of us has a ‘universe’ and we play games by the intersections and
        exchanges of the illusions we create to experience these creations in our common
        ‘dreamland’. This dreamland, as it looks, is of different layers, each with its unique
        experiences to enjoy. Why not do that on will? Consciously, when one decides so…or, as i said, go by the flow also consciously.

  19. “It really is true that the unexamined life is not worth living. A person must routinely challenge their belief structure in order to make sure it is strong.” by Alanzo.
    Read all comments and just want to say – I love Alanzo!! About time I told him. 🙂

    1. The feeling’s mutual, deE!

      I remember the day that Scientology collapsed on me. It was a result of me continuing to build years of my life on a very rickety house of cards without questioning Scientology enough.

      It’s like building a home on a foundation of sand. Near a beach that regularly floods. And sitting wrapped up tight a chair, staring at the ceiling and trying desperately not to notice the water coming through the floor.

      Alanzo

      1. Really?

        Is it roped off with a magnifying glass and a pack of Kools on the desk?

        Your two boys aren’t allowed to go in there when they come to stay with you and get peanut butter and jelly all over everything, are they?

        1. It’s not roped off at all. Guests get to have the mandatory Alanzo tour into that room to ensure the Alanzoness rubs off on them.

          Besides, I have three boys. And none of them eat peanut butter and jelly.

          1. Do you even HAVE peanut butter and jelly in Norway?

            Probably not. Probably just grilled goat meat and some kind of starchy root.

            Make sure no one can bring beverages into my room. We can’t have them spilling them all over anything in there.

            And it needs to be dusted and vacuumed every day, even when no one ever goes in there.

            Alanzo

  20. The discussions on this blog are often around “truth”.

    Serendipituously this thought for the day came to my mail box today, therefore I thought it was appropriate to post here:

    I think it adds insight to the subject.

    A Thought to Ponder from;

    The Urantia Book

    “The religion of the spirit leaves you forever free to follow the truth wherever the leadings of the spirit may take you.”

    Jesus, (1731.3) 155:6.5

  21. Geir:

    I know that this video is longer than the usual 3 minute sound bite, but I really think this line of work exposes some powerful principles that should at least be considered when working with any kind of belief system. I’m posting it here for any who want to look from a point of view that has been subjected to 3 decades of extraordinary empirical testing – the video on youtube is damaged – you will have to load it and then start at about 3:00 to watch/listen to it.

  22. Here is a summary of Solomon’s theory: ”The basic gist of the theory is that humans are motivated to quell the potential for terror inherent in the human awareness of vulnerability and mortality by investing in cultural belief systems (or worldviews) that imbue life with meaning, and the individuals who subscribe to them with significance (or self-esteem).”

    In this video, he explores the ramifications of that theory in terms of man’s vicious behavior toward dissenting beliefs.

    1. Maria quoted:

      ”The basic gist of the theory is that humans are motivated to quell the potential for terror inherent in the human awareness of vulnerability and mortality by investing in cultural belief systems (or worldviews) that imbue life with meaning, and the individuals who subscribe to them with significance (or self-esteem).”

      This is really insightful, as in, it gives sight to our own insides.

      It also provides understanding, and informs future actions and behavior.

      Fantastic.

      Alanzo

    2. I have now listened to two hours of this guy’s lectures on Becker’s ideas.

      I was familiar with Becker from a documentary I saw a couple of years ago but these ideas did not hit home to me like they did today.

      I do believe that in all the great ideas I’ve picked up from people on this blog, and elsewhere among the post-Scientology Internet, these ideas are the most profound I have ever come across.

      These ideas are so fundamental to being a human that I believe they may even change my life from here on out. I see things differently than I ever have after listening to these.

      These video lectures are THE ANSWER to Geir’s question in the OP.

      Thank you very much, again Maria, for posting these!

      Alanzo

      1. Alanzo: You’re welcome! How you describe is remarkably similar to my reaction to it and that is why I posted this info. I was really hopeful that others here would find it as profound as I did or could further comment/add to it. Note: I was particularly hoping you would come by and take the videos in and comment!

        It’s been a long road. Thanks for walking at least part of the way with me and sharing your point of view and point of experience!

        Happy New Year!

        1. This is my distillation of some of Soloman’s ideas on self-esteem:

          Self Esteem comes from conceiving yourself as a person of value in a world you find meaningful.

          We generate self esteem by conforming to the values and being productive in an environment that we find meaningful.

          Being basically social, self-esteem mostly comes from others.

          Using this information, it is very clear that a person coming out of Scientology will experience a loss of self esteem. It is also very clear why a person being faced with contrary facts to Scientology will ignore those facts and stick with Scientology.

          For those who continue to question Scientology to the point of damaging their own standing in the Church of Scientology – simply because they value the truth over all else – I say they deserve all the esteem that can be heaped upon them: They have proven their mettle in the most valuable purpose of all – to seek to live with the truth, and to continue to do so, despite all reasons they should not.

          I know what that takes.

          And I have undying respect and esteem for those people.

          They are everywhere on this blog and other places on the post-Scientology Internet.

          Alanzo

          1. Yes, I quite agree. I have had to rework all of my belief systems since exiting. It has been very helpful to have resources such as this blog and of course the Internet itself to learn the origins and current state of information and to sort through any instances where the information has been skewed or alternate theories/explanations are offered, such as this from Sheldon. I love that they tested this concept for 3 decades internationally! Wow.

            One thing I found fascinating was the position Solomon, Becker and company take that cultures are actually necessary to balance the psychological consequences of great intelligence and self-awareness. They are not mental illnesses or foolish constructs, but vital components for maintaining high functioning intelligence!

            I can’t help thinking of the three little pigs when I consider this material – I think that it is important to try to construct the culture on the most truthful and benevolent ideas that are still supportive and even empowering of high functioning intelligence. This study has helped me refine my quest.

            It has often been suggested that religion/spirituality has been a civilizing influence, and simultaneously the catalyst for some of the most vicious behavior ever carried out by humanity. This explains how it can sooth and civilize and ease on one hand, and then bring out the most heinous of behaviors on the other if challenged.

            1. Maria,

              Everything in this universe exists with the dicotomy of:

              For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

              Every time someone says something very intelligent, there is someone who will say something in opposition that is equally stupid or ignorant.

              In politics you have the left and the right locking horns.

              Dio

            2. Dio, my brother, The ‘fast’, and ‘solo processes’ were only practiced for mere days, in stead of a week.. But, IMHO, were never-the-less, very effective! More of same, not less, therefore can only do you more MORE good, man!

              Chill, relax, be….. it all get’s you there, my bro.’

              Calvin, (just chillin, too.)

      2. This is another brilliant lecture from Sheldon, entitled: Teach These Souls to Fly

        It should come up as a playlist – if not, there are 9 parts to this recording series. Sadly, the recording quality isn’t all that great but the info definitely is!

  23. I believe every situation is different and it is up to us to develope our inner intuition to know what to do in any given situation.We cannot always know the truth in every situation through our intelect. Having said that, I thoroughly enjoy the intelectual sparring on this blog.Alonzo,This probably is not the place to bring this up, but on Mike Rinders blog today you called alcoholics anonymous ” boring purgatory” I myself have been helped imenselely in a spiritual sense through the program of AA. That is my truth and the truth of many others. Just saying.Thanks GEir for another thought provoking post.

    1. Sorry Gretchen!

      I was just trying to compare the inner world of a fanatic Scientologist who is on an Intergalactic True Adventure to save this sector of the universe, as the anonymous emailer is obviously spooging on right now, to what will happen when he comes down off that particular spooge.

      AA is very boring compared to the swashbuckling True Adventure of Scientology!

      Don’t you agree?

      Alanzo

  24. Alanzo, I am just a disabled old recovering drunk and a patron of the IAS, so I dont really know much about swashbuckling adventures, just exscientology blogs, meditation and and AA meetings. I do agree when that particular guy probably has some rude awakenings coming. Love your posts

            1. OK. The videos don’t appear in the gmail notifications, which is where I replied from. That’s why I didn’t know what you were asking about.

    1. Valkov!

      I never thought I’d say this but Thank God you’ve arrived!

      There’s no one here to challenge my points or to call me a dumb-ass any more!

      Please help!

      Alanzo (:>

      PS: Happy New Year!

      1. Al, for auld lang syne here’s the time place form and event, more or less: At some point I had concluded that my work here was done because “everybody knows” Al is a dumb-ass, but they liked you anyway(!), no matter how stupid some of the stuff you posted! (Or maybe because of it?)

        So to make you feel better, here’s a reprise of your song. May your New Year be splendid.

        1. Val

          Living as Kindness has its subtleties….walking with you to explore them is a joy…
          thank you for your guidance….it’s so much easier to live on the fun-side when there
          are friends like you on the way!

        2. I think I see what you are saying, Valkov. But as always it takes me a while to process what you write to me. Something about a Wizard and a lighted match….I don’t know. I’ll have to watch it a few more times before I really get it.

          I noticed that you posted two articles about the value of self-deception. They were hard for me to understand – I mean my god Noam Chomsky and stuff!

          That’s intelligent!

          Anyway. Tell me if I got this right:

          Are you finally admitting that your stubborn adherence to the totalist ideology of L Ron Hubbard is a form of self-deception, and that you have finally found stuff on the Internet to justify deceiving yourself all this time?

          Alanzo

          1. No Al, unlike you, I never adhered to “the totalist ideology of LRH”. nor did it adhere to me. That’s why you worked for the “church” and I didn’t.

            1. Totally, Racing.

              Valkov’s towering intellect lays me out every time. I just can’t win with this guy.

              He’s probably the smartest loyal follower of L Ron Hubbard in human history.

              That says a lot.

              Alanzo

            2. Valkov –

              Yes I am.

              Our vaudeville act is just not as funny as it used to be.

              Perhaps your timing has become rusty from a lack of practice.

              Alanzo

    1. Al, the joke is that, if there is no RWOT apart from the Observer/creator of it, as Geir for one thinks, and as LRH also said, (for example, in the lecture series on The Factors), your memory (and anyone else’s) is only as reliable as you mock it up to be. Or as unreliable as you mock it up to be.

      1. Val wrote:

        Al, the joke is that, if there is no RWOT apart from the Observer/creator of it, as Geir for one thinks, and as LRH also said, (for example, in the lecture series on The Factors), your memory (and anyone else’s) is only as reliable as you mock it up to be. Or as unreliable as you mock it up to be.

        No.

        Memory is falsifiable – in other words scientifically testable. The article below gives an overview of what we know about human memory.

        http://www.theness.com/index.php/memories-constructed-confused-and-confabulated/

        And this course gives a couple of really great lectures on human memory, and why critical thinking skills are so important for human beings.

        http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=9344

        And anyway, if there is no RWOT, then how can memories be found to be objectively wrong?

        Alanzo

          1. Not so fast.

            Answer to Alanzo: By mirroring a person’s creations. Also, objectivity may simply be collective creations. There are often more than one answer.

            Not so fast with the awards, Chris 😉

            1. haha I see so much good debate on all sides of arguments, I like to pull the trigger.

              I guess I am not understanding the definition of observer with regard to wave collapse theory. It seems that photons are interacting with the electron as a component of observation. If so, what is spooky about the spooky effects?

        1. Because there is also a “consensus reality”, or a “shared reality”, or a “co-created reality”, and it is against this background “shared universe” that “memories” can be falsified or not. The memories themselves are not actually “stored” anywhere but are conjured up anew each time they are wanted, and may be conjured up more or less accurately!

          Rad, huh?

          1. Because there is also a “consensus reality”, or a “shared reality”, or a “co-created reality”, and it is against this background “shared universe” that “memories” can be falsified or not. The memories themselves are not actually “stored” anywhere but are conjured up anew each time they are wanted, and may be conjured up more or less accurately!

            Did you just pull this out of your underwear?

            You are using your imagination to cobble together a story to keep ignoring scientific evidence that shows conclusively that human memory is flawed, and that it is flawed from human to human in the same ways.

            This does not serve your own self-interests in the long run, Val.

            It is like a man who keeps looking away from his own hired private investigators’ pictures of his wife sleeping with another man, saying “He is her veterinarian! And he is teaching her how to examine her mare to see if she is pregnant! And they had to get the hotel room because it is raining!”

            Don’t do this to yourself.

            Alanzo

            1. Al,

              You: t is like a man who keeps looking away from his own hired private investigators’ pictures of his wife sleeping with another man, saying “He is her veterinarian! And he is teaching her how to examine her mare to see if she is pregnant! And they had to get the hotel room because it is raining!”

              Me: Good one! LOL.

              You are getting better Al.

              You are now promoted to be allowed to run in more row ahead of the last row of big dogs.

              Dio

  25. Geir:

    The way I see it, you’re experiencing what I’d call the “Scientologist guilt”. Like the Christian guilt, but for Scientologists. And ex-Scientologists. I think so because I had my share of it, too.

    And guilt (any, not just Scientologist’s) can make anybody think twice before addressing and criticizing other people’s ideas, especially those that fall into the category of religious.

    However, one thing that I have learned is that all people deserve respect, but ideas don’t. Any person deserves respect. His or her right to choose an idea, ideology or religion to live by has to be respected too. But ideas per se are to be questioned and challenged.

    Especially those of a religious nature. Religions usually shield themselves from questioning and criticizing by harassing, censoring, excommunicating and calling their critics blasphemers, heretics, infidels, demons and, ultimately, suppressive persons. They even accuse their critics of intolerance and bigotry. But by doing so, religions disrespect the rights of free speech and free choice. And they get away with it very often.

    However, religions feel free (many Scientologists and fanatic Christians, for instance) to annoy you with their beliefs and ideas, to bother you with their Bible quotes and their personality tests, to make you feel as you’re a soul doomed to hell (or to your reactive mind) for not believing or following them, and to tell you how right they are and how wrong you are every time they can or want. When it comes to upset you with their ideas, they don’t refrain themselves from doing it. So, why should you be considerate to them, especially when you also have the right to speak your disbelief? Do you know that blasphemy is considered a right, one that is even upheld by the UN?

    Yes, believers get upset when somebody questions their sacred ideas. Yes, sometimes the comments of somebody seed doubt into believers’ minds. But a believer has to learn to be mature and tolerant about other’s opinions, especially those that he or she disagrees on, and in the same proportion that he or she speaks his or her opinions, expects to be listened at and hopes to influence his or her listeners. You feel the need to be considerate to Scientologists, but most Scientologists are not considerate when pushing your buttons, finding your ruin, selling you aggressively their books and services and tagging your friends, relatives and loved ones PTS or SP.

    Keep in mind also that “suppressive person” is Scientology’s scarlet letter imposed on those who dare to question its ideas and beliefs, inside and outside Scientology. Paradoxically, by calling “suppressive” their purported enemies and accusing them of witch-hunters and intolerant, Scientology ends up being the suppressive and intolerant witch hunter. Yes, “suppressive person” is in itself a suppressive term.

    So, in a nutshell, is your blog suppressive?

    No, Geir. Your blog is not suppressive. Scientology is.

    1. “but most Scientologists are not considerate when pushing your buttons, finding your ruin, ”

      They have little choice in this, Hubbard ordered them to in policy.
      “You have to be willing to invade someone’s space and privacy”
      “Don’t give them a choice about buying a service or not, only give them a small choice between eg cash and cheque”
      “No-one has a right to a reactive mind”

      I don;t own any Hubbard books anymore so I can’t quote the exact words but any scn will be familiar with these policies. And Hubbard will always right so the policy too is always right.

      This is a step too far that most other religions do not make.

      1. You’re right. It’s policy. I’m not sure, though, about your last sentence, but I acknowledge Scientology is especially aggressive.

        1. Fanatics can twist anything to mean anything, we know this. Most religions do stop short at outright ordering their followers to consider non-followers fresh meat ripe for conversion.

          Scientology goes a step too far in my book, by doing exactly this, and by doing it in completely unambiguous terms. It smacks of “all men are your slaves” from the affirmations.

          Even Islamic militants rely on crazy interpretations of what their prophet said, but Hubbard left no wiggle room about this at all. That he didn’t decree military action is beside the point – whether you enslave someone in his miond or by arms and chains, the person still gets enslaved.

          1. Yes, Scientology may be a form of mental slavery subtler than other religions. But I’m still not sure if this is worse than terrorism.

        1. Some religious fanatics, for instance, kill themselves or kill others in the name of their gods or dogmas. So far I haven’t seen Scientologists hijacking planes and crashing them into buildings (maybe because Hubbard never promised 72 virgins in the afterlife 😀 ).

          1. Hey ht, good one! Have heard a couple of variations on the size of that Harem, but never quite those numbers! Sheesh no wonder, these guys sign up in droves for ‘training! 🙂 ….ps. check my reply to you about 8 posts below!

    2. ht; Read my replies in this discussion and you will see that I am not talking about Scientology in particular – but more generally whether it is OK to break another’s belief when you are fairly certain that this will make them less.

      1. Geir…you are playing a big, fat joke on us here…as one cannot be in doubt unless one has already experienced the effects of both ways….the question then is what lesson one has learnt out of each.
        Example: i once got another by ‘my’ intent to experience exteriorization…she did
        not ‘thank’ for it and could not make use of the experience and proceed on from
        there as it was not ‘her’ intent…it was a great lesson for me to learn….so, what is
        yours? Will you please share the lessons you have had so far and what you have
        learnt out of them?

      2. I’m not talking about Scientology in particular either, but I’ve read some of your replies and I guess I see your point.

        Yes, it’s a complex situation and, the way I see it, it has multiple scenarios.

        However, in general terms, I’d say it’s not wise to break the spell, at least not directly. Maybe instead one can make indirect suggestions. One can suggest books, videos, lectures… or have casual conversations with the person about the importance of being critical with one’s beliefs, about the dangers of some fringe beliefs (without mentioning the specific ones of the person), about how cognitive bias can distort external and internal reality, and so on. That is, of course, if one is interested in doing so and if the particular case deserves it. As I said, there are lots of scenarios and particular cases in this situation (like the one of the Down child you mentioned) that can’t be addressed here properly.

        But all of the above applies when you’re speaking tête-à-tête with the person. The problem is when you write a blog. Through your posts, you reach different people at the same time and you can’t deliver a specific message to each reader.

        In this case, you have no choice but to speak to an audience (not to a specific person) and focus on your ideas, thoughts, feelings, beliefs, experiences and conclusions. There’s no other way. Do you fear you’ll break the spell on some of your readers? Maybe you will. But then what? Stop writing? Or changing the subject just to avoid disturbing two or three readers out there? Well, I believe it’s a matter of pondering what’s more important: to shut up in consideration to two or three wackos out there, or to speak up in consideration to yourself and hundreds of intelligent readers (myself included 😀 ).

        1. Hypertexta,

          I just wanted to add to your line of thought on cognitive bias and breaking spells.

          (BTW: That (spell) is a succinct word to use and (breaking spells) a succinct way to describe the way to bring light on the subject of beliefs. Well said. I sure like that one. A belief is in actuality a “spell”. How beautiful. It is very good thinking. )

          I was at a business lecture in about 1991. And the speaker opened his presentation on the subjects of beliefs. On his flip chart he had the following written before the meeting started, for the audience to see: Does believing make something true? He talked for a while on the subject of beliefs and the meaning of “belief” and “believe” and then asked the audience the question? (Giving the audience a moment to ponder the question.) Then he said, that the obvious answer to the question “Does believing in something make it true?” is “no”.

          When the concept or function of “beliefs” and “spells” is reasoned and evaluated, it becomes apparent that the believer is likely operating on “false and limiting data”. Which are Hubbard’s words.

          Then the next logical question for me is: “Why would anyone in their right mind want to “believe” anything?

          Although I was always a logical and reasoning and a “question everything” person, I never heard or thought of that before, I also do not recall using the word much. Prior to that, in hindsight, it seems that I did not use the word because the concept or function did not make sense to me, and at the same time, I did not have words to define, explain and understand it.

          Although it has been an evolution of thought for me, that question “Does believing make anything true? was implanted in my mind and has been controlling my thinking since and has since become my operating data. I could not be more thankful to that presenter for breaking any spell I had, and enlightening me.

          Dio

          1. Thank you for your comments on my reply.

            “Why would anyone in their right mind want to believe anything?” That reminds me of the “X Files” movie and its slogan “I want to believe”. I think one of the reasons we want to believe something is that we feel beliefs make the world more interesting. I mean, a simple light in the sky at night becomes more interesting if it’s a UFO than if it’s just a simple light in the sky at night.

            But we tend to forget that reality, as post-Newtonian Physics attempt to explain it, is usually stranger and more fascinating than some of our wildest dreams.

            1. Hyper,

              I ack your reply.

              Now you may have just opened up a new can of worms.

              Re: UFOs

              Do you think all those UFO claims are false?

              🙂

              Dio

            2. Did I open a new can of worms? Sorry, I didn’t mean to do that. I was just giving an example.

              About your question, I understand that no UFO claim has been proved so far.

            3. Hyper,

              Re: UFOs not being proven.

              Here is my POV:

              If they do exist it is unlikely they will be “proven”.
              Nor do I see any need for them to be “proven”.
              If they are for real, they are probably smart enough to avoid being “proven”.
              At least until earthlings evolve up on the scale of intelligence.

              ( We may be their creatures in their terrarium, which I suspect. They just come around to check on their animals. I think right now they are concerned that we might make another asteroid belt of this planet. They do not want to see it happen again.)

              And for those who claim that they have seen them, I give them the benefit of any doubt I may have. It does not make a lot of difference to me whether they did or not, other than the interest in an interesting subject.

              Why? Because I am not qualified to say that they are full of shit. Or accuse then of seeing something that is not there.

              And no one is qualified to say that they did not see what they said they saw, unless they were there at the time.

              The only time someone is qualified to say that someone did not see or experience what they said they did, is if they were there with the person at the same time and looking at the same place.

              In other words, if you were not there, then you are not qualified to question their claims.

              To do so is intellectual dishonesty.

              Furthermore, it is naive of us earthlings to think that we are the only human beings or human like beings or intelligent life in the universe.

              And I have read lot’s of UFO accounts and seen lots of videos and there appears to be enough subjective or and supporting or circumstantial evidence that it is very likely to be true. At least some of it.

              That’s my two cents worth.

              I have to get control of my blog addiction.

              I just slapped my fingers to not go to a blog.

              I hope they obey. But I doubt they will.

              Cheers,

              Dio

            4. This is a cross-post from Marty’s, where there was a discussion of “Proof” and “proving” things:

              There was a lengthy discussion of “proof” earlier in this blog post which I missed, but which led me to look into the subject. Here are some things I found:

              “… in science there is no ‘knowledge’, in the sense in which Plato and Aristotle understood the word, in the sense which implies finality; in science, we never have sufficient reason for the belief that we have attained the truth. … This view means, furthermore, that we have no proofs in science (excepting, of course, pure mathematics and logic). In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by ‘proof’ an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory.”

              Sir Karl Popper, The Problem of Induction, 1953

              “If you thought that science was certain — well, that is just an error on your part.”

              Richard Feynman (1918-1988).

              “A religious creed differs from a scientific theory in claiming to embody eternal and absolutely certain truth, whereas science is always tentative, expecting that modification in its present theories will sooner or later be found necessary, and aware that its method is one which is logically incapable of arriving at a complete and final demonstration.”Bertrand Russell, Grounds of Conflict, Religion and Science, 1953.
              “It is the aim of science to establish general rules which determine the reciprocal connection of objects and events in time and space. For these rules, or laws of nature, absolutely general validity is required — not proven.”

              Albert Einstein, in Science, Philosophy and Religion, A Symposium, 1941.

              “What is meant by scientific evidence and scientific proof? In truth, science can never establish ‘truth’ or ‘fact’ in the sense that a scientific statement can be made that is formally beyond question. All scientific statements and concepts are open to re-evaluation as new data is acquired and novel technologies emerge. Proof, then, is solely the realm of logic and mathematics (and whiskey). That said, we often hear ‘proof’ mentioned in a scientific context, and there is a sense in which it denotes “strongly supported by scientific means”. Even though one may hear ‘proof’ used like this, it is a careless and inaccurate handling of the term. Consequently, except in reference to mathematics, this is the last time you will read the terms ‘proof’ or ‘prove’ in this article.”

              http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html

              So it seems to me that folks demanding “scientific proof” are standing on quicksand at best. Applying this to LRH, at best exceptions can be found to his statements, many of his statements can be falsified, which itself does not mean there is no truth at all to them. Demanding “proof” is to me little more than the fallacy of “appealing to authority”. As Einstein said, what is required is a “general validity”.

              As far as LRH “dissing” or invalidating all previous teachers and teachings: well he first credited them, then apparently reversed himself. I’m sure y’all can think of reasons why he may have taken this tack; most any “guru” I ever heard of present themselves as the “source” of whatever truth they are disseminating; as far as dissing teaching that came before didn’t the Gotama Buddha essentially do the same thing? The doctrines he developed were a repudiation and correction of virtually every earlier Hindu school of philosophy.

              And in Christianity, the New Testament is essentially in tone a reversal and repudiation of the Old Testament which replaces a philosophy of punitive control with an attitude of Love?

            5. Good post, Valkov,

              There is a most right answer or solution to every subject, every problem. That “most right answer is relative to all the available knowledge or evidence and experience in the known universe in present time. That could be called relative fact or proof or truth.

              In which that amount or degree of knowledge or proof is forever evolving. The only thing that is permanent is change.

              And for that most right answer or truth, there are many partial truths, many sometimes truths, many almost truths, many false truths, many perfect counterfeits, and many lies.

              But only the most right truth, most right answer will solve that problem most perfectly. The greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics.

              Dio

            6. Great to see you making arguments here, Valkov.

              I hope you don’t mind if I correct them for you. (:>

              Val wrote:

              So it seems to me that folks demanding “scientific proof” are standing on quicksand at best. Applying this to LRH, at best exceptions can be found to his statements, many of his statements can be falsified, which itself does not mean there is no truth at all to them. Demanding “proof” is to me little more than the fallacy of “appealing to authority”. As Einstein said, what is required is a “general validity”.

              While there may be one or two calls for “scientific proof” by critics of Scientology, what is mostly being demanded is to be able to examine the evidence which support LRH’s claims. After 63 years, SOME evidence of LRH’s claims for Clear and OT states must exist. And since there are clear examples of “OTs” such as Reed Slatkin, Rex Fowler and George Baillie, then the evidence is heavily weighing against LRH’s claims of Scientology being able to create these states of Clear and OT.

              Asking to examine the evidence for LRH’s claims of Scientology creating the states of Clear and OT is certainly nothing like an appeal to authority. I think you have the wrong idea about what that particular logical fallacy means.

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority

              As far as LRH “dissing” or invalidating all previous teachers and teachings: well he first credited them, then apparently reversed himself. I’m sure y’all can think of reasons why he may have taken this tack; most any “guru” I ever heard of present themselves as the “source” of whatever truth they are disseminating…

              You are justifying LRH’s dissing his previous teachers and repackaging their ideas for sale by him by saying “most any guru does this”.

              This is the logical fallacy of Argumentum Ad Populum.

              From Wikipedia: “The argumentum ad populum is a red herring and genetic fallacy. It appeals on probabilistic terms; given that 75% of a population answer A to a question where the answer is unknown, the argument states that it is reasonable to assume that the answer is indeed A.”

              I see Scientologists use this to stop thinking right there on this fallacy and to justify LRH’s abuses all the time.

              It is incredible how well this fallacy works on Scientologists, but hardly on anyone else.

              as far as dissing teaching that came before didn’t the Gotama Buddha essentially do the same thing? The doctrines he developed were a repudiation and correction of virtually every earlier Hindu school of philosophy.

              Not at all. Gotama Buddha said that what differentiated his philosophy from all other philosophies was that through Buddhism one attained enlightenment by coming to see how the self, and all phenomena, had no inherent existence.

              This is the main difference between buddhism and all other practices. He did not criticize any other spiritual teacher that I know of. And he gave them credit where credit was due.

              And in Christianity, the New Testament is essentially in tone a reversal and repudiation of the Old Testament which replaces a philosophy of punitive control with an attitude of Love?

              Christianity considers itself a fulfillment of the prophecies of the Old Testament and gains its religious “validity” from that stance. In fact, it is a fundamental structural belief of Christianity that the prophets of the old testament were CORRECT in their views, and without them, Christ could not have come to do what he did.

              Jesus is “proven” to be the Christ because of the words of the old testament prophets. So no, Jesus did not diss the teachings that came before by saying all the earlier religious teachings were booby-trapped like LRH did.

              Jesus did break some of the Jewish dietary laws, especially regarding women and prostitutes, and this did get him killed. But again, he did not say anything like “alien races created the Jews’ religious writings and they are nothing but implanted booby traps in your mind” like LRH taught.

              I like that you are putting yourself out there now, Valkov, and showing your own thinking.

              Very well done.

              Alanzo

            7. I see your ego is as big as ever, to think you are in a position to correct others. I guess you must think you are smarter, more perceptive, more knowledgeable than the people you are “correcting”?

              “Al the Corrections Officer”. LOL

              However, thank you for posting your views on Buddhism, Christianity, Scientology, “scientologists”, L. Ron Hubbard, etc. It made it clear that we have no common ground or basis for discussion. Carry on.

            8. Although you did claim Al’s view of Hubbard’s Cause and Effect was “simplistic” without offering anything to support that claim. At least for the casual reader, could you?

            9. Hyper,

              You: Why do we want to believe in things?

              Me: My answer is: Because we have been told by religious leaders, (authorities) and gurus, salesmen and con artists that: “we must believe”, “you must believe” “you must believe me”, “you must believe in God”, “you must believe Allah” , and every other deity real or fictitious, you must believe in this and that.

              The word “believe” is ubiquitous in mass consciousness.

              (And the only thing some believe in is “I believe I will have another beer.”).

              In the absence of sufficient common sense, critical thought and reasoning abilities, along with logical thinking abilities,(in other words;scientific thinking), which can lead to understanding and then to relative certainty and “KNOWING”, believing is about the best a person at that stage of intellectual evolution is capable of.

              There is really no other option for those low on the scale of intellectual evolution.

              Dio

            10. Dio: “Me: My answer is: Because we have been told by religious leaders… for those low on the scale of intellectual evolution”.

              I feel all you’re saying here could be the answer to the question: “Why do we believe in things?”. But the question was: “Why do we ‘want’ to believe in things?”

              Yes, we’ve been told to believe. Yes, some of us just don’t know better. But why are we so eager to follow mindlessly a religious leader? Why are we willing to shut our thinking abilities and choose ignorance over knowledge?

            11. Hyper,

              1. One the scale of intellectual evolution it seems to be the nature of people ( at least a % of people) to long to believe in something and need operating data of a quality relative to their stage in evolution. Plus someone to worship and lead them. That is the way we are hardwired.

              2. Only a minority of people can actually think for themselves.

              According to a couple of sources there are 20 to 24 different types of humans on this planet. And on all stages of evolution from still most primitive aboriginal tribal stage to the most highly evolved.

              Dio

            12. hypertexta: But why are we so eager to follow mindlessly a religious leader? Why are we willing to shut our thinking abilities and choose ignorance over knowledge?

              chris: I don’t know about you hyper but I was conditioned from a small child to do so.

            13. Chris: ” I don’t know about you hyper but I was conditioned from a small child to do so”.

              I guess something similar happened to me: conditioned into Catholicism from a small child, set up into Scientology as an adult. And I see your point. I was just summarizing Dio’s words to make the point that he didn’t answer the question he posed himself.

            14. hypertexta: I was just summarizing Dio’s words to make the point that he didn’t answer the question he posed himself.

              chris: Not something to lose sleep over. (haha)

            15. hyper: But why are we so eager to follow mindlessly a religious leader? Why are we willing to shut our thinking abilities and choose ignorance over knowledge?

              chris: I was set up nicely for Scientology to step in and take over. And my ex wife? Even more so.

            16. Valkov wrote:

              However, thank you for posting your views on Buddhism, Christianity, Scientology, “scientologists”, L. Ron Hubbard, etc. It made it clear that we have no common ground or basis for discussion. Carry on.

              It used to be that after a post I wrote which addressed each of the points you made about Scientology, or some other subject, you would explode with some kind of ad-hom insult to me – like calling me a dumb-ass or something – and then you would storm off.

              But this time you wrote that!

              Is there something wrong?

              Is it my breath?

              Are you feeling okay?

              I don’t want to make this blog an unpleasant place for you, Valkov. I do want you to engage here and to have fun. So I will be less challenging and less “gamesy” with you. I really do miss the old days where going around and around with you was such a laugh riot. And useful, too.

              So from now on, if you say something stupid, I’ll just roll my eyes, smile, and wave. After all, Scientology has been thoroughly exposed and discredited and it is not coming back – ever.

              So you win, Valkov.

              I surrender.

              Alanzo

  26. Geir
    So the issue is: taking off the layers of one’s package one by one ( on a route from
    inverted havingness onto true havingness, doingness and beingness) by oneself
    with or without the presence and guidance of another OR feel authorized to show another that those layers do not exist only the other is making them up? I feel only
    that person is the right authority to decide in this question who is making them up. What do you say to it?

  27. Geir
    Will you please answer both of my comments and perhaps you can create the next
    OP for our common enjoyment to go on enriching each other? Thank you…

    1. Marianne, my dear, I feel your anguish, (“why no friggn’ acks, for pphuccks sake??).
      After getting this from Marty Rathbun, for over a year, then finally, after getting viciously snapped and snarled at, woke up to the fact I was NOT actually welcome there, told him so, then pphuccked off for keeps! 🙂

      On the other hand, Marianne, you and I both, recognize there is no such de”mean”our, forming the beingness of “our” host, Geir, (bless the mischievous, explorer of free-will, that he is!) and just mebbe, this is some willfully taken, time-out, for consolidating the geek in him???? He surely can’t actually be sulking now, though, could he? Maybe just a little bit overwhumped, by this quota of outpourings,( eenie, meenie, miney, moe? — which friggn’ way do I go???)

      Sigh! So then mebbe just best to chill, play theta tennis, wait, and see, hey? 🙂

      ML, Ray.

          1. Hi Ray,

            ‘I feel your anguish’…. it is not ‘my’ anguish…just anguish. As it is the ONE, when ‘one’ is going through it, it is cleared in the ONE too….’one’ for the ONE. Clearing THE Dynamics….so there is CHANGE.

            Sure blessing that you are here…besides chilling i got into gear in several ways…one is, which you put back my attention to is exercising…it is connected to
            that i love creating myself a bit more beautiful…i just enjoy creating it….last time when it happened some two years ago, just by being prettier and putting on some
            fancy clothes kind of two dozens around me started to do that. More smiles, change
            of tones. Now, i want to put on my dress similar to in the vid…some other changes
            in the pipe-line…i so love the whole process! The truth is that there is no drive in ‘me’ to create an effect (the highest purpose in this universe is the creation of an effect)…it is simply the joy of creating…which so far has proved to create effects…

            Thanks, Doc!

            1. Hi Ray,
              Out of clearing this ‘anguish’ an aware seeing came out: Ron was right that 2D is creation. Two ‘beings’, both in PT are Sources. Ego-less Sources. When out of one
              of these sources a particle is created and is sent to the ‘other’ Source, it is perfectly duplicated there and as a result, a new particle is created as a ‘response’. Actually, both particles are ‘new’ (not coming from past data). I am calling it now ‘genuine truely alive two-way com’.

              It is ok to com in a way that the other can understand it, it is also ok what you are
              saying as putting on and being in another’s shoes (tone scale and rise). I have nevertheless been struggling with this ‘com lag’ phenomena….which can manifest
              on both sides of the com cycle, depending on the ‘topic’ and also, as i see it now,
              the ‘environment’ (when it is not duplicated instant by instant). Very interesting…..

            2. Truly beautiful to see ‘you’ moving, assuming, expressing, these feelings and playing so effortlessly, Marianne. Assuming freedom, creating from this ‘source’ point. Yesssssss, my ladyfriend….. I see you have …..arrived…… too!

              If there is effort (at ‘source’ point),……..there is some ‘additive’, there. Recall; BE….(no effort, nothing added……no-thing! (Source)) Now recall BE-ING….. just continuing…to BE!………BE-ING…………..

              Same applies to DO,….. and…… HAVE. (just additives-‘considerations’)

              The craziness here, of course, is it all arises from absolutely……. ‘NOTHING’ aka ” ‘Source’…. so hello ‘NOTHING’ pleased to comm with you. Me, you ask? Oh, ‘me’? well isn’t that a coincidence, since “I’m” also …..’NOTHING’ 🙂

              EVERYTHING ELSE IS JUST NOISILY ADDED ON! truth is we DECIDE we need
              it/ WANT it/ MUST have it, Thus the game/s continue, ’cause we DECIDED we love these games, and therefore play them! ‘spiritual, emotional, mental, physical,
              you name it…anything….anytime….anyhow….ANY mock-up .

              The Biggest joke of all, my dear ‘sister’ BE-ING (Nothing), is that we’re playing ‘it’ on ‘ourselves’, and didn’t even know… So thaaaaaaaaat’s the secret, eh????
              We’re all frigggg’nn ‘NOTHING” other than ‘practical’ Jokers. Real suckers for digging for mysteries, hey?. Only to find, when we discover what’s back of that, is another mystery, and another mystery. Till finally when there is nothing left, we finally find ‘NOTHING’ And when you are no longer in ‘fear’ of ‘NOTHING’ you ARE!

              Arrived! …. Timelessness…..Fearlessness…..Beingness….. Beautiful!
              Of course, ‘freedom’…. includes …being free …to assume / resume / reject
              / start / change / stop any game/s ‘you’ please, any which, who, where, when.

              This really IS another Dimension… my deepest loving gratitude Marianne, and Adyashanti, for guiding me to Enlightenment.

              ML, Ray.

            3. Sunshine, we are ‘in comm’ in perpetuity (continuing!) Comm lags, unfortunately, are a glitch introduced by such things as alternating times, places, forms, and events. being out of sync. Fortunately though, intentions can to some extent, allay anguish, and anxiety. Just by surrender to the IS-NESS of those realities beyond our control. That aloneness, remember, “is” the ‘SOURCE’, of all.your strength, and comfort. for those times of perceived aloneness. Fortunately too, you/we can DECIDE on a whim, to BE grateful, look around for reasons to, and wind up feeling incredibly HAPPY, as a result! if you don’t believe it, try, and let me know what happens, Okay?

              Speaking of T,P,F,and Events, You probably saw the Gravatar has changed.(not my doing, ) and even Geir couldn’t advise how to sort it out. Still trying to get the original retrieved, as it was “easier ” to locate.

              If you prefer though, E/mails are much faster, & cut out the barriers of posting on a public forum. So, just put your friggn TR’s in and simplify the comm process, will ya? I confide that I had my vampire fangs specially filed down just for you, okay?

              Much “love”, Count Ray (he-he-he-he-he!) 3:)

            4. truely beautiful what you write Ray…..i smiled at ‘know’…as with the ‘know’ the ‘knower’ appears too BUT there is ‘knowing’ without the know-er….how it is happening i have no idea….what i experience is that there is still a lot to explore
              here…the unknown….that dimension may be the know-how of Free Will operating….Life’s operating….

              i love the ‘practical’ Joker….of course i love the ‘practice’…the experience….haha…

              thanks for telling me about the ‘recall’…be….yes

              also thanks for the ‘any game’ part….very useful for me now….will ‘look’ at it….

              my gratitude and love to you Ray….my ‘body’-guard….you know what i mean..you are …
              hm….that ‘no-thing’ that can be ‘every’thing’..on will and by duplication….thank you
              for being my doc-Ray!

            5. thanks….as for the Gravatar…if it helps….above i write every’thing’….there is no
              intent in TPFE…. right? intent-counter intent…intender(s)…right?
              RIGHT, TRUTH….that’s what i see now…

  28. Greetings hypertexta, Love the handle btw, and guessing there to be a good personal story behind it too?

    I also enjoyed your take on Geir’s OP, your comments, and succinct conclusion, too. Having now enjoyed a couple of much needed days off (“withdrawal” from an unavoidable work scenario, covered elsewhere on this blog, btw.) I get to more freely explore the “Shoeniverse”, a fictitious place I just mocked up, not unlike “the multiple viewpoint system.” ( Oh, and btw, so as not to mislead you, “Shoeniverse” is already a coined term, I subsequently googled up, predominantly describing the trials and tribulations of living and working in the shoe trade.)

    Now, moving directly on to the point:

    My “take” on this “Shoeniverse,” is predicated upon the simple assumption, of taking “OFF” one’s own shoes,(viewpoint) and trying (and being willing), to step into the shoes, of another person (other’s viewpoint), and by thus separating the two, is then capable of see’ing, feeling, and experiencing, what the ‘other’, does– The intention being, to hopefully duplicate,(alternatively, try to approximate,) and thus, understand, what makes “the other guy”, tick! 🙂 . The only way of measuring whether I have succeeded or not, is whether the ‘other’ has perceptibly moved up a notch or two on the Tone Scale, or not! The resulting comm, telling all! Conversely, of course, sometimes it all just totally backfires! kapow! 🙂 So then, I usually just take a step back, (into, shhhh!..”q-u-a-l”), only to find it was because “ego” me, didn’t see the hook in the bait, and got too “serious”!! Thus, happily entered World War 3. with gusto!

    Stupidity personified eh? 🙂 I now fully recognize though, that THIS game, is a work in progress!

    in terms of a game though, these are my observations:

    Seriousness = inflow = mass = introversion = effect = lose! 😦
    Laughter (rejection) = outflow = lightness = extroversion = cause = win! 🙂

    Thanks again for sharing, hypertexta, (certainly not wasted on me!)

    Calvin, ritb39

    1. As I said, I’d get back at you on your reply, as I promised. Three days later or so, but I did.

      Thank you for your comments on my reply. I wrote it in regard to Geir’s post, but I hadn’t read the replies. There were nearly 200 replies when I first read this post (too much to read at once), but I acknowledge my mistake. Thanks, anyway. And yes, there’s a personal story behind it, but I’m not sure if it’s a good one.

      About your “Shoeniverse”, I understand it’s that old adage of putting yourself in the shoes of someone else turned into a tone-scaling game. I like it. The problem is, as you say, when the person goes down in the tone scale and the whole thing backfires and send you to WW3.

      My suggestion: keep playing it and learning from it, but prepare your underground anti-atomic bunker, just in case. 🙂

      Thanks again (for the third time).

      1. Ht, appreciate you sharing some details, pal, along with the comments, too! Just a little more on this little planted ‘seedling’ , dubbed the ‘Shoeniverse,’ I hold a notion that it may eventually flesh-out into a life form of it’s own. 🙂

        It should be obvious to you, that the intention is simply to seek as close an approximation, as possible of the entire beingness and experience of another person. This has been exclusively articulated, as far as I am aware, in a little booklet compiled called , “Dynamics And The Tone Scale.” based on summaries of two Tape Lectures — ‘Tone and Ability’, and – ‘Wavelength and Tone Scale’, — by LRH.
        (the booklet IS currently out of print, though I do have a copy for reference.)

        The objective, ht, is an intensely interesting one, from this aspect:

        One is actually then,( following on from above,) attempting to move away from the traditional Cause – Effect relationship, where there always seems to be attempts, made, to avoid becoming an Effect,(wrong!) While trying at the same time, to assert being Cause (right!)

        It hardly needs voicing, that THIS ‘fixation’ can &` does result in the scale of divorces we have!……Not to mention the catastrophic consequences of that, too!

        The intent of LRH’s message, was/is to offer an alternative to the above ‘matromoni-acide’, and my own investigations, experiments, and results with this approach, applied to some closest to me, have proven one thing conclusively: It is possible to have an incredibly and consistently high ARC relationship, when no one is ever ‘made’, to feel WRONG!!!! – (it works, when it does, IF no attention whatsoever, is placed on the other’s “fault,” or “wrong”!)

        A pretty novel concept was introduced to us, by LRH, called the Cause . Cause relationship. The object being, simply and only to grant full Cause (responsibility) to the other, while simultaneously fully assuming the Beingness, experience, feelings and effects of the other.

        I could write a book on the miraculous changes seen in others, with the simple applications offered in that little booklet.

        ……. the birth, if you will, of this now aptly named –“Shoeniverse.”

        Stay sharp, stay safe,
        ritb39

          1. Sunshine, you know where real beauty lives, and that’s what makes you shine as brightly as you do…and now it is time for some Zeeee’s. Pleasant dreams to you,
            ML, Ray

      2. Hi hypertexta
        ‘…and the whole thing backfires’….There is this phenomena: anything which happens to the person, the person has already done that to another. Btw, that is ‘karma’…the energy balance of the universe. One can face the backfire. Karma resolved. I side by racing…it is worth being in ‘another’s’ shoes and experience it. Thus one can get closer and closer to ‘oneness’. Not to mention the experiences….

      3. There you have it, ht, straight from the heart of a lady! The whole exercise of empathy / compassion, of course, is simply symbiotic in raising another’s awareness, and therefore ‘survival’, for want of a better word, in their estimation.
        And yes, ‘playing it and learning from it’, is a reflective part of it, where the main
        task, is just the bold, uplifting care, and love for another. A reflection too, of that eternal bond shown between a loving parent and their child, and perhaps later, vise versa.

        As you are fully aware, these ‘roles’ switch back & forth, according to one’s circumstances, as described by, ( but not limited to ), the above.

        It’s a beautiful game too, when you’re just WILLING to ‘BE’ anything, hey, ht? 🙂

  29. Hi Ray
    I get a big laughter on ‘stupidity personified’…haha….love this….thanks for sharing
    the scenerio, i get it! Miraculous! Still laughing….btw the inclination to send you an
    email is there…i just let it rest for a while….

    1. Sure Sunshine, you know you’re always welcome. When you’re ‘up to it,’ just connect, and we’ll take it from there. Okay? 🙂

    2. I suspect that you will feel that my comment will be low-toned, Racing, but I do believe we can get past your not-is of contrary ideas to Scientology and communicate anyway.

      LRH had a very simplistic view of cause and effect, and he sold that simplistic view to Scientologists – to their own detriment. No cause can exist without also becoming effect. There is no such thing as “cause” alone, and trying to be “cause” without also being effect creates huge problems in a person’s life.

      It is simply an unsustainable way to live.

      Like the symbol of the Tao, both cause and effect are ultimately intertwined.

      Now if you can look past your intolerance of things that question Scientology ideas, and simply duplicate and understand my communication, I think your shoeniverse will expand exponentially by discussing this with me.

      Alanzo

        1. Val, thanks for picking up on this, so we can oblige Al’s invitation, to ‘pick’ on him!
          C/I, D/A, Fair Game, Reverse Scn, Black Dn, and all the double standards now re-instated, at his invitation, since he insists on using ’em, by way of some weird reverse life continuum, of his proclaimed disavowal of all things, “scientology!”
          How’s that for a nice, high affinity start to the discussion , Al? GRRRRRR!! 😡

          1. Actually, I’m done picking on him except very casually perhaps. It’s not my job anymore, to argue with him. His views are so different from mine, there is no connection or common ground. so he is welcome to bloviate away, decrying scientology and LRH to his heart’s content, whereever he is allowed to do so. That’s his schtick, his claim to fame.

            It’s a big world, and I believe there is room to live and let live. He may disagree, but as long as he isn’t too invasive about it, that’s his privilege. I see him as a kind of critical political cartoonist. He likes to turn what he sees as clever phrases, and sometimes they are. That’s about all. I don’t see him as being worth debating or aguing with. That’s based on 3-4 years worth of experience.

            1. Val, 3-4 years worth of ‘experience’ of bi-polar bletherings, on the one hand, and a professed Marildi lover/hater obsession on the other? Thank God almighty you had a 13 year stint in active practice in the Psyche Hospitals, under your belt.
              (i get that it must become ….(yawn)….. pretty … boring … after a while. )

              Please tell me though, apart from ECT, padded cells, and straight jackets, how else does one deal with such certifiable cases ?

            2. racing: Please tell me though, apart from ECT, padded cells, and straight jackets, how else does one deal with such certifiable cases ?

              chris: You come up with a better argument.

            3. So then it’s “ECT, padded cells, and straight jackets,…?” Alanzo pushes the tone scale buttons and the Hubbard Chart of Human Evaluation buttons because they stick so far out that they are nearly impossible to miss. Plus, they are truly Scientology, no bullshit.

              I agree about arguing, the type where tempers flare and there’s a lot of reaction. But discussing doesn’t need to get that way. Doesn’t have to. If people say their piece and don’t agree, then that seems fine to me, the subject can just drop. But when a person is fixated on an idea and identifies with that idea until they need that idea to be right or else they are wrong, then that doesn’t seem good to me. The way that Scientology teaches us to see enemies in everything and everyone who does not agree with us is mentally unhealthy. The way Scientology defines “holding your position” and “being unreasonable” is mentally unhealthy. That truly is Scientology and Scientology fits its own definition of “suppressive.”

            4. Al is a product of the “brand” of scientology he was subjected to, the CoS brand. I think he pushes buttons because it is all he knows to do, and it gives him a thrilling feeling of power to be able to create an effect on others. That’s his primary anxiety. Can he create an effect, can he “nail” people he imagines represent something threatening. He’s been mindfucked, and as many folks who have been abused, he perpetuates the abuse and continues to mindfuck others, even people he has never met, justifying his actions (“lessening the overt”) by saying it he is doing it to “scientologists”, and further, doing it “for their own good”.

              I think this whole exchange speaks to the OP very well – is it right to push people’s
              buttons, especially knowing what the consequences are likely to be?

            5. I just had to look up something in Dianetics 55 and instead came across this interesting datum.
              :
              Judging by this datum all of you guys have flunked scn.

              Quote:
              One of the most significant differences from man to man, is the degree to which he is willing to be pan determined. The man who has to forcefully control everything in his vicinity, including his family, is not being pan determined. He is not being self determined usually, mush less pan determined. He is not being his family. If he were his family, he would understand what they are doing and he would not feel that there was any danger or menace in their going on executing the emotions or emanating the emotions which they do.

              But, anchored down as one person, rather obsessed with the damage that can be done to him, an individual is apt to launch himself upon a course of heavy, solid super control of others. Now let’s take the person who is SD and PD in the same situation, and we discover that he would have enough understanding in the vicinity of his family and others’ families, and with this understanding would be able to be and experience as the remainder of the family, and he would find out that he actually could control the family with considerable ease.

              The oddity of it is that force can control down into entheta- to enturbulation- but that PD controls upwards into greater happiness and understanding since there is more ARC present. You have seen individuals around whom a great deal of peace and quiet are obtained. Such individuals quite commonly hold into sanity and cheerfulness many others in their environment who are not basically stable or SD at all.

              The individual who is doing this is not doing it out of obsession, he is doing it simply by knowing and being. He understands what people are talking about because he is perfectly willing to be these people. When he falls away from understanding what they are talking about he has also fallen away from being willing to be them. The willingness to understand the willingness to be are, for our purposes, synonymous.

              Continued on page 105 of my 1961- 1968, reprinted 1971 hard cover edition.

            6. I suggest that everyone very carefully read all (and I mean every single one) of Hubbard’s text books, from the first one he wrote to the last one he wrote, beginning ASAP.

              That’s the only real way to get rudiments and understanding in. It would do everyone a world of good. You would be more than surprised of the knowledge, wisdom and understanding you would gain, and obviously missed. If you did indeed read them before.

              It is very apparent that many people talk about scientology who are not qualified to talk about scn, because it is evident that they do not know what they are talking about, or are only playing with a partial deck instead of a full deck. They are false Scientologists.

              They only pretend to know what they are talking about. Or read only one book (maybe two or so) and think they know about and are qualified to talk about scientology. There are close to thirty books.

              “Beware of the one who has read only one book.”

              Like the three blind men and the elephant story. Where there are three blind men each holding on to a part of an elephant and describing it. The one holding on to the leg says the elephant looks like a tree, the one holding on to the tail, say the elephant looks like a rope, the one holding on to the trunk says the elephant looks like a hose. None of them really know what the elephant really looks like.

              Like many Christians call themselves Christians because they or their parents were married in a Christian church. But they know next to nothing about what Christianity means. They have not read the bible. They have no clue of what is in the bible. These are not true Christians. They are false Christians, non bonafide Christians. A true Christian would know the bible forwards and backwards, even have it memorized.

              And a true scientologist has applied the data in :How to study a science, How to study scientology, and completed the cycle of learning which would include reading the bible and a lot more other books of comparable magnitude. All such books of comparable magnitude in the known universe, as Hubbard said.

            7. What a load of crap.

              And right there you reveal your own ignorance. Please point me to the LRH issue titled, “How to study a science”.

            8. Geir,

              You are revealing your ignorance and making it clear that you are full of crap.

              Look in the book: “A New Slant on Life” for the article :”How to study a science” and read it carefully.

              It is on page 123 of my copyright; 1965, 1972 , reprinted in October 1982 hard cover edition.

              Dio

            9. Did you know that this was an unauthorized change to the title?

              And; Did you M4 the book Scn 8-8008?
              Did you do M2 on it? Because if you did not, you are not remotely qualified to even remark on its content. Etc.

            10. I did not do the bridge. I do not know what M2 and M4 mean. And it is not in my version of the tech dictionary. First printing 1975, last printing 1981.

              I only read all the texts, most more than twice, plus a lot of fz material.

              And in considerable discussions with someone (an old timer) who did do the bridge, about me wanting to do the bridge some day, he emphatically told me that I do not need to do the bridge, because of all what I did do, I got everything that was necessary to know.

              And he said doing the bridge for me would be a waste of time.

              That is my operating data.

              Like Jesus told the Jewish rabbis, you know the letter of the word, (their old testament) but not the spirit of the word.

              Dio

            11. Geir,

              You: Did you read the Tech Dictionary?

              Me: I have not read it from cover to cover. But I have read a fair bit of it, by using it and looking up any word I do not understand. And often a few more words while I am at it.

              And I did look up M2 and M4 and I could not see them, if they were there.

              If I had time, I would read the tech dictionary over from cover to cover.

              Dio

            12. M4 ≠ Word Clearing Method 4. No Scientologist worth a dime would have missed that. And you blast others for ignorance. Jeez. Get a grip.

            13. Geir,

              1. I have said many times I am not a scientologist. I am a free spirit who studies scn and as many other different religions and philosophies and related material as possible.

              2. I told you I have not done the bridge, so how would I know what is in the word clearing course?

              3. Is there anything I said that was not true.

              Dio

            14. That is OK.

              When you climb up the theta scale a few notches, it will begin to make sense.

              Dio

            15. Maybe you are just the kind of guy that would benefit from doing the Bridge. Maybe it will limit the size of that orifice.

            16. Geir: Maybe you are just the kind of guy that would benefit from doing the Bridge.

              chris: Or join the Sea Org. Fastest RPF assignment — ever.

            17. Geir,

              Why don’t you release my other post?

              The one re unauthorized subjects?

              Dio

            18. Geir,

              You: “Did you know that this was an unauthorized change to the title?”

              Me:

              1. You did not post a rule on what the parameters of a subject (title) must be.

              2. There are more than numerous off topic posts in your blogs.

              Probably more than half the content of most of your blogs do not conform to the blog subject.

              Randomity is good.

              Were it not for the randomity and off topic discussions and exchanges these blogs would be boring and people would lose interest.

              Assessment:

              You are just being petulant and spiteful.

              Petulant 1. (of a person or their manner) childishly sulky or bad-tempered.
              2. Unreasonably irritable or ill-tempered; peevish.
              3. Contemptuous in speech or behavior.
              4. irritable, impatient, or sullen in a peevish or capricious way.

              Spite: 1. a desire to hurt, annoy, or offend someone.
              an instance of a desire to hurt; a grudge.
              2. Malicious ill will prompting an urge to hurt or humiliate.
              3. An instance of malicious feeling.
              4. maliciousness involving the desire to harm another; venomous ill will
              5. an instance of such malice; grudge
              6. something that induces vexation
              7. in spite of (preposition) in defiance of; regardless of; notwithstanding
              vb (tr)
              8. to annoy in order to vent spite
              9. to offend

              You should check, maybe you need your diaper changed.

              LOL

              Dio

            19. Geir,

              You: Dio, the legend in his own mind.

              Me:

              1. Great spirits have always received violent opposition from mediocre minds.
              A. Einstein.

              2. There are two ways to establish a reputation.
              One is to be respected by great minds,
              and the other is to be condemned by rogues.

              It is however best to secure the first,
              because it is always accompanied by the latter.

              Charles Colton. Paraphrased

              3. Talk sense to a fool and he calls you a fool.

              Dio

            20. Many yrs ago, I began going to a Christian Church. (I had read the bible over from cover to cover, before hand.) I got into a discussion on something in the bible, with the preacher and I could see that he did not really know what he was talking about. I asked him, “Have you read the bible over from cover to cover?” He said no. I said what have you read? I only read what they told us to read in bible school. I suggested that he read it from cover to cover. There was no meaningful reason for us to discuss anything about the bible, after that.

              About six months later I am in church and, he begins the sermon as follows, in a loud and authoritative voice, while holding and waving the bible in his hand: How many people have read the bible from cover to cover?

              Def: authoritative: having or showing impressive knowledge about a subject.

              Evidently he did go home and read the bible from cover to cover when I told him to do so, and he was shocked to learn what was really in it. And now was really boasting in a way, or telling me that he did read it from cover to cover, when he was asking the question to the congregation, and was now qualified to talk on the subject. (There were not many people in church and he knew I was there.)

              I quit going to church shortly after. And then read it again. It was again like a new book.

              All notable books are like that, including scientology books, when you read them more times than once.

              Dio

            21. Slog,

              Yes. I certainly know what you mean. The contradiction, hypocrisy, preteniousness are so huge.

              That is why I suspect that there were more than one beings operating that body we know as LRH. Probably several more. I really think so.

              Dio

              hy·poc·ri·sy
              1. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.
              2. An act or instance of such falseness.
              3. the practice of professing standards, beliefs, etc, contrary to one’s real character or actual behaviour, esp the pretence of virtue and piety
              pre·ten·tious

              pretentious 1. attempting to impress by affecting greater importance, talent, culture, etc., than is actually possessed.

            22. Multiple beings inhabiting one body and running it at different times is a gigantic leap of wishful thinking, one not supported by the facts. So I can’t take your statement seriously, you’d first have to show that such a thing is possible and before that you’d probably have to show that a thetan (or any other similar concept) even exists at all. No-one has yet manged to do this.

              Hubbard’s actions are fully explained if you simply describe him as a charming, but arrogrant, megalomaniac shit head who vastly over-estimated his own understanding of anything other than charming people. he was a con-man, he spun tall tales and he took people for a ride as his standard operating basis. Biographical details support the notion that he was always like this and it’s a non-changing pattern of behaviour. It’s completely reasonable to say that between 1950 and 1965 he could exercise enough self-restraint to keep up appearances and keep his darker deeds hidden. Example – deliver the PDC lectures and appear charming in public while drugging Nibs up with various drugs in private.

              This is a common enough thing to observe in con-men and charmers and it explains all the known facts. No need to invoke undemonstrated magic woo-woo as an explanation.

            23. Splog,

              My experience has been that almost anything is possible on this earth.

              The truth is or can be stranger than fiction.

              I have read lot’s of channeled material. And watched lots of videos on people channeling very intelligent beings and talking knowledge not of this realm . I have seen crap too.

              I have seen it in person too.

              And circumstantial evidence indicates that there are many different levels (dimensions) (frequencies of existence) (realms) with respectively different calibers of evolved beings on them.

              From experience it has been others as well as my evaluation that beings that do this type of stuff (e.i.disseminate high quality knowledge for the enlightenment of those interested) through certain people, do not readily lend themselves to being tested or proven to swine and prostitutes and other vulgar lower life forms (ethetans).

              They know better than to throw pearls in front of swine or get in pissing contests with skunks.

              Just because your radio has only a one frequency receiver and can only receive and play one radio station, does not mean that many other frequencies and radio stations do not exist.

              Dio

            24. splog, from a clinical psychological viewpoint, ‘multiple personality disorder’ is quite plausible and also explains the kind of contradictions LRH displayed. In Dianetics terms there are ‘valences’; in Transactional Analysis the concept of ‘ego states’, in psychoanalysis, ‘transference’, etc. Most people are aware of the concept of “split personality”, and I think most of us have observed a person who at various times, seems to be different people. This kind of effect can also be produced by hypnosis.

              In short, I think your explanation of LRH’s behavior over time is not the only possible one.

            25. I can buy the idea 9as a working theory) of multiple personality disorder or something similar. I have almost zero knowledge of that field though so I can’t venture much of an opinion.

              Dio’s statement I can’t buy. I try real hard to spot and avoid magic woo-woo solutions spun out of apparently thin air.

            26. Splog,

              Read my reply to you again.;

              I repeat:

              Read it carefully.

              Especially the last paragraph.

              My experience has been that almost anything is possible on this earth.

              The truth is or can be stranger than fiction.

              I have read lot’s of channeled material. And watched lots of videos on people channeling very intelligent beings and talking knowledge not of this realm . I have seen crap too.

              I have seen it in person too.

              And circumstantial evidence indicates that there are many different levels (dimensions) (frequencies of existence) (realms) with respectively different calibers of evolved beings on them.

              From experience it has been others as well as my evaluation that beings that do this type of stuff (e.i.disseminate high quality knowledge for the enlightenment of those interested) through certain people, do not readily lend themselves to being tested or proven to swine and prostitutes and other vulgar lower life forms (ethetans).

              They know better than to throw pearls in front of swine or get in pissing contests with skunks.

              Just because your radio has only a one frequency receiver and can only receive and play one radio station, does not mean that many other frequencies and radio stations do not exist.

              Dio

              Dio

            27. I will not bother to convince him.

              It is not possible with his primitive single channel radio.

              He needs to go a and buy a good quality multi band radio.

              Dio

            28. This is why I do not engage with Dio, apart from the occasional lapse.

              Dio has the usual position of true believers in things. He provides nothing to back up his statements (which are voluminous), insists that what he says mut be taken seriously, and when he finds himself in a corner, resorts to insults in an attempt to somehow diminish what the other guy is saying.

              It’s impossible to discuss anything with such an individual as he refuses to examine or move off his own position for any reason.

            29. Splog,

              When the situation is a simple as 2+4 = 4,

              what is there to discuss?

              If you are in grade one, then I suppose that subject could be discussed for a week.

              But not in high school. At least not in the good ones.

              If you want to or need to discuss it, go the grade one room.

              It is as simple as that, there is no more discussion necessary.

              I am not out to convince anyone of anything, or prove anything to anyone.

              I make my case, make my statements, state the facts.

              Take it or leave it.

              For me to do other wise is childish and a waste of my time.

              I do not have time to discuss elementary issues and play mind games.

              The school I am in is an elite school and not for the feeble minded.

              Business is serious here in my school.

              And before you are allowed entry into the school I am in, you have to make sure you have done all the other grades properly.

              Elementary subjects are discussed in elementary schools.

              To discuss elementary subjects in the elite school is a waste of precious and expensive time.

              Doing so disrupts the rest of the class.

              There is no room or time for childish games, or petulant behavior.

              I can’t help you, if you cannot figure out why 2+2= 4.

              Dio

            30. “…. the subject can just drop.” It appears not for Al. It looks to me like he is compelled to “nail” anyone he associates as a “scientologist”. That indicates a lack of free will to me.

            31. I know well that Alanzo can be extremely annoying and he has the ability to drive people, even inanimate objects, to near madness. I also know well that he is mostly right and that what triggers the near-madness is the challenging of one’s preconceived and fixed beliefs.

            32. Why deal with such a person at all, if what he’s saying is not to your taste? There is a street corner soapbox preacher in my town who talks about one a week. Who cares? Those who want to find out what he’s saying, stop and listen for a minute. Others just walk on by. Why engage him or try to “deal with” him? It’s just his jaws flapping in the wind. Let him talk about whatever aspects of scientology etc he is interested in. That is part of society’s illness, the need to deal with and correct others; and indeed possibly Al’s illness, to be intolerant and feel a need to control, enforce, and inhibit, to name call and “correct” others, to insist that others MUST see things the way he does or else they are somehow inferior to him. That’s Al’s trademark M.O. It does matter whether he is “right” in some or even many of his criticisms of whatever he is looking at when he says the word “scientology”. What matters is how he treats people, and that is clearly visible to even the casual reader. He is a yoyo who, no matter how low you go, he will come down to that level, instead of taking the high ground. He accepts any and all “invitations to hate”.

              Thus it is best not to let him provoke you into responding. He is irrepressible, and rightly so; why try to repress him? That is his game, don’t play it.

              That’s what I learned from my time studying psychiatry and psychology. The unwell need a safe, quiet and pleasant environment. Trying to “deal with them” only makes them worse.

            33. I’m so glad to hear that you are done picking on me, Valkov.

              I’m sure that your superior intellect and all that time you spent working in mental hospitals as a Scientologist taught you how to handle a case like mine.

              I’ve been meaning to ask you: how does a Scientologist get a job working in a mental hospital, anyway? It just seems so odd – a loyal dedicated follower of L Ron Hubbard working in a mental hospital for 13 years?

              How did that happen?

              Alanzo

            34. Geir I have a distinct impression that there may be a sort of inter-geek transference thing going on here. Mutual admiration also reeks of ARC, too! 🙂
              Hey, that extra cup of coffee is regretted!… now Really gotta hit the sack!
              cheers.

            35. Yes, Ray….experiencing it is truely miraculous…
              Going back to your ‘old’ Gravatar ‘picture’ you write: “trying to get the original retrieved, as it was ‘easier’ to locate”….do you allow it NOW to get ‘lost’/ ‘wasted’….in geir’s ‘time-less’…..?

        2. Looks like we got a Butch and Sundance situation developing with the Scientologists here.

          I hope you guys are prepared to jump over the cliff in the end!

          1. No need to jump from cliffs. You’re the one who’s noted for such stunts. Anyone who cares to, can read some LRH and listen to some lectures and
            plainly see that you are simplistically misrepresenting his views on “cause and effect”.

            1. OT VII: Hubbard Solo New Era Dianetics for OTs Auditing
              “On New OT VII one solo audits at home daily. This is a lengthy level, requiring a considerable amount of time to complete. It is the final pre-OT level, and culminates in attainment of the state of CAUSE OVER LIFE.”

              “The definition of the state of Operating Thetan is “knowing and willing cause over life, thought, matter, energy, space and time.” Tech Dic.

              “Any one who cares to” has.

              And that would be me.

              I’ve done much more training, much more reading, and much more studying of the words of L Ron Hubbard than you have, Valkov, and I say that Hubbard’s views were simplistic on Cause and Effect. And I’ve provided the quotes to support my claim.

              Yet you’ve provided no quotes at all, no support at all for your very inexperienced opinion on Hubbard’s views on Cause and Effect.

              You’re gonna hafta put some quotes on out here, or provide some kind of support for your claim before anyone is going to believe that you actually understand anything about Scientology, Valkov.

              So let’s see it.

              Show us a quote from Hubbard about cause and effect that is more nuanced than the quotes I have produced here.

              Alanzo

            2. Al, I don’t “hafta” do anything you demand. Your post sounds like you think yu are David Miscavige and I am some poor schlep on the RPF.

            3. Val wrote:

              Al, I don’t “hafta” do anything you demand. Your post sounds like you think yu are David Miscavige and I am some poor schlep on the RPF.

              Drop and give me twenty!

            4. Valkov!

              STAND UP!

              SIT DOWN IN THAT CHAIR!

              STAND UP!

              SIT DOWN IN THAT CHAIR!!

              Have you ever drilled the Upper Indoc TRs, Valkov? I have! I’m a graduate of the Professional Upper Indoc TRs Course!

              That’s right. I’m a professional.

              My Tone 40 is so good, I can make a fucking ASH TRAY stand up, and sit down in that chair!

              STAND UP!

              SIT DOWN IN THAT CHAIR!

              STAND UP!

              SIT DOWN IN THAT CHAIR!!!

      1. (Sob, sniff, sniff) … there… I knew it!, Deep, deep down, You really do care! Thus, now, in beseeching thee to accept my submission,…to thine Mighty, Eternal, All-Conquering Wisdom over All, I now ask for your merciful forgiveness & Blessing, my Supreme Lord Al. and honor you now, as I now kneel in prayer:
        ” My Dear Lord, it gives me great pleasure, to say; … “PhuuuuccckYooo” 🙂

        1. Racing wrote:

          (Sob, sniff, sniff) … there… I knew it!, Deep, deep down, You really do care! Thus, now, in beseeching thee to accept my submission,…to thine Mighty, Eternal, All-Conquering Wisdom over All, I now ask for your merciful forgiveness & Blessing, my Supreme Lord Al. and honor you now, as I now kneel in prayer:
          ” My Dear Lord, it gives me great pleasure, to say; … “PhuuuuccckYooo” 🙂

          Can I get a tone scale reading on this response, please?

          My Tone Scale Geiger Counter is picking up levels way below where I expected them to be, and I just need someone else’s readings to compare with before I answer.

          I would not want to respond with an answer too high on the tone scale – we may lose him!!!

          Alanzo

            1. Thank you. When was the last time you had your Tone Scale Geiger Counter calibrated? Because when I got mine back from Gold last time, they left a KMart sticker on the outside of the Transpopotamus and the thing was loopy!

              I had to fly by the seat of my pants for a few days there while they fixed it. Had I used that thing in that shape, I might have recognized the civil rights of someone below 2.0! And that would have been suppressive to all concerned.

              Dodged a bullet on that one!

              If your and my readings are correct, then by standard LRH Scientology we should not recognize any civil rights for Racing of any kind!

              My god this is serious.

              We should get three readings before we ship him off to the camps.

              Any one else care to weigh in?

              Alanzo

            2. three SWINGS– asshole! mind yur friggn’ manners. David, you pphuuucck, where are F*%^(($%#$^^& OSA when you need them??? Shittthedz !!

            3. racing: three SWINGS– asshole! mind yur friggn’ manners. David, you pphuuucck, where are F*%^(($%#$^^& OSA when you need them??? Shittthedz !!

              chris: This reminds me of the old life and sometimes I don’t like being reminded of the old life. If it had been a game that I’d lost at, I would be fine about it and not feel so punked about it. The fact is that there was only make believe going on sold as reality. That wasn’t ok to do.

      1. Yay! Absence makes the heart grow fonder…There! You don’t want me getting TOO fond now, do you?
        ps. Having a prob. restoring the gravitar! Any helpful tips please?

        1. Hmm… dunno about the Gravatar issue…

          BTW; Ypu will notice that I am more quiet every second week as I have my three boys with me. Except today as I just churned out another blog post 😉

          1. Eureka! explains everything!! high fives to all three from racing, please! 🙂

  30. Calvin>

    You: racingintheblood39
    2014-01-05 @ 13:40

    Dio, my brother, The ‘fast’, and ‘solo processes’ were only practiced for mere days, in stead of a week.. But, IMHO, were never-the-less, very effective! More of same, not less, therefore can only do you more MORE good, man!

    Chill, relax, be….. it all get’s you there, my bro.’

    Calvin, (just chillin, too.)

    Me: 1. I did read your post on the fly.

    But due to too many windows and doors open and too many comm lines, on the go, I did not ack it.

    2. I do not duplicate you either. Re; processing etc.

    But that is ok. I have lots of bigger alligators to deal with.

    3. It seems to me that you call yourself or are called by two names, Calvin and Ray?

    What’s the deal here?

    Cheers,

    Dio

    1. Dio, thanks for the reply. and the background too!

      clarifications, as requested, bro

      The ‘fast’ and processing” were two cues I saw mentioned in your earlier com, before mine. …( that you would take some days off to do this)

      I get called by many differing names, most of them for fun! ..(No deal, though!)
      “Ray” ….just an abbreviation for “racing.”

      Cheers, bro.

      1. Calvin, my brother,

        You: clarifications, as requested, bro

        The ‘fast’ and processing” were two cues I saw mentioned in your earlier com, before mine. …( that you would take some days off to do this)

        Me: OK I got it.

        Yes, I am only running about a 60-70% proficiency or success rate on my fasting and bed rest plan. The demands of life and the ego postulates are difficult to ignore. So I just do the best that I can under my circumstances.

        So in my imperfect world, what I am able to get done is still quite effective. I wish I could do it perfect. But I am not really all that disappointed in my lack of perfection. It is still some of the best processing I have done.

        To do it perfect, it would be ideal to get out of one’s environment where there are no postulates in place that control a person. In a person’s home there are very solid postulates that control a person. Like; I got to do that, and that and, oh that too. And the phone rings. And you just got call some one. And that computer too, just have to check the email, and on and on.

        Ideally there are special places where a person can go for a month and get supervised rest and fasting and all extraneous and all external things and distractions are looked after.

        You: I get called by many differing names, most of them for fun! ..(No deal, though!)
        “Ray” ….just an abbreviation for “racing.”

        Me: Oh boy, that is quite a stretch. That would be interesting if that was what everybody (e.i. all racers) at a racing match were called.

        Cheers,
        Bro Dio

        1. Gotcha completely, fellow traveler! Regarding the ‘stretch,’ are you implying there are OTHER motorcycle racers that actually read this blog. Wow, yummy can’t wait! riiimmm! rriiiimmm! raaaaaaaaaabmmm! Okayyye!! …. Readddy, when they are, bro’ Dio! 🙂

          1. Bro Cal,

            I think there are a few racing enthusiasts on this blog, but probably not the league you are in.

            So they might not count or be qualified to go by that name or wear that designation.

            :)))) D D

            Oh, boy!

            Bro Dio

  31. if you are an explorer of free will then the answer is obviously yes, it’s OK!

    creed of scientology:
    That all men have inalienable rights to think freely, to talk freely, to write freely their own opinions and to counter or utter or write upon the opinions of others.

    OK

    code of a scientologist, online:
    To keep Scientologists, the public and the press accurately informed concerning Scientology, the world of mental health and society.

    OK

    code of a scientologist as written in the new basic books:
    To hear or speak no word of disparagement to the press, public or preclears concerning any of my fellow Scientologists, our professional organization or those whose names are closely connected to this science.

    uh oh! not OK! LOL

    personally I’m a big fan of honesty, if someone is so easily suppressed they’re squishy and will get their feelings hurt regardless what happens

    I’ve heard it described actuality is what’s real for you, reality is what is real for “everyone”

    what someone’s believes, or what others call fact, what they consider a better life, what’s right, is all subjective so it’s up to you

    I appreciate your honesty, I don’t feel suppressed by what you say, I want to try OT8 for the hell of it regardless your “negative” reviews, you clearly aren’t suppressive you are just honest

    but from what i got from your article on free will, you think it’s possible that “facts” are subject to free will, so the whole question goes back to free will, if we have free will there will always be challenges from others whether you decide they are OK nor not OK

  32. There is this idea of RWOT mentioned here.

    I have to check: does this stand for “REAL WORLD OUT THERE”?

    If so, then you guys are in big trouble when you believe that there is no RWOT.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism

    This is very much related to the OP.

    If you believe that a person’s own universe is really all there is, then presenting facts to refute their inner beliefs is a pointless activity. And if it causes harm, even small harm, then because of its pointlessness and its slight or potential destructiveness, it is not a moral activity to engage in.

    In order to see this problem correctly, we need to remind ourselves of the hot stove and how it was that we came to understand that the pretty red light glowing on the stove was HOT, and that it would burn us if we touched it.

    No matter what your belief was about the pretty red glowing light, if you had not been given the fact from someone outside yourself that the stove would burn you, then the danger of not knowing or dismissing the fact of HOT was much more important to your survival than your belief – no matter how comforting or helpful that belief was to your inner universe.

    There are beliefs in Scientology that ruin peoples’ lives. Making decisions using “the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics”, for instance, in exactly the way that Hubbard taught it, becomes a completely disastrous way to make decisions over time. Bankruptcies, families destroyed, and mental health destroyed eventually all come from decision-making that is based in the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics in Scientology.

    While some upset and bad feelings can occur when you realize that this decision making process that you have based your life on is causing all kinds of trouble in your life, those feelings are temporary. The damage that decision making process has, however, can be permanent. And the long term damage that is avoided by helping someone see this far outweighs the temporary upset of having to find a better way to make decisions.

    Geir: I understand your inner doubt about providing facts that are contrary to someone’s belief, and as it has been argued here, this is a case-by-case moral decision. No blanket yes or no can be given for all factors and circumstances.

    But when it comes to Scientology, on balance, it is almost always morally correct to present facts which dispute Scientology’s installed beliefs.

    Here’s why:

    Hubbard intentionally created, developed, and maintained many parts of Scientology to manipulate a Scientologist to work against his own self-interests. Scientology is a special case when it comes to religious beliefs. No other religion that I know of was intentionally created to deceive its members, and to cause them to harm themselves and their own survival for the interests of L Ron Hubbard, now David Miscavige, and the “survival” of the subject itself.

    All the tricks that Hubbard put into Scientology to ruin people need to be exposed and thoroughly debunked. To fail to do so for anyone you can would actually be a moral lapse on your part.

    After much thought, this position of mine has been stated.

    Please state your position now after you have processed it since writing your opening post.

    I’m curious to read what you think.

    Alanzo

      1. Uh-oh! A philosophical extrapolation from Quantum Mechanics! Alarm bells going off!

        Sirens!!

        What would a critical thinker do in this instance?

        I know – ask a question! Ask to examine the evidence for the claim being made.

        Here we go. Watch critical thinking in action:

        Question – Where can I find those strong indications from QM?

        Alanzo

        1. It’s not a philosophical extrapolation – it is, as I said, strong indications. Read up on: Double-slit experiment, Schrodinger’s cat, Copenhagen interpretation, Wheeler’s Delayed Choice Experiment, etc.

          1. After I do this study assignment you’ve given me, what if I see no connection between these and a universe that would not exist without any observers?

            Can you tell me what the relationship is between the double-slit experiment and Schroedinger’s Cat (with which I am familiar) and a universe that would not exist without any observers?

            Go ahead and put your belief out there, Geir, even if it is giving you some benefit. (:>

            Alanzo

            1. The question: Does ____________ exist with out any observers is a fools question. It is nonsensical

              Like does a falling tree in the forest make any noise if there is no one there to hear it?

              Where something makes noise or not is not dependent on a hearer.

              It is dependent on and obeys the laws of physics.

              Dio

            2. And the laws of physics seems to say that unless there is an observer, the condition remains undecided – or to quote Vinaire “unknowable”

            3. Valkov,

              You: So Dio, does it make a noise, or not? If there is no-one there to hear it?

              Me: When I first read your question, the thoughts and questions that came to my mind were:

              Should I answer this question?

              Is Valkov serious?

              Is he jerking my chain?

              Is he playing games?

              Is he joking?

              Is he fucking with me?

              Should I take the bait?

              Or is he just simply stupid and cannot think and correctly evaluate data?

              I could not figure out what your problem was.

              So I assumed that you are really stupid and or ignorant.

              Maybe you did not go to school.

              And I did not want you to go on being stupid or and ignorant for ever.

              And that I would answer your question:

              The answer is: Absolutely.

              It obeys the laws of physics, it obeys the laws of what makes noise.

              Whether or not the falling tree makes noise does not depend on if someone is listening or not.

              The question is of the same category and caliber of:

              Why does; when you drop a slice of toast with jam on it, always hit the floor with the jam side down?

              Can you answer that question for me, Valkov, Geir, and Chris?

              Dio

            4. I will do better – I will ask you a counter-question, Dio:

              If you send a particle with an exact mass toward a wall with two narrow openings in it – does the particle go through the left opening, the right opening, or both openings?

            5. All right.

              Yes. I have figured out my own reality here. There is an objective universe that does exist outside our own consciousness, and the more we can learn about it, the more effective our lives can be in navigating and controlling it.

              My reality is also that science experiments relate overwhelmingly to the very specific items that were under the controls of the experiment, and taking “strong indications” and trying to apply these to completely unrelated things too often causes problems.

              So I realize that this pasture has now been abandoned, and we’re off to new ones now.

              Would another pasture be stating your present belief regarding presenting facts to others’ beliefs as you stated in your OP, or has that pasture already been abandoned, too? (:>

              Alanzo

        2. Question: QM is concerned with the bahaviours of sub-atomic particles. it operates on a micro scale. Where is the evidence that QM is in any way applicable on a macro scale, such as the operation of an entire living intelligent organism?

          I keep seeing QM popping up in philosophy debates. I’m not convinced it applies.

            1. That doesn’t reinforce your statement though, the second sentence says this:

              “However, at low temperatures, there are phenomena that are manifestations of quantum mechanics on a macroscopic scale, the best-known being superfluidity and superconductivity.”

              If memory serves, “low temperatures” is on the order of 4K or less, but definitely not room temperature where humans live. It also only concerns mechanical process – superfluidity and superconductors plus a new third. Certainly not anything as complex as human perception or the universe at large.

              I simply do not see how you make the leap so that this statement then becomes valid:

              “RWOT refers to a universe that would exist without any observers. There is strong indications in QM that RWOT cannot exist.”

              You’re asking me to make a huge leap of faith that is not there in the evidence.

          1. Alan: I keep seeing QM popping up in philosophy debates. I’m not convinced it applies.

            Chris: Nor am I. I am willing to be convinced but it seems that scientific knowledge is fractal in that one can always look closer and get another view and a newer idea of a smaller building block. When we join philosophy to science it routinely seems to come about prematurely and provides a reason to stop looking further. Possibly we should never weld philosophy to science. Or is there an example where philosophy rightly joins with science?

            1. I see tendencies to dismiss what is counter-intuitive off-hand due to insufficient familiarity with actual physical evidence. It may be a better stance to remain undecided than off-hand dismissals.

            2. My own conditioned tendency is that when an intuitive solution in not forthcoming or satisfactory, then I begin looking for the counterintuitive possibility. I look for any type of thought that binds me to the unsatisfying conclusion and do all I can to cut it loose.

    1. Alanzo: “. . . No other religion that I know of was intentionally created to deceive its members, and to cause them to harm themselves and their own survival for the (other) interests . . . ”

      Chris: This seems politically correct only. Other than that, I can’t imagine why you would say that as I”ve come to see all Western religion (what I have familiarity with) to be just such a tool with no other purpose than to manipulate. All the religion in my sector of the universe seeks to do my thinking for me.

      1. At the same time as picking your pocket to whatever extent, motivating you to go on Crusades, which taxes must be raised to support etc etc. Slight of hand to misdirect your attention, in many cases.

      2. Deception means seeking to make others see something differently than you know it exists for the purpose of giving a false impression.

        I do not think that Buddha was trying to deceive anyone.

        I also do not think Jesus was trying to deceive anyone.

        Nor Mohammed or Moses or Lao-Tze.

        Hubbard most definitely tried to deceive Scientologists, beginning with his lies about his own war record and how he was blinded and crippled and used Dn to cure himself -when he knew none of this happened – all the way through to the end of his life when he told Sarge he had failed, but then did not tell Sarge to tell everyone else he thought this.

        That is deception.

        There is so much deception that Hubbard worked into Scientology that it is a moral lapse on the part of someone who knows these deceptions to NOT expose them to others who have been deceived.

        Alanzo

        1. Ok, I get what you mean. I don’t particularly agree with this line of reasoning about other religions. Not that your logic is wrong but I think your major premise is wrong. I don’t even know if there even was a Jesus anymore than I know if there was a Xenu. I don’t see any particular reason to believe either of these myths. I don’t know the intentions really of any of those who came before and founded religion. And the followers seem not to give a crap such as Marildi who excuses Hubbard completely since his discovery of the Tech is so profound. Buddha had a checkered past, and as for Mohammed? Fuggedaboudit. How’d we get in this position? You arguing for ideologies better than Scientology and me (using your playbook) arguing against it? LOL

          1. Chris,

            As to whether Jesus existed or not:

            Watch this video:

            I actually posted this video on this blog for you to watch and evidently you did not obey!

            Bad boy!

            Dio

            Confucous says:

            A person convinced against his opinion is of the same opinion still.

          2. Not all ideologies are the same.

            Scientology has been proven to be a cynical and morally bankrupt deception from the outset – created solely and only to deceive people in order to take everything of value that they had.

            No other ideology that I know of has been shown to have been created for these purposes this in such clear and specific ways as Scientology has.

            Maybe other ideologies were created for these deceptive purposes. I don’t know.

            But in the case of Scientology, I do.

            Alanzo

            1. A… just think without scientology your life would be empty.. by that I mean what would be the other horse name you could ride to death?

  33. Alanzo asked:

    if there is no RWOT, then how can memories be found to be objectively wrong?

    Geir answered:

    By mirroring a person’s creations. Also, objectivity may simply be collective creations.

    “By mirroring a person’s creations”.

    I do not know what that means or how it is an answer to the question.

    Example?

    And “objectivity may simply be collective creations”.

    What, exactly, is a collective creation?

    Can you give me an example?

    Alanzo

      1. Thank you for this. I liked your inclusion of Aristotle’s description of what a person could be responsible for.

        Very well done.

        But as I was reading your article, I kept seeing either/or and yes/no statements regarding free will/no free will.

        My studies of Buddhism over the last few years have taken me into areas where cause and effect are not so simple. And what I used to think was a cause and effect relationship between say, flipping a light switch and the light going on, is not really the relationship I thought.

        One statement made as a foundation of Buddhist thought in the Abhidarma is ” no effect is caused by one single thing “. It is like a flat-out, basic, fundamental axiom in Buddhist philosophy.

        The idea of “dependent co-arising” as a fundamental of both the outer and inner universe also argues against an either/or, yes/no type of thinking when it comes to cause and effect.

        I do think there is free will. But the things I thought I had free will upon were not the things I thought they were.

        For instance, if we can not help aging then do we think that we can control the effects or consequences of aging? Why would we think that?

        Some states of being arise as an automatic, mechanistic consequence of completely unrelated states of being, such as the state of being of a rock being thrown into a pond which produce ripples on the surface of the water.

        The rock did not cause the ripples in the pond. The nature of water had that property, but the rock did not cause that property. The velocity of the rock, which is a property of gravity, air pressure, which is a property of gas and other “causes”, all came together to create the dependent co-arising of the ripples in the pond.

        The rock? Almost completely unrelated!

        So the determination of free will is WAY down the road for me while I get my bearings in this new universe I am beginning to see.

        I understand and appreciate why you gave me your article to read in response to the questioning I subjected you to: We surround ourselves with stories so that we “understand” what we see. And it is our choice what stories we tell ourselves.

        I get it.

        Me and the universe have never been more fluid than we are right now. Ripples are going out and coming back in at me at an accelerated rate.

        Did I get that going?

        Alanzo

        1. Sorry, you failed to grasp the first basic premise of the article and then confused the logic regarding free will with cause/effect.

          1. Forget any debate regarding cause/effect in relation to this article. It doesn’t belong there except as kuriosa.

          2. The yes/no regarding free will pertains to POTENTIAL free will and is not a debate regarding the Amount of free will present. The point is rather “does there exist ANY Possible Free Will At All? Yes/No? Like – is there any chance at all that the particle will move in that direction? ANY chance? Just a tiny bit of chance? That is an easy enough question and could be answerable with yes/no. Your reply fails to address this.

          3. Given that you missed the primary premise of the logic, I am hessitant to debate this further since it indicates a preconceived idea that results in some amount of unwillingess to understand. Hope you understand.

          I leave this debate as I have more interesting things to do.

          1. Your points:

            1. Free will is directly related to cause and effect. I have a hard time grasping why you would believe that it is only “kuriosa”.

            2. I think the answer is yes. I have no idea to what degree the answer is yes.

            3. The same could be said for you, too.

            I leave this debate as I have more interesting things to do.

            All righty then.

            Judging by your petulance, I am probably not the first person to have the true meaning of your essay zoom completely over my head.

            As a misunderstood genius, it must be hard running your own blog and trying to get people to understand and agree with what you write. Tangling with the dirt people who misunderstand you must be a nightmare.

            One thing is clear: this is certainly not an activity for anyone suffering from Internet Autism.

            Alanzo (:>

            1. I’m just trying to get you to explain what you meant by:

              “By mirroring a person’s creations”.

              I said that I did not understand what that was and I asked you explain that and to give me an example.

              Then you said that “objectivity may simply be collective creations”.

              So I asked, “What, exactly, is a collective creation?” because I have no idea what that means, either.

              Then I asked you to give me an example.

              So then, instead of just answering these things, like a course supervisor avoiding giving out “verbal data”, you gave me your whole essay to read, and we got off into all these other things.

              There is really no reason that I should know the answers to the questions I have asked you here. They are not common, or even real, phenomena as far as I can see.

              Thus the questions.

              So why don’t you just answer?

              Alanzo

            2. Because my answer is in the essay (you may not have gotten past your resistance to understanding it to get to that) – but damned if I am going to walk you baby-step through that essay rather than referring you to it.

              Now, stop acting like Marildi. I have lost interest in this discussion.

            3. There’s a pretty good Wiki article on the meaning of “samsara” in Buddhism. It mentions this problem of RWOT, and whether it is “objective” or “subjective”. Basically it says that it is both, or could be looked at from either angle. Here is the relevant quote:

              “Buddhist cosmology typically identifies six realms of existence: gods, demi-gods, humans, animals, hungry ghosts and hells.[a] These realms can be understood both as psychological states and as aspects of Buddhist cosmology.”[c]

              So is “samsara” involve the existence of a RWOT which you are perceiving, or is it a a subjective creation?

              You have yourself mentioned that “cause and effect arise together”, words to that effect. LRH lectured extensively about this, in series such as The Factors, and through the Phoenix lectures period. These are apart from any “deceptions” he ran on people in organizing his “religion”. They involve speculations about “Is there a RWOT” and if there is, how did it come to be there etc. It involves some of those “tautologies” Chris is fond of.

            4. Wow. So these explanations of yours for the “Real World Out There” being made up of “a person’s creations” and “collective creations” are what?

              Self-evident?

              Unable to be defined for anyone who can not truly see?

              So complex that they can not be simply defined with simple examples that are plain to anyone but a retard?

              I smell a problem here, Geir.

              And your petulant impatience with me may be a symptom of the problem I smell.

              I think these are beliefs of yours, similar to a belief in the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus, and you do not want to have them inspected.

              Otherwise, if these concepts are real, and you really understand them, then you should be able to whip out a definition quickly and easily and give me a simple example of each which demonstrates their reality.

              Yet you don’t, and your failure to do so is MY fault.

              Ha! Classic!

              Alanzo

            5. There is a Russian saying: “Scratch a Russian and you will find a Tatar” ( a Turk, because of centuries of interbreeding) . This could be adapted to say “Scratch a Critic, and you will find a Scientologist.” The tiger cannot change his stripes.

            6. haha…’i am probably not the first person to have the true meaning of your essay zoom completely over my head’

              why don’t you zoom INTO the essay? ….what you will find then may surprise you….

            7. Thanks for your on-topic contribution, Valkov.

              I see all kinds of things in my meditation and in my study of Buddhism, including the definition of Samsara that you referenced. None of these things are facts. They exist in a category of “both true and false” and “neither true nor false” for me.

              To say that the RWOT is any thing other than what can be determined factually and scientifically is, to me, too woo-woo to rely upon. It is speculation and wishing.

              I would love to believe that the outside world is my own creation, and magically subject to the will of my own postulates. But too many real world experiences have demonstrated otherwise. One should consider real world experiences, too, in coming to these conclusions, not just what makes sense within the context of one’s philosophy, beliefs and wishes.

              I’m not going to say I know anything about the RWOT other than what has been established through science and factual evidence, and which I can see. It’s a pragmatic thing with me: That approach has been extremely productive and effective for everyone’s well-being, ever since the enlightenment.

              The idea that there is no RWOT is clearly false to me. I’m looking right at it right now. I knock on my desk, and there it is.

              I’ve seen things with consciousness in my meditation which are actually too bizarre and jarring to conclude anything about right now. What I’ve seen suggests all kinds of things. And I’m not even going to say that what I saw regarding consciousness is real. But I’m not going to dismiss it, either.

              One of the things I say to myself while studying Buddhism, especially where claims are made with regard to states of enlightenment and what I will see in my mind when I look there, is “I’ll be the judge of that.”

              I do not even accept that “enlightenment”, as described in Buddhist materials, exists.

              So for me to conclude, for instance, that “the self and all phenomena are without inherent existence” just because that is supposedly what one sees when becomes enlightened would be jumping to conclusions which are not mine to jump to.

              So for now, my inner universe is real as I experience it. And the RWOT is real, too, as I, and science, experience it.

              I do not see any thing like it being “a mirror of my creations” or a “collective creation”. And there is no factual or any other kind of evidence for that, either.

              Alanzo

            8. Though we may at times disagree about a particular detail, that is pretty much where I’m coming from, too.

              I simply get a kick out of following a particular statement out to it’s farthest logical conclusion. That is not the same thing as saying I myself experience it that way.

              Reality is after all, real, right? That’s why it’s called reality, right?

              Rapping on the table with your knuckles doesn’t really prove anything more than that, because those physical universe knuckles are part of the same physical universe the table is a part of. That is the joke of it.

            9. Valkov wrote:

              Rapping on the table with your knuckles doesn’t really prove anything more than that, because those physical universe knuckles are part of the same physical universe the table is a part of. That is the joke of it.

              Well Val, this is exactly where I have decided to stop joking.

              WHY is that a joke to you?

              What, precisely, are you seeing as a joke here?

              Please explain in the clearest English that you can, and be sure to give simple examples which demonstrate the reality of your knowledge of this joke.

              If you are seeing a joke here, and I am not, then I am sure you can easily explain what it is here that I am missing.

              And remember, I am much more highly trained in Scientology than you are. I am a “Clear” with 7.5 years on staff as a highly trained admin exec (Exec Status 1, Data Series Evaluator, Ethics Specialist, with many mini and full hats) and lots of course supervisor and intro auditing experience.

              I have read every LRH book at least 3 times, and many of them more than 5. I have heard, and applied, study tech (using my training as a course supervisor) to all LRH lectures from the earliest Dianetics tapes to 1963 on the Saint Hill Special Briefing Course.

              Most of the earliest tapes, I have heard and word cleared more than once.

              The only LRH Tapes Series I have not studied, are those that have been newly released since the year 2001.

              I have diligently and earnestly studied many spiritual and philosophical subjects and disciplines throughout my life, including Buddhism for many years. On and off, I’ve studied Buddhism at least 27 years, with my most intense focus in the last 13 – with the last 3 years, meditating every morning and studying almost every night.

              So, with that in mind, tell me what you think the joke is.

              Exactly.

              Thanks.

              Alanzo

            10. Also Valkov, I should mention that all that study of Scientology was not – for me – just an intellectual exercise like it might have been for you, or for a person who was never on staff.

              I studied Scientology in order to APPLY it to other human beings professionally. For the whole 7.5 years on staff, that was my daily job – to apply what I had studied in Scientology to others.

              So it is my understand that you have never been in a situation like a Scientology staff member where you were expected to apply Scientology to someone else and get results.

              Is that right?

              Alanzo

        2. ‘Marildi – is that you under that sock puppet?’ ROTFWL…please
          do not confuse me!!!!! I have found it so far a hard-core character safe place….and just boooom ! ….a who is who game
          now?

      2. ‘Self evident’ ? ….i am afraid so…..evident for those who dare to
        take off their ‘masks’ ‘characters’ and be just ‘naked’…then can get into the ‘shoes’ of another, to use racing’s phrase….

        1. The above, beginning with ‘self-evident’ is a comment to Alanzo,
          not to Geir’.
          Addition to my comment: the truth is that whatever the experience
          is, the ‘nakedness’ remains….

  34. Valkov wrote:

    There is a Russian saying: “Scratch a Russian and you will find a Tatar” ( a Turk, because of centuries of interbreeding) . This could be adapted to say “Scratch a Critic, and you will find a Scientologist.” The tiger cannot change his stripes.

    That is such an odd thing for a Scientologist to say.

    Alanzo

    1. It probably seems odd to you because a Scientologist didn’t say it. But you’ve know that for some time. So this is more or your usual BS. It’s remarkable how you have apparently not changed much at all over the past couple of years.

  35. Dio

    You write about a mother’s, a woman’s role. Right. What you would discuss with a woman, with the kids at the table which everybody can understand matters the most. Of course they can be true scientific topics as well…very useful for the kids who can be really creative and knowing!

    1. To all of you whose feathers I ruffled,

      It is apparent that all of you flunked scn.

      I suggest you go and get out your Science of Survival book and go to book one, the last two pages of ch 18.

      And read from the line beginning with:

      The whole future of the race depends on….

      and read to the end of the chapter. It is only a bit more than a page.

      *************************************************************************

      And Maria,and Splog too, just because you disagree with me does not mean that I am wrong.

      Just point out to me, what I said that was wrong.

      And Maria, the idea that there is no such thing as tone levels is simply nonsense.

      Dio

      1. Alanzo already pointed out quite clearly where you were wrong. But I haven’t seen you admit having been wrong in the past few years. And I think you will continue down the hole you are digging yourself into unless you so right now. Please exercise some self control and back down or you will be booted.

    2. I strongly advice not to feed the troll named Dio. He is extremely hungry… for proving himself right by any means. And he is very volatile. So please diehard him or you will do him the disservice of triggering him into getting red carded.

  36. I like the topic. A while ago I decided and announced to no longer participate in SCN discussions. I’m almost breaking my word now. I still don’t intend to participate. But there’s something I wanted to tell you. Take that from a person that’s been involved since his early teens: Get-out.

    Yes, there’s good stuff in SCN, yes also great stuff, and horribble stuff and COS vs FZ and yes blah blah blah. But even in SCN there is a thing called ‘suppressive group’ and SCN as a group exhibits suppression to the uttermost. You can make yourself have wins (you), but if you don’t operate for the gretest good –that is to say if your allegiance is with some suppressive dude or dudes or dudesses you will stop yourself, and that’s what I’ve been doing –rollercoastering ever since a long time. And now that I’m out it’s such a relief and cognitions flow free (my own congitions, not fed cognitions). I’m not going to push it to convince anyone. You can -and I think should- know for yourselves, not by reading, evaluating this that ‘facts’ (lol). You can simply know what you know, and that’s the essense of SCN that is mostly missing –along with LRH of course.

    I just thought it would be interesting to read that from a former supporter –even here. I’m not an enemy. I’m just out.

    I like the looks of your new blog Geir. Many thanks. And sorry to some people I zapped. Huggies.

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