A world without war, insanity and crime? No thanks.

“A civilization without insanity, without criminals and without war, where the able can prosper and honest beings can have rights, and where Man is free to rise to greater heights, are the aims of Scientology.”

perfect_world_by_justass-d6vdmz5

Sounds great. But I don’t want it.

A perfect world without any irrationality, without any danger, without any real challenges. Nope. I want the world to be spicy, somewhat random and dangerous. Safety makes for boring. This is why people dream of adventures, besting the criminals, slaying the evil dragon, busting the drug cartel. It’s danger, the unknown, the risk, even the occasional terror that makes this world such a challenging place for the would-be hero. To do away with all the shit would make the world a spotless, perfect and thoroughly dull place.

When Anonymous hit Scientology with Project Chanology, they wrecked havoc in a lulzy and Chaotic Neutral way. They broke new ground and actually made life exciting for Scientologists around the world. Now that they have moved on elsewhere, what is left is a ghost town.

Scientology tries desperately to make the world unexciting. Scientologists are hiding from the Internet, from picketing “SPs” and old ladies, walking the very tight and narrow, creating a super-controlled, surveillance society and false security inner world á la the Truman Show. Much like the US have been busy building after 9/11.

239 thoughts on “A world without war, insanity and crime? No thanks.

  1. You just summed it up Geir. After all, what are adrenalin glands for, –if not fight or flight, games of win, or lose, where the object is to conquer your fears, and triumph over your adversities.
    Living life to the full+ enjoying it to your max! 🙂

    1. Sad for those who only have narrow reality when only imagine what excitements is like having jobs being cops and robbers, or working on the field tending the poppy crop and live on corn bread and what ever can be snared with traps? because if there are drug lords has to be workers who tend the field! Yes.. be a hero while guarding the crop you get your legs blown off.. and happen to have six kids! How exciting challenging that will be! Terror, now that is a wonderful thing to wish for: here is on example: you got cut carrying the opium and you are made to kneel and the machete is swinging toward your neck… now imagine that endorphin rush.. I wonder if postulating something like that for happening in the future, and every wish will materialise sooner or later .. sanity, rationally.. something is off… and calling scientology ideas beliefs insane.. Rich man with influence have caused wars just because could not take the boredoms. and planning wars winning adventures do get endorphins activated!

  2. “A civilization without insanity, without criminals and without war, where the able can prosper and honest beings can have rights, and where Man is free to rise to greater heights…”

    The above does not translate to “a perfect world without any irrationality, without any danger, without any real challenges.” There would still be plenty of frontiers to explore which would include great adventure. And there would still be creativity of all kinds to engage in, and spiritual growth to be had. Man would indeed be free to rise to greater heights without having to contend with insanity, crime and war.

    And without making this into a discussion about LRH himself or about Scientology, I would say that he was right to propose what he did in the stated Aims of Scientology. There are lots of exciting things to do and to create that don’t require insanity, criminality or war. I’m sure your own particular activities in life aren’t dependent on those extreme outpoints of the current civilization. And I would bet that your purposes ultimately go in the same direction as the Aims of Scientology.

    1. Btw, Anette’s photos that you linked to (on “ghost town”) are beautiful. Better than the CoS photos of their own buildings!

    2. Marildi –

      Have you ever read about the concept of “natural rights”?

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

      With this concept in mind, what do you think LRH meant when he said that the aims of scientology were to create a civilization “where honest beings could have rights.”

      What is that “honest” word doing in there?

      Why not just a civilization where beings could have rights?

      With the concept of natural rights in mind, would not whoever determined who was an “honest” being also have the power to take away someone’s rights?

      If Scientology achieved its aims, this would become a civilization with fewer rights, would it not, under Scientology’s control?

      This isn’t a discussion about LRH or Scientology, just a discussion about what would happen to peoples’ civil rights if the aims of scientology were actually achieved by Scientology.

      See, I see fascism here, where whomever has the power to deem someone “dishonest” also has the power to take away rights that were formerly inalienable.

      What do you think?

      Should we just trust the Scientologists not to take away our rights if they achieve their aims?

      Alanzo

      1. “What is that ‘honest’ word doing in there?”

        The LRH quote below gives the reason he added the word “honest.” And btw, Al, many people today – decades later – are echoing LRH’s point of view when they protest the fact that too often criminals are given more rights than their victims.

        “Individual rights were not originated to protect criminals, but to bring freedom to honest men. Into this area of protection then dived those who needed ‘freedom’ and ‘individual liberty’ to cover their own questionable activities.

        “Freedom is for honest people. No man who is not himself honest can be free—he is in his own trap. When his own deeds cannot be disclosed, then he is a prisoner; he must withhold himself from his fellows and is a slave to his own conscience. Freedom must be deserved before any freedom is possible.

        “To protect dishonest people is to condemn them to their own hells. By making ‘individual rights’ a synonym for ‘protect the criminal’ one helps bring about a slave state for all, for where ‘individual liberty’ is abused, an impatience with it arises which at length sweeps us all away.” (NSOL)

        1. It is relative. A criminal may hunt honest people as criminals by claiming himself to be honest. The label of honest in “honest beings could have rights” is murky. It may lead to witch hunts.

          ________________________________

        2. LRH “ To protect dishonest people is to condemn them to their own hells. By making ‘individual rights’ a synonym for ‘protect the criminal’ one helps bring about a slave state for all, for where ‘individual liberty’ is abused, an impatience with it arises which at length sweeps us all away.”

          This is the beauty of totalitarian rhetoric. The guy in charge makes the rules and decides who is a criminal and who is not. Who is to have certain rights and who is to have none. The only thing keeping the cult of Scientology from being a machete wielding abuser is power. They have not collected enough power to edict life and death except in their dark little ethics closets where they grind out their ethics orders, etc.,. The “slave state for all” is the true aim of Scientology. Where the upstat can have a half-day off every other Sunday and the able can rise to greater heights of ego. LRH’s statement that you quoted is a perfect picture of Scientology. I’ve begun to wonder if LRH only ever talked in terms of “strawman” logic.

  3. Sorry Geir, I cannot agree with this post at all, at least not in the way you have framed it. I think you have lived a very sheltered life in which you have not really seen or experienced first hand much real war, real criminality, or real insanity. Living through these is not the same as reading about them in the newspapers or seeing them on TV. I think if you were driven out of your country and seen half your family killed by these, you might have a different opinion.

    1. I totally agree with you.

      When you experience true violence and criminality that is directed at you or your loved ones then you would want an environment that no longer had these undesirables in it.

      You can experience danger and excitement without criminals and without violence. A little creativity can go a long way.

      The downward spiral of life is the path created by the undesirables.

      IMHO 🙂

  4. Well now I depressed. I knew my life was boring and have my daughter telling me all the time that us 80’s kids ruined it be being teckless. The US is going through am over haul as old arguments are brought alive and education thrown on the back burner to prepare the next generation for factory work. Laws have been put in place to curb creativity and any boom of new businesses or helping ones neighbor. To insure the future of factory workers.
    Barely a blip is happening in the backwoods where I currently residing. A few chaotic neutrals would more than likely be a blessing for this apathetic area though I m unsure Iyself would be able to keep up at this time.
    This IS insanity to me . No change. Day in. Day out.

  5. You have not lived in the war zone as I have. you never starved and you or your children did not have boils on their body and scurvy from malnutrition. I did.
    You have not heard burning animals screaming, and you did not seen your home going up in flame from bombing.
    And in peace time you did not stood in line for a loaf of bread for six hour. had your toes frozen and for real. You have no idea how painful that is.
    You have not lived through revolution being thought at age 17 how to throw a hand grenade and handle the machine gun and I have. You want a bit of criminality? We as children were sent out to take anything was not nailed down. We had to that was the way of survival.
    I was sent out age 7 till I was 11 or 12 to pick up fallen coal in the middle of winter every afternoon in 12 bellow or more and no gloves!! to the rail road yard because my father was ill and mother worked 10 hours 6 days a week. And that basket of coal I dreaged home was the only means to heat the one room shed we 5 lived in.
    You want excitement get your endorphins going they can be stimulated by exercise, sex, dark chocolate, chilly pepper, having a good fight, meditation and by cognitions… yes… cognitions having cognitions do releases endorphins! what do you know!
    By the time this planet would achieve such a condition ad tranquillity as Marildi said much better games would be available achieve to amuse self with and endorphins if still needed will be sold by the kilo!

    1. Perfect reply, Elizabeth.

      I was going to offer a one-way ticket to Somalia to support the brilliant idea of experiencing a dangerous and spicy adventure, but I think you painted the picture well enough that insane war is not a worthwhile game to play.

      There are planets and galaxies out there to explore that will be a near permanent fix for adrenaline junkies. That’s the direction I’d put my OT efforts.

      1. 2ndxmr.. I still have the boil marks so is my sisters.. and wars to live through those experiences live more than boil marks on the body. I have had lots of session on those experiences.
        I will be happy to leave this place after dropping the body for those who don’t have reality and the desire to find better life outside of Place.
        Here we have the only beautiful thing on this planet which Nature and she is struggling to survive and she is loosing the battle what will be here after that when the crazies kill her off too?
        I am very close to going and counting the days! We will meet you and I and you will recognize me, me simply being invisible yet beautiful!
        Ps;; good to hear from you!

  6. “A world without insanity or war” sounds good enough, but with the C of S, this is a classic bait and switch. To be “a Scientologist in good standing” means to be “an uncompromising zealot”, a warrior in a perpetual battle with virtually anyone engaged in any activity not considered to forward “command intention”. Has anyone fully considered the import of re-defining “ethics” as “the removal of counter-intention from the environment, and, having accomplished that, the removal of other-intention”?
    “A world without insanity or war” while not achievable, is a goal worth aspiring to, but using force begets force, and will never move us in that direction. A world without insanity or war, in a non-“Scientopia” sense, would not be without all manner of challenges and possible worthwhile endeavors, but the idea of living in a C of S- defined “world without insanity or war” is a chilling thought.

    1. Yes, chilling. Every Scientologist in good standing is utterly without rights and a “kha-khan” is protection until one’s donations slow – period. The Kha-Khans of old had ethics protection if it pleased the Old Man and when it didn’t then they didn’t. This “Aims of Scientology” while apparently beautiful yet cannot escape the totalitarianism of being judged every moment whether or not worthy, thumbs-up or thumbs-down.

      1. This is fictional bs. They BELIEVE they have no freedom and no rights, like the fish trapped by shadow bars. Why not mock them up as free, instead? There is no RWOT there, right? Tautology rules!

        1. Maybe I should’ve framed that “within the Church” so my point wouldn’t be too general. Within the Church, there aren’t “rights” except the right to act like a lock-step zombie and hand over what you have in exchange for becoming one of the hive. Is that what you mean? The problem with religions in general and most especially cults, the more severe version of religion, is that they propose to your thinking for you and won’t tolerate your attempts to think for yourself. I don’t understand whether you are criticizing my post or not.

            1. This was in reply to a post in which you commented on “maybe” you should have made some kind of differentiation about scientology and the CoS. Can’t find it right now, and don’t feel like spending the time searching…. 🙂

            2. Isn’t that in itself kinda “totalitarian”? It equates all scientologists in a lumpen mass, like Marx’s “proletariat” or the “unwashed masses”, just an aggregate of wogs, niggers, or honkies. Too bad that passes for “thought” in some supposedly intelligent circles.

              The “totalitarianism” is not in any particular subject. Kim Jong Un likely knows little of scientology. The totalitarianism is in the individual humans who fail to discern differences.

            3. You wrote that you don’t particularly discriminate between “scientology” and “church of scientology”. That can be read in 2 ways that I can see – 1. You carelessly use either term to refer to the same object of thought, or, 2. you see no difference between the abstract subject and the organizations that some individuals evolved from those original statements.

              To call my comment a “straw man” is a cheap shot, as it implies I am deliberately misrepresenting your position.
              It is an attempt to discredit without really answering.

              If your comment was an attempt to convey something other than one of the 2 senses I described above, I feel you owe me and the readers a clarification in order that the conversation might proceed.

              Are you up for that much thinking?

            4. I hear lots of crickets. I wonder mildly if they are the same crickets you are hearing, but does it matter? I think not.

            5. My point is, either you perceived my misunderstanding of your meaning, or you did not. If you did perceive what it is/was, it would be a simple matter of pointing that out, s in “No, I didn’t mean X, I meant Y.” If you did not perceive it, then your call of “straw man” is unfounded because you do not know if it was in any sense a straw man on my part. In either case, it would not be necessary to use the label.

            1. Does there have to be source? Could that be a fixed idea?

              According to Hinduism awareness of thought resides in the thought itself.

            2. So are you saying the source of your perception is the perception itself? I did not mention either “thought” or “awareness” in my question.

            3. I am made up of physical and mental forces and energies. Awareness resides in each of these components lust like mass resides in each particle.  I may be viewed as the center of awareness very similar to ‘center of mass’ concept.

              In other words, “I” is an apparency.  

              ________________________________

            4. Does that answer either of the questions I have asked so far?

              What you say seems to indicate the “Beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder”, which is simply another way of saying “What is true for you is true for you, (because you see it that way)”. Which is just another way of saying “You are the source of your perceptions”. Which was my original question. Would it have been so difficult for you to have simply said “Yes”? Oh, I forgot. To simply agree with me is against the “Vinaire Code of Conduct Towqrds Valkov”.

            5. TO V…..”I am made up of physical and mental forces and energies. Awareness resides in each of these components lust like mass resides in each particle. I may be viewed as the center of awareness very similar to ‘center of mass’ concept. In other words, “I” is an apparency.”
              Elizabeth: and you should have added but you have forgotten so I will do it for you ” all these is imbedded in brown stuff!

              YES, GEIR I WILL COOL IT, but sometimes I just cant resist. I am addicted!

            6. When I come to your blog I bring a large bunch of knitting needles.. dipped in a bit of poison but no matter how many have found its mark never made any difference on the so called victim.. He is rolling along solid as the brick backhouse. On the other hand I am running out of poison and needles. 🙂

            7. “You” is an apparency, and so is “source”. Scientology and scientologists seems to have a fixation on “I” “thetan” “source” etc.

              ________________________________

            8. Although the same could be said about you, only the opposite – that you have a fixation on your own world view. It impossible to have any exchange of views with you without you trying convince others of your very fixed world view. It is interesting that you rant about other’s fixidity of viewpoint when I see you as perhaps the most fixed in your views around here. Perhaps a case for self reflection?

        2. Every Scientologist in good standing is utterly without rights within the COS. Now I have fixed it. Good?

            1. “specious logic”

              Sounds bad!

              Too bad you are not capable of pointing out specious logic of any kind!

              LOL!!!

              (HEY! We got the Band back together!!!)

              Alanzo

            2. Hey, Val. You should check out Geir’s latest blog thread about fair game… I’ve been dropping your name over there. 🙂

              Later for me, though. I’m into Mother’s Day now.

            3. Thanks mar. I read it now. I was avoiding it because I expected more of the same-old. But our South African friend livened it up. spyros, too. Although whether he understood what you quoted of me is debatable. I admit it could be interpreted in more than one way. But then, can’t just about anything?

            4. “gratuitous”?

              More like “generous” considering all the time I’ve put into you teaching you how to think logically and seeing no results for so long.

              Yet I continue to try….

              Alanzo

        3. This is not fictional bs, this is factual bs. The fictional bs is how you wistfully think about the good old days when Scientology was good and you had your shot but didn’t give yourself over to it. Scientology was never as good as you imagined it was. It didn’t make Clears and it didn’t make OTs anymore than believing in Jesus ever sent anyone to Heaven.

          1. I’ll post for you a snippet from Marty’s, where Al asked me to give an example of legitimate “ad hom”. The definition of ad hom allows for an “address to the man” in some circumstances. This Wiki article explains when an “ad hom” address is legitimate and relevant, when it is a good idea to “Consider the source”.
            Al asked me,
            “I’m wondering if you are capable of giving an example of this, and showing how “attacking the man” – rather than the statement the man makes – is not logically fallacious.”

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

            1. So why were you so obviously unable to give an example of ad hom that was not logically fallacious?

              A person who truly understands a principle or concept can demonstrate his understanding, isn’t that right?

              Yet you fail every time.

              Wonder what that means….

              Alanzo

            2. Al, if you read even the Wiki article about ad hom, you would be able to post your own examples. So how come you can’t? Or won’t?

            3. Chris, here’s the link, but some of my subsequent posts are still waiting in moderation. Including the examples Al asked for. I worked from 7:30 pm last night until 5 am this morning, so yes, Al is quite right, I was “unable” to post even a single example of appropriate ad hom! I’m so glad he doesn’t ever jump to conclusions; if he did it might lead folks to “consider the source” of his comments!
              http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2014/05/05/name-calling-and-labeling/#comment-303051

          2. Your post is almost 100% straw man; you did not post any supporting facts for any of the statements in it. It is therefore pure unsupported opinion. Why bother? It’s why I don’t much bother to visit here anymore. It’s mostly the same-old same-old broken records playing.

            1. Maybe for you but not for me. Geirs blog has been an important home for my mental resurrection from the mental ashes of Scientology Cult Ideology. I like it. To feel better, take in the mirror. Soon you’ll feel right as rain.

            1. No sir. That nonsense has flown. Be a Scientologist, or spectate as you have but I will write and counter about this nonsense for as long as It makes sense to me to do so.

            2. If you want to remain unintelligible, that is always your right. Tower of Babel applies here as faras I’m concerned. Everyone has the right to express the same-old same-old as many times as it pleases them to do so. Hell, that’s one of the basic TRs, isn’t it? “in a new unit of time, each time…..”

              If it pleases you that much to hear yourself say the same thing over and over again, please Carry On! But a conversation it does not make.

            3. Sorry Chris, I don’t recall what your comment was. I believe I heard something like “Ruh-oh! Owr owr roh”, and then out of my mouth came “Buh-buh-buh buh. Nuh-uh-uh-uh”. Just like any conversation in a noisy bar. Possibly some of my entities were trying to help.

            4. Val, why don’t you just click on the word “commented” in the email you receive that says “Chris Thompson [or whoever] commented on [blog post title]? That will open the link right at the spot where that comment is posted, and you can look above it to see what it refers to.

            5. Thanks maridi. I didn’t know that. But then I would have no excuse for not staying on topic and making a post like I did in reply.

            6. LOL

              But you’re giving me and your entities too many incomplete cycles! 😛

      2. OK. Does your scenario fall under ‘war’, ‘crime’, or ‘insanity’? How is it relevant to the actual OP, and actual war, crime, or insanity, rather than the follies of the CoS?

        1. “How is it relevant to the actual OP, and actual war, crime, or insanity, rather than the follies of the CoS?”

          It falls under the heading of public relations stories told by COS to hook prospective prey. Scientology has nothing to with actual war, actual crime, or actual insanity. This is another of Hubbard’s “shore-stories.”

            1. I disagree with that logic. It has no basis other than Hubbard’s arbitrary edict.

              There is a reality separate from what one thinks or “makes it.” That is called IS-NESS. There is no absolute AS-IS-NESS. As-is-ness takes place only within the context of inconsistencies, and that too on a gradient.

              http://vinaire.me/2014/05/06/value-of-scientology/

              ________________________________

            2. Can you say that in plain English? “If you’re not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.” That is an American saying from the 1960s. Using Hubbard’s neologisms to disagree with Hubbard is laughable. I am amused but not confused.

            3. It is all a certain configuration of force and energy. Problems and solutions, them and us, etc., are simply various aspects of it. 

              ________________________________

            4. Nice generalized non-answer. Vinaire fades into white as the camera pans across the universe of stars and space.

            5. Val, I accidentally left out a word. I meant “ …how much you do to keep the blogs honest.”

            6. There may or may not be a RWOT, but in the world of social actions and social constructs, Reailty IS what people make it. Societies are constructed matrices.

            7. Yes use this panacea if you think it will help, but don’t tell me some introvertive nonsense like you are helping. That doesn’t fly with me any more.

            8. What in the world makes you think I think I am helping or trying to help anyone? THAT is a big-time MU !

              I am simply rejecting your position, your view of ‘reality’, or whatever you want to call it, that’s all. But I do recognize that you are a nice guy, a good responsible family man, a hard worker, etc

        2. “OK. Does your scenario fall under ‘war’, ‘crime’, or ‘insanity’?”

          It’s just that Scientology is not involved in removing war, crime, nor insanity at all. Scientology is about removing your money. It always was under Hubbard and continues to be.

  7. The game of improving something eventually creates a boring game and an unwanted condition, a first world problem

      1. Ouch. This could create a fight. >.<

        The US is just way too narcissist to care about war in general, or even being involved with other countries outside of tourist attractions.

        Improving something does not create boredom, maintaining creates boredom. Improving creates interest. Not improving, creates wars. Boredom is a neutral zone.

      2. And, Norway ought to follow… Hitler provided a wonderful solution to the boredom of Germans!

        ________________________________

            1. Zeitgeist:  the spirit of the time; general trend of thought or feeling characteristic of a particular period of time.

              (Just to remind myself)

              ________________________________

            2. It is for me delightfully informative. But give it about 10 minutes in to really get started. Then it begins blowing anchor points one after the other.

  8. For anyone being stuck in not true but socially conditioned comfort i advice the following:

    1. starters: kung fu
    2. intermediates: creating, using, destroying force as illusion
    3. advanced: true meditation – being able to be in peace, comfortably
    Extras: studying particle physics, making real sex, performing
    on stage …

      1. ‘ i am not sure ‘
        when in doubt, start doing…

        ‘you get old’
        the ‘you’ does not get old…old is a concept, a thought…
        the ‘you’ is Source…when its energy is let flow free, it is reviving
        the body too…when it is let flow free, it can flow as an aesthetic
        wave…true sex is experiencing-creating on this wave…

        1. You express it well Marianne. There’s a well worn cliche in the world of physical fitness/bodybuilding/martial arts, etc, that says; ‘ Age is just a number ‘ – we who remain committed to a disciplined life of ‘use it, or lose it’, know the truth of that wisdom only too well. The outlook ( toward life ) remains generally positive, and high toned (Action – 20.0), and really is just so uncomplicated, that only the ‘blind’, ( or resistant ),struggle to absorb that fact. I’m just so thrilled that you have committed yourself to a worthwhile physical discipline. Hope you find it to be a life-long pursuit which simultaneously assists your already joyful outlook on life.

          L, Ray 🙂

        2. Marianne some horny guy on this planet gotten on idea and idea has worked for him. The idea was so good that other guys bought it and the idea spread become popular with guys. The SEX GURU WAS BORN… who will take you to the height of spirituality, creating beauty-flow of light, mind boggling experiences which will take out of the body.. The books sell well too… You think only LRH made money by promising attainment of spiritual freedom? Any guy who comes with those lines all they want is a good fuck, yes, they are good at what they selling.. first class at sex, they are masters how to kindle the senses…But it is a trade…as any other with a very good sounding name.
          attainment of the true state of static do not contain oils, massages, bodies sweating slamming together in candle light, etc..etc..etc..

            1. Well, you either get it or you don’t. It is so esoteric that it is hard to explain.

              I may try but give me some time.

              ________________________________

            2. I read it and here is the comment I left; “as a delusional person as you call me, I have a TOTAL REALITY OF THE ABOVE AND THEREFORE I express AGREEMENT!” just because you are occluded toward anything outside of not agreed upon and being famous-well-known and you only allow beigness existence which again is agreed on and well-known that do not means that do not happen and exist and experienced.

            3. You say one thing out of one corner of mouth than you say the opposite from the other side!
              Yes reality comes from consistency of knowledge! not perceptions.That is two very different concept!

            4. It seems like that to you because your filters are altering what I write.

              ________________________________

            5. just because you have filters that do not means every one has it.. your reality is yours alone and it indicates ignorance believing that the universe only contain your belief!

            6. Now you are raising tantrums like a spoiled child again. Please add some substance to the discussion instead of just blaming.

              ________________________________

            7. Talk about NOT-IS-NESS. You are using a word that you are me blaming for. You are screwing yourself up Elizabeth Hamre. 

              ________________________________

            8. My evaluation on your reality that you accept only those things- concepts ideas which are approved of by many many agreement therefore through agreement become ”solid-famous” that kind of belief is based on ignorance which is equal to stupidity. That is you….

            9. Reality depends on the consistency of our perceptions. Suppose we see things burning around us but we don’t feel any heat, instead we feel a refreshing breeze and a waft of sweet fragrance in the air, then we know there is something fishy about it. It is unreal.   All physical perceptions must be consistent with each other for something to be real. Mental visualization must also be consistent with physical perceptions to be real.

              ________________________________

          1. Elizabeth

            ‘sex guru’…books. I have no idea who you are talking about as i
            have never met one and i have never read any book like that.
            On the other hand, i know two ‘enlightened’ persons who have
            delightful sexual lives…de-light-ful…the word itself shows that
            it has to do with ‘light’…a bit deeper than that an almost static-
            like touch of two transparent spirits….in a way a kind of ‘spiritual
            dance’….when i mentioned sex as an ‘extra’, i wrote the word
            ‘true’ before it….meaning that when two beings are in deep
            love, ‘true’ sex (body and spirit) cannot be left out from one’s
            experience on the ‘path of the spirit’.

            I see ‘static’ as ‘potential’…it has the ability to create anything…
            also to not create…a potential of all experiences and no experiences. All means all, no means zero. I see Life as an
            everchanging fluctuation in between..from zero particle to a tiny
            particle…through energy…to solidity. i find all this beautiful…

            i find human life absolutely fascinating…

            1. Read this: from the Wiki..:Studies in neuroscience have involved chemicals that are present in the brain and might be involved when people experience love. These chemicals include: nerve growth factor,[8] testosterone, estrogen, dopamine, norepinephrine, serotonin, oxytocin, and vasopressin.[9] Adequate brain levels of testosterone seem important for both human male and female sexual behavior.[10] Dopamine, norepinephrine, and serotonin are more commonly found during the attraction phase of a relationship.[11] Oxytocin and vasopressin seemed to be more closely linked to long term bonding and relationships characterized by strong attachments.

            2. sure…i can see-feel that you are delighted…since you first
              contacted Geir’s blog…and i also find it fascinating what you
              have been doing and communicating…

            3. right..but there is always an awareness which is ‘intact’ of these
              chemicals and is able to ‘enjoy’ them…so i don’t see any long-term ‘attachment’ to them…

              there are tons of other types of spiritual experiences too where
              this is also the case..

            4. Are you aware that millions of children are sold into sexual slavery every year to generate these chemicals that are precious to you?  

              ________________________________

            5. that ‘awareness’ which is ‘intact’ sees/recognizes this intact in
              ‘another’…this recognition has the power and ability to ‘clear’
              what is in between…including chemicals.
              yes, i see that my comment including ‘enjoyment’ can be misundersood…i hope i have cleared it with this comment.

            6. Marianne to you because you believe in me: Crossing-Over.

              I can’t recall, have no idea of the topic this session was about, but the end realization transported me from the solidity: from this Universe into the Spiritual Universe.

              Suddenly I have found myself bodiless [of course] beside an old boulder which was bathed in light. I perceived the boulder in holographic:
              I could see the smallest deeps on its surface, every molecule of the boulder was visible to me inside and outside to the tiniest detail and seen ancients moss covering too lovingly draped itself over the boulder: like lovers holding each other in embrace for eons. the boulder was alive-living existing forever changing!

              My attention was on the stone and I realized that the boulder represented had a significance, great meaning which was: life itself as I have known that till now and the boulders solidity which was on illusion represented the physical universe and from out of that universe, the MEST, I just have walked out.

              Looking back into the distance where I have emerged from was darkness and that darkness was lifeless and held no life, it was void of life-force and it had a name: death.

              My attention was drawn away from the ‘’past’ and I become aware of void, void which had no beginning and no end, and was empty, totally empty since I seen nothing and sensed nothing as I experienced that vacuum.

              Than my attention was pulled toward on energy to my right and there was shimmering mist, mist which contained all the colours of crushed diamond dust which I call life-force, creative energy and that energy was dipped -infused in the mystery of opaque which was the future itself, the yet to be..

              And I was pulled by this incredible phenomenon: I was mesmerized: this mist was so incredibly alive, it rolled, moved within in its own boundaries I have realized there was someone within in but I did not know who was that entity and I felt tremendous affinity emanated from the mist: It was drawing me to melt into, to become one.

              But I also I realized that I needed to step into that void and experience and truly understand its meaning and that was my next step; My cognition was: the void I have created have become what is by as-ising the MEST Universe. By understanding that I turned my attention away from the mist and I moved forward the void and as I did, I felt no fear since I have left fear far behind me in the dark, in the past.

              In that moment as I let go stepped -floated into the void that step taken by me again had a significance: regaining trust in self and the same moment I have given up the last uncertainties.

              As I flowed in to the void unafraid and as I experienced with that I acknowledged that great void that empty state in totality where I was nothing nobody yet aware in the fullest sense.
              Than the mist moved in surrounded me folded me up in its invisible arms and I have heard music, a most beautiful music, it was a waltz to which the soul can only ascend.

              As the music and brilliant yet opaque formless mist held me we dance over and we filled that void with life-force, we swirled, flowed and floated in space of our own endlessness creation.

              To the total harmony of the universe which was the music as we continued our dance as we flowed: happiness, the joy infused the universe than slowly the mist dissipated: I existed I was that void, yet not empty.

              As the music melted away and so were the surrounding significances and suddenly over the starless translucent dark blue velvet space an intense brilliant shimmering rainbow appeared and held the universe suspended.

              I knew I was home.

              PS: when I reconnected to the body: tears were rolling down a sobs heaved the chest, and I have realized, had a cognition about what is my role, my future in the universe, the yet to come..

            7. …yes, elizabeth…i not only believe in you but i feel you and what
              you are writing about…

              …complete aware-conscious harmony with the totality of Creation…

              …alive presence in the core of the ‘boulder’…

              thank you for putting it into writing…

    1. M… SEX??????????????? that has nothing to do with true spirituality.. true sages never practised sex . If you could go back on the track and recall the incidents why sex was created you would throw up.

        1. As I have written to Marildi.. Spirituality that concept-considerations hold many different realities and long as those concepts hold doingness and beingness that is not true spirituality, it is experiencing energy -mass. Stimulating senses is playing with energy…explosion of energy experiencing that regardless how that experience feels like .. still MEST experience-labeled spiritual experience.. and many of you buy that.

        1. No Marianne.. I would not, because it is a heavy very simulative chain of events on the track and sex is dramatization in the form which people can handle it now.

          1. That is a lame excuse Elizabeth. Go ahead and explain it.

            You can’t hurt Marianne or anybody else anymore than Xenu can hurt them. 

            ________________________________

            1. I don’t have any.. uselss commodity. By the way every time you don’t like something I write you cant confront it, don’t have reality on it you say I have a temper tantrum with that you dismiss -put down what I say and act superior. !!!!! you are product of ignorance!

            2. Handle it… By the way CRADIBILITY IS COLLECTED BY HAVING AGREEMENT ON THE SUBJECT.. more agreement there is that insures the solidity -staying that idea and its continuations. MEST STUFF.

            3. V… I never had any credibility with you so how could I hurt it any way? And credibility is just collected agreement which helps to makes solidity. I am happy without such commodity!

      1. “If you could go back on the track and recall the incidents why sex was created you would throw up.”

        According to me – seriously – sex is a derivative of what has been occurring and how it has been occurring in this universe since the first short moment of time. Jus’ sayin’, not that anybody cares. lol

      1. At one time I could ejaculate without touching anything but simply by consciously visualizing eroticism. That was the height of my sexual spirituality. Then I moved on to knowledge spirituality.

  9. Looks like sex is a hot topic..i did not mean it to be like that…
    for me it has been natural so far as any other experience of
    Source-Spirit. I also love my body and find human bodies
    master-piece creations….beautiful.

    1. Of course, sex is natural. But you must also be aware that there is trmendous amount of abuse associated with sex. I will be very surprised otherwise at your innocence.

      ________________________________

  10. The way this thread has gone is fascinatingly Freudian. From Geir’s OP about “war, criminality, and insanity”, to sex, sex, sex. And sex.

  11. wow, take a look at those aims then look at the church’s behavior

    no war, except the war on psychs or critics
    no insanity, except screw illegal pcs, slapping is ok, name calling, harassing, blackmail, musical chairs…
    no crime, except fraud, abusing people, etc

    anything goes in the name of the greater good, has to be destruction to make way for construction

    so the church can wage war, act insane and commit crimes just nobody else can, now i get it!

    also look at the wording, honest “beings” have rights, not talking about humans anymore, and nevermind free speech, only scientologists in good standing can have rights and free speech

  12. This is an excellent blog article, Geir. I agree 100%, we cannot leave in a perfect world. From ancient wars to Al Quaeda, from Middle Age pest to present HIV and AIDS, the whole planet spinned, spins and will spin around million of challenges. Again, very good article. Bravo!

    1. Excuse me, but you cannot compare. Tibetans who believe in Buddha has couple of milleniums of culture and civilization behind them. Scientologists have nothing.

      1. Dragos Are you sure that Buddha had all the answers? and the followers are on the right path? Just because there is no similar path to compere Buddhism to that do not means it is the only path and that path leads out of the MEST. The Path which leads out have not been discovered by man kind.

      1. Thanks for the reference. This political aspect of Tibetan Buddhism is shocking to me. My interest is in knowledge and realizations. Maybe there is something to realize here.

        The common theme seems to be that knowledge becomes sidelined when it is institutionalized. The purpose changes to securing the survival of the institution.

        ________________________________

        1. Vin, what struck me were the similarities to the CoS. Even some of the justifications they had for their treatment of their serfs in Tibet echoed things like “they pulled it in”, (karma), for example.

          The Lamas had a solid relationship with the secular government and together they made virtual slaves of most of the population, while they lived “high off the hog” themselves. IF the CoS “leaders” could do the same, I’m sure they would.

          1. Tibetan Buddhism seems to be infested with politics and therefore corrupt. My interest is in knowledge, and I consider everything else to be secondary.

            Where politics, protection of an institution, and wordly pleasures by the leaders are raised above the pursuit of knowledge, as in Scientology and Tibetan Buddhism, it does not have my support.

            1. I see this blog has not progressed an inch in 2-3 years. It repeats the same-old lack of discernment it was communicating 2-3 years ago. It can’t tell the difference between basic principles and the diversity of applications that can arise from those.

  13. I thinking I have finally figured out how a lot of people are damaged by Scientology.

    http://vinaire.me/2014/05/12/reality/

    Here is how the concept of reality is twisted in Scientology.

    Reality is not looked at as “objective” by Hubbard. It is certainly observable, yet not necessarily objective. Each observer takes his own viewpoint… In any case, when we talk about reality, we talk about agreement. “Reality is the agreement upon perceptions and data in the physical universe. (All we can be sure is real is that on which we have agreed is real. Agreement is the essence of reality.” (Dn Ax. 113)

    But…

    The reality is what is out there. It does not consist of agreements or disagreements.

    Hubbard equates reality with agreement, because reality can be changed by changing one’s agreements. Hubbard drew this conclusion from his experience with black magic. He could change a person’s reality by hypnotizing him.

    But this is similar to changing the properties of light by filtering it. Hubbard was changing the reality of a person by installing agreements that acted like a filter.

    Whether agreements are generated through hypnotism, or in a more subtle way, they act like filters. They take the form of beliefs, assumptions, biases, prejudices, fixed ideas, etc., and they filter the reality.

    The common denominator of such filters is that they generate inconsistencies in what is perceived. By becoming aware of inconsistencies one may then track down the filters that are influening one.

    The true reality is the unfiltered reality. It does not consist of agreements or disagreements. And it is achieved by becoming aware of one’s filters and reducing their influence.

        1. Except it doesn’t collapse the wave function. Only an observer does that. And thus there is a scientifically proven difference between an observer and a non-observer.

    1. V ””’The true reality is the unfiltered reality. It does not consist of agreements or disagreements. And it is achieved by becoming aware of one’s filters and reducing their influence.”‘

      Sure. right you are.. but when will you know for sure that you no longer looking through filters? That is the trick to ”know” and that reality how to achieve such final -true-basic-unaltered reality well your thick filter wont allow for you to see.. Your present reality don’t accept not allow existence of such a reality. That is what you don’t get… how to get to the basic-basic to the unaltered original.

      1. Elizabeth. Sooth stuff. Another view of it, could be: “When I CAN truly just BE,….THEN, I CAN SEE 🙂

        1. Only than when I barrow from you to look at you because I cant stand seeing you as you are so I need few millions to filter your idiotic statements. But as you know I always return them to you in the same condition as I barrow them: filthy .I thank you for letting me used them!

            1. not even that.. tooo solid…/.. I LET YOU HAVE THE GLORY TO LEAD THE TRUPS OUT OF THEIR IGNORANCE! just think your name will be praised for ever!

            2. Vinaaaaay? this is for yooohooo…WHEN?

              Elizabeth, this is for you, Doll. Just love the ‘Spirit of Play’. — Keep it up! 🙂

            3. V.. there you go again!!!!!
              I have asked a question and you have once more disappeared into the fogbank of ignorance simply because you don’t have the answer as usual! but you asked a question from me diverting the attention from your ignorance!

      2. “Sure. right you are.. but when will you know for sure that you no longer looking through filters? That is the trick to ”know” and that reality how to achieve such final -true-basic-unaltered reality well your thick filter wont allow for you to see.. Your present reality don’t accept not allow existence of such a reality. That is what you don’t get… how to get to the basic-basic to the unaltered original.”

        In this fractal universe, so long as there is time, there is another iteration. For me, “basic-basic” is a metaphor for when one has had enough.

    2. V…..”””
      “”I thinking I have finally figured out how a lot of people are damaged by Scientology.””
      Looked into the mirror and you seen what you seen and also you reread your post? That is truly daring thing for you to confront!!!!

  14. To understand the essence and scope of a subject one must start with an examination of its basic postulates. To understand how ultimate reality is viewed in Scientology one must examine the following postulates.

    Scientology Axiom #1: Life is basically a static. DEFINITION: a life static has no mass, no motion, no wavelength, no location in space or in time. It has the ability to postulate and to perceive.

    Scientology Factor #1: Before the beginning was a Cause and the entire purpose of the Cause was the creation of effect.

    Scientology Pre-Logics #1: Self-determinism is the common denominator of all life impulses.

    Axiom #1 claims that a Life Static has no mass, no motion, no wavelength, no location in space or in time, yet it has the ability to postulate and to perceive. It is Aristotle’s unmoved mover, Factor #1 simply posits the same concept as uncaused cause. Here it is an abstract capability from which all creation pours forth. In religion, we are familiar with this concept as God. Pre-logics #1 puts this capability to be the essence of all human and other beings.

    Scientology essentially makes people believe that the characteristics associated with God are within the reach of every individual, and that one can actually achieve the state of Godhood through the processing available in Scientology.

    The ultimate reality in Scientology is the attaining of beingness, which hitherto was exclusively associated with God.

    1. V “Scientology essentially makes people believe that the characteristics associated with God are within the reach of every individual, and that one can actually achieve the state of Godhood through the processing available in Scientology.
      ELIZABETH: can you PROVE IT DIFFERENTLY? IF NOT THAN YOU JUST ASSUME THAT SCIENTOLOGY MAKES PEOPLE BELIEVE WHAT YOU STATE!
      you just have shoot yourself in the foot again you have done that so many times since I read some of your posting that it puzzles me why are you not dead.

  15. Thus, a Scientologist believes that he is creating this universe continually in agreement with everyone else; and to enforce his will he must get everyone to agree with him. He entertains the ideal scene of a being who is cause over “matter, energy, space, time and all life.” In other words, his ideal scene is to act like God.

    It is very hard to visualize a universe where everyone is acting like God. Such a universe is going to be highly unstable. To get the universe going, all the Gods must agree with each other. And when that happens then there remains no individual will. It becomes a collective like the Borg species of Star Trek.

    The other alternative is for each “God” to postulate and perceive one’s own universe in which one can do whatever one wants. Such a “God” becomes out of touch with the physical universe. The physical universe simply does not exist for such a “God.”

    At this moment the effort of the Church of Scientology is to survive as a collective in a physical universe that is unknowingly being created by unenlightened WOGS. The “solution” therefore is to assimilate all WOGS into the collective of Scientology by enlightening them the Scientology way. If this effort fails then the alternative would be for Scientology to get absorbed completely in a self-created universe and become totally dissociated with the “physical universe.” These are the ultimate realities in Scientology caused by the desire to identify oneself with a Godlike beingness that can have its way in spite of matter, energy, space, time and other life.

    The source of this reality may be traced back to the theistic view prevalent in Abrahamic religions that God is a being, and that one is created in the image of God. When we take this view literally then the pursuit in Scientology starts to make sense.

    In Scientology we see the theistic view being taken literally, and being pursued relentlessly.

    1. V.. you should open your ”own CHUCRH” since you have all the right answers…
      You have figured out the whole universe from god to devil.. and where we all stand what is wrong with us all and you also sorted out the scientists, philosophers and the wise.
      You have filtered out all the wrong believes these people have accordingly your beliefs and you have presented this incredible body of knowledge in a pure form in your blog and in every bodies but I wonder why people don’t flock to your doorstep seat at your feet?
      Your filter wont allow you to see why that is not happening which you want the most: reorganization! To be told that you are great and talked about. and listened to! Oh, life can be hard and cruel and totally unfair!

            1. You even have that one wrong.. why would I hate you? you have not done anything worthwhile that I should carry such burden as hate! Your comment are not important and don’t warrant such emotion or mine to rise such useless energy… Burden of hate is to heavy to hold dear..

            2. I wonder Vanaire Why cant you believe even in the most simple thing.. I am happy for you for having a good life.. Mine is good to and if you ever come to west coast I would love to see you.. there is commenting and there are other things beside life how one really is and thinks..behaves than silly posting. Posting is not where we are at. I am not any way. I tease the hell out of you but without malice, you see my dear you ask to be teased..hehehe you just don’t realise. 🙂

  16. Let’s look at the alternate view, where God is not viewed as a “being.” This is the atheistic view of the Eastern religions. In this view, God is seen as a power that underlies all manifestations. God is understood to be like a field similar to an electric or a magnetic field, but much more basic. It is from the condensation of such a field that self emerges. This is the field into which self ultimately dissolves.

    In this view of God, there is no individuality that creates anything. Things just come together due to underlying laws. Here the ultimate reality is neti-neti (not this, not that), meaning that there is always something beyond to be understood. All phenomena are relative. Nothing can be pinned down in an absolute sense like the last digit of pi. There is no absolute God like that of the theists.

    We can postulate anything but the postulate must be consistent with the existing reality to be real. The reality of the universe cannot be ignored. The thrust should always be to understand the reality, which is the universe. That is the thrust of science.

    1. V…..” God is understood to be like a field similar to an electric or a magnetic field, but much more basic. It is from the condensation of such a field that self emerges. This is the field into which self ultimately dissolves.””
      can you prove that or you read it some place and you assume that is the truth?

    2. V……”” We can postulate anything but the postulate must be consistent with the existing reality to be real. The reality of the universe cannot be ignored. The thrust should always be to understand the reality, which is the universe. “”
      I believe that you said more than once that everything is only a consideration. illusion. now you say ‘real” the universe is real.. than you said.. everything is just energy particles.. bits of flows etc… now make up your mind what is!
      If we look through filters and there is nothing else out there and everything is on illusions. than why is the filter for what its use?
      man you are one confused human!

  17. Spiritual and physical are two different aspects of this universe. These aspects do not exist independent of each other. “God” and the “physical universe” exist together. The physical universe may be looked upon as a form of God; and God may be looked upon as the essence of the physical universe. Scientology veers off this philosophy when it postulates “The origin of MEST lies with theta itself, and that MEST, as we know the physical universe, is a product of theta.” This postulate is not real.

    Cause and effect do not exist outside this universe. Cause is as much a part of this universe as the effect. There is no uncaused Cause or unmoved mover. Cause and effect are always associated and should be viewed as a single phenomenon.

  18. My view of God fundamentals is as follows:

    Underlying all reality there seems to be a primordial field, which when disturbed by a primordial energy, gives rise to awareness. The undisturbed primordial field is the theoretical ground state for this universe. The primordial energy is what generates disturbance in this field. The disturbance arises as awareness that gradually condenses as self. The outer form of this disturbance is electromagnetism that gradually condenses as matter. Life has the characteristics of both awareness (spirituality) and electromagnetism (physicality).

    Can the ultimate reality be ever defined? I believe that the pleasure of defining the ultimate reality more accurately will always be there.

  19. Material universe is looked upon as a via for communication by Hubbard
    …..Filters separate the origin and receipt points of communication
    …..Space and time shall be the primary filters
    …..Forms shall also be part of the filters
    …..Filter shall be the property of beingness or existence
    Beingness is like a circuit, and filter is like resistance
    …..communication is like the flow of current through the circuit
    …..a circuit without resistance shall quickly cease to exist
    …..a beingness without filter shall quickly cease to exist
    The make-up of the beingness shall provide the filter
    …..The origin and receipt points are within a beingness
    …..The communication occurs within a beingness
    …..The universe is that beingness
    .

  20. I have -to some degree- changed my mind about what I said. I just think that omnivore mamals arent supposed to be that peaceful. I dont think war and insanity are inevitable. But maybe our too tame way of living may be a source of war and insanity. I have tried to give my body qualities which I believe now are not native to it –being very civilized and such. Its just an idea. I think human bodies are made to hunt for food and rip it’s flesh apart –among other things. You can tame it. But it feel a bit like a lion inside a cage.

    1. Yeah I assume this might remind some people of the SO and people screaming and such. It doesnt matter. This is mine. I dont mean to have somebody scream at you while you say ‘yes sir’. Thats tame alright.

    2. Also, I remember in some events some dude gave us twice a quote about the thetan being a ‘wild beast’. Although the idea sounded charming to me, it was quoted in an effort to make us donate money. I dont know how those two can be connected but anyway –wild beasts donating money, or having some dude put ethics to them. But anyway, I now think the human body is a wild beast, indeed, and the thetan basically nothing.

      1. Yes. I see violence and oppression and suppression as something different to animal wildness.

        We say we are civilized but our animal food in corporate farms suffers way more than out in the wild. And our kitties need a few piggies and cows per lifetime to stay alive.

        I think spirituality is about spirits, alright. But no matter the spirituality, you just dont turn a wolf into a chicken. The spirit is one thing, the animal another. Thats how I see it.

  21. I can’t believe you! You want to live in a world where you can never get a moment’s peace because of all problems that happen?! That’s not a world for me.

    My mind of world is one with no challenges and bad guys because I’ve been experiencing them far too many times. And so, I became an utopaia-obsessed perfectionist. In fact, I love boredom and hate challenges.

    You think that safety is boring? Then maybe you can lead yourself to an an early grave.

    1. You may not have read the OP all the way through. Wanting challenges does not equate to never wanting a breather. “Not 10” does not equate to “-10”, Get my point?

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