Embrace the conflicts

Today I attended KPMG’s Executive Conference here in Oslo. Among the speakers were Fareed Zakaria (CNN anchor), Anders Fogh Rasmussen (12th NATO Secretary General) and Børge Brende (our Foreign Minister). The title of the conference: “International conflicts – Business Impact“.

kpmg

The speakers gave interesting insights into the history and status on current world conflicts and how they influence world business. The angles were intelligent and wise, covering in particular the many conflicts in the Middle-East and the war in eastern Ukraine. The seriousness of the conflicts, their problems and negative impacts were in focus. The consequences to human lives, trade and business and to world economy were highlighted. Solutions were discussed.

The prosperity of the West with capitalism as the vehicle for success was covered in some detail. The element of competition was praised as the central driving force of capitalism. It was a package of excellent content wrapped in a sober and well prepared form. Short of a representative from Al-Qaeda, nothing seemed to be missing.

Except an embracing of conflicts. Not the most horrific conflicts where children are victims of violence. But the world needs risk. It needs danger.

While most people would want a world without conflicts, they get quite pensive when they stop to really contemplate a completely peaceful world robbed of any conflict, of any and all crimes, and of all but the most mundane challenges. While the Western world owes much of its recent success to the inherent conflict in capitalism, the speakers didn’t express the relevant point that mankind owes much also to its more violent conflicts.

ira

When Brendan and I recently met with the IRA, I realized that while the peace treaty of Northern Ireland saved the lives of so many people, it also came with a cost, a tangible downside. With less to fight for, with less to die and live for, life becomes less challenging and more dull. And with dullness comes boredom and ultimately even depression.

Perhaps what most people want is the wanting of a goal and not the goal itself.

470 thoughts on “Embrace the conflicts

  1. This really points to the problem of humanity. If we actually GOT a Utopia would we WANT it?

    The thrill of the fight and the game is always driving us.

    If we GET a Utopia or something close to it, I think we’ll destroy it out of boredom but probably fool ourselves by calling it something else like “Justice.”

    1. Man is an angry and lusty creature. Because a few lofty thinkers conceive of harmonious existence and because everyone enjoys their recreation, it is popular to “yearn” for Utopias. Whether or not any of us posting here would be capable of participating in such an experiment, I think it goes without saying that mankind as a whole is a few hundred thousand years away from having the capacity of living in peace… Maybe peace is an abstraction only as spacetime is quite a roiling, heaving and violent place in places.

      1. CT:” Because a few lofty thinkers conceive of harmonious existence and because everyone enjoys their recreation, it is popular to “yearn” for Utopias.”

        I’m sure a caveman of 20,000 years ago would think we are living in an absolute Utopia:

        – you’re hardly ever beaten over the head with a stick or rock

        – you’re hardly ever freezing your balls off

        – you’re virtually never hungry enough to eat the south end of a northbound skunk

        But ol’ caveman probably was faced with those realities.

        So if you really want to embrace conflict, I’d urge you first to do a thought experiment where you’re living that caveman’s life and then extrapolate forward to the Utopia you think should be declaimed and have a look at yourself now. You might just see yourself as a just recently civilized caveman.

        My point is that there are a lot more rewarding things to do in the universe than scrounge work to pay monthly bills. Worse, to indulge in ridiculous conflicts along religious and political lines such as what the IRA devoted themselves to for many years.

        True, we each need to seek personal change and growth, and that is a long way off for a lot of folks. But that does not mean that those “few lofty thinkers” who can envision a better future are wrong to postulate that future where petty conflict isn’t the norm.

  2. Çapitalism, by studying it’s basic definitions, is very general and doesn’t mean much by itself. Just like the communist revolutionaries didn’t expect to get a gun pointed at them for daring to question their ‘brotherhood’, in open. They thought they fought suppression.

    Too bad that once more, a system has allowed space for the least productive, helpful etc to thrive over the rest. Mr Gates and others that actually created something innovative and useful and succeeded are not what I witness where I live. Here usually, it is only enough for one to have some good budget, intentions to exploit, and make money by putting others to work for him (he can be scratching his arse in the meanwhile), to do so. And ‘free’ market my ass, if one needs to be rich before he even begins, in order to succeed. It seems unless people change, systems wont do them much good.

    Of course, forms of capitalism, and other conditions vary from place to place. I can’t compare Greece to Norway nor Switzerland. At least there, people are given more choices by the state.

    I would gladly trade a good fight for a fake peace. But more gladly abstain from both and have true friends. 🙂

      1. Oh hi! 🙂

        That thing didn’t notify me I had a reply.

        I have some more debunking/ranting in store in case anyone is interested 😛 But maybe I should sell them altogether as a book, so as to make a little money and experience a little capitalism too. Because all those years of having a flat, lame salary despite my stats, have given me the impression I live in the Soviet European Union.

        1. Hi, Spryos. I’ve missed a number of email notifications too. Good that you checked back.

          I see you are on a roll with the debunking/ranting. 😀 Seems to me you are a modern-day Greek philosopher. 😛 You’ve been debating all kinds of issues, haven’t you? And I’m guessing that it’s been in English, because your English keeps getting better. I’m impressed. 🙂

          Maybe you really will write a book one of these days – in English. 😛

          1. And you must be a Scientologist –full of compliments 🙂

            I haven’t noticed the improvement, but in the past 1,5 year I’ve been associating with mostly English speaking people at work –maybe that’s why.

            I might debate on topics that I hear by people but not the things that I’m really charged over. I keep the good stuff for myself 😛

            1. “And you must be a Scientologist –full of compliments 🙂 ”

              Aw, you make me wanna be a better scientologist.

              (I’m gonna keep telling that joke until somebody laughs at it! 😀 )

              Seriously, though, it’s a matter of ARC, which is easy with some people. 😛

              What you wrote about associating for the last year and a half with mostly English speaking-people at work – I knew it! Didn’t I basically say that? IMHO, fluent English comes about through practice with others, especially people who themselves speak fluent English. Just look at how much Geir has learned from ME (another joke!). Actually, Geir is another good example – his English keeps getting noticeably better all the time. And yours too! Your writing as well – so I’m guessing you’ve been pounding away at the keyboard too.

              So tell me the things you are “really charged over.” I want to be in on the “good stuff.” I mean, just in a nutshell, if it’s not too personal. 😛

            2. I made a mistake about the 1,5 year. Actually, since 2008 I’ve been starting and stopping that job in various places. It seems I’ll be doing that until I settle with something I do fully willingly and really like. But I don’t think that’s very likely to happen. To feel that I have to do something, to survive, is enough of a ‘dislike’ for me. For me ‘work’ is free, willing work. The other, the forced work is called differently. And that’s the most personal stuff I’m going to write about.

              I haven’t noticed anything ‘wrong’ about Geir’s English, but again I’m not English myself to judge. And anyway, what matter is for the message to be understood. If it is understood, who cares about proper-ness? 😛

            3. SP (short for SPyros 🙂 ): “I made a mistake about the 1,5 year. Actually, since 2008…”

              That makes even more sense, because it has been a remarkable improvement. (I notice these things, being a copy editor.) But in the last months, you seem to have improved by leaps and bounds. Maybe you’ve been doing more writing too, in blog exchanges or whatnot. Again, seems to me it’s the interaction – where we learn so much, in addition to language.

              And I didn’t mean there was anything wrong with Geir’s English – his is better than the majority of people whose native tongue is this language! It’s a relative thing in reference to his English over the past 5 years that I’ve been reading his posts and comments.

              Thanks for sharing what you did about work. Interesting thoughts, you little philosopher. You wrote:

              “For me ‘work’ is free, willing work. The other, the forced work, is called differently..”

              I would say that’s a high level of truth, – and yet it remains a level of truth in the realm of the physical universe – where everything is relative (as I was just saying). I know you get that. 😛

              Here’s a short talk about work just for you:

            4. Hi Marildi. Because I haven’t followed Echart’s teachings closely, I cannot definitely tell exactly what he means by being here and surrendering. One could assume to be here and simply perceive to be similar, but one could also assume that the psychology concept to ‘adapt’ is what is meant too. The lines can be very thin when you deal with similar concepts and general words, in language. From the ‘be here and perceive’ viewpoint, in order to do it, you would only have to be here and perceive, but that wouldn’t be work. It might be TRs or maybe some form of meditation, but not work. There would be much ‘nothing’ involved, instead.

              I do try to find my own way between such thin borders. Still in SCN to let your affinity be alloyed, to communicate without desiring it and to compromise with own reality, are considered wrong. So, then ‘right’ has much to do with self determined ARC (with people, matter, work or anything). And there other other breaches of the code involved too. Tell me, for example, how to only communicate when I desire it if I’m to serve all customers? I’m just pointing that as I see a conflict between the video and SCN. What I do, what each person does, and how he views it, is another thing. And in this matter I only speak for myself. I quit trying to change people, and not out of apathy 🙂

            5. Spyros: “Because I haven’t followed Eckhart’s teachings closely, I cannot definitely tell exactly what he means by being here and surrendering.”

              I’m not that well versed on all his stuff either, but I can tell you the understanding I got from the youtube vids I’ve watched and a couple of articles I’ve read. (Maybe aotc will chime in too, as he’s read Tolle’s books and no doubt has a better understanding.)

              First, here’s a short explanation from an article:
              ——————————-
              Inner Body (Eckhart uses the term ‘Inner Body’ as a label for the energy field of the body, a manifestation of the aliveness that you are – your true nature)

               Feel the Inner Body during the day. This means 10 – 15 – 20 times a day – even for 10 seconds or so is fine. At various times and when appropriate go deeper into the Inner Body and merge with it. And at other times go deeper still, as is possible

               Feel the Inner Body for 15 minutes or so at night before sleep, as is possible. Go to sleep from there.

               Feel the Inner Body for a few minutes when you first wake up. If you have heavy feelings, a feeling of being “on edge” etc in the morning then SURRENDER TO IT, OBSERVE THE FEELING FULLY. LET IT BE AS IT IS. AS YOU OBSERVE THE FEELING, SPACE WILL ARISE AROUND IT. [my caps]

               Feel the Inner Body whilst observing Nature.

               Whenever someone speaks to you – feel the Inner Body with a part of your attention
              ——————————
              http://www.theendofseeking.net/PR%20-%20Eckhart%20Tolle%20Spiritual%20Practices.html
              .

              And, knowing you, here’s an Eckhart Tolle quote you might like:

              “Sometimes surrender means giving up trying to understand and becoming comfortable with not knowing.”

            6. Thanx for fetching all that for me.

              The description of the inner body reminds me of something I read in a lecture pack called ‘The secrets of the MEST universe’. There was a talk about Hinduism and he referred to the Chakras and it’s energy field as the ‘glue’ that holds a spirit attached to the body. My own comment is that the spirit can identify easier with things that resemble it (such as some serene-feeling kind of an energy). In other lectures too, LRH referred to Hinduism as something that mocked Tone 40 but was actually apathy (no implication that only occurs in Hinduism)

              I say that with some reservation as it might be that ‘inner body’ for Tolle might mean something else.

              I agree that to simply perceive it better than to figure out. Still, I’m wary of the mockeries of that. You see an apathetic person or a topic over which one is apathetic about is not figured out. The defeat is accepted but not in the same way that one would accept it by simply perceiving it and eventually having it vanish/handled. The difference is that in apathy the condition continues to exist or gets buried by forgetfulness.

              Still, I’m not saying Tolle meant that, because my understanding of his stuff is surface.

            7. Spryros, you are one of my partners in crime. You know that, don’t you? I mean the way you keep bringing up the topic of scientology. 😀

              The interesting thing about this, whether anyone wants to admit it or not, is that most of us are still interested in the subject (each for their own reasons, of course) – and if the proponents don’t bring the subject up, the anti’s will do so, regardless of their complaints whenever the pro-gang does. 🙄

              Seriously, the way I look at it is that the data of scientology is a good basis of philosophical debate – a basis we are all familiar with – and I see no reason why anyone should ridge on it. Yes, it’s true that in the past, we haven’t gotten very far in our discussions on the subject, as Chris pointed out – but, as I indicated in my reply, I think we can do a better job of it now. That is, IF we stay in PT in the discussions.

              Interestingly, the above relates to your question about the inner body, in that it can help a person stay in PT. Here’s more data:

              “When you are actually talking to another person, it’s probably easiest to either use your breath or your inner body.

              “Practice this beforehand, when conditions are easier, so that you can do it once it’s necessary. Go into your inner body, feel that your energy field is alive. And you’ll notice, you’re not thinking anymore. You can still listen. The amazing thing is that you can listen to another person, without thinking, easily, beautifully.

              “You are listening, but part of your attention is on your energy field – so you’ve taken attention away from your thoughts. There is a sense of aliveness in the background.

              “It’s ultimately formless; it’s already the doorway into the formless. Feel that while you sit there and listen, and you’ve stepped out of the stream of thinking. Then, the quality of the interaction immediately changes. The other person may not consciously notice what’s happening, and may carry on for a while. It also does not mean that you cannot respond anymore. But how you respond and the quality of your response changes, too. You are no longer contributing to the negative nature, which is often the case, in conversations.

              “A certain amount of stillness, then, will also be a part of the words that you speak. It’s so subtle that the other person probably will not notice it, consciously. So hang on to the inner body, let it be the anchor, and then you become present. If you lose it again, if the other person says something challenging, then after a little while you remember – and you go back into the inner body. That’s a powerful anchor, and then everything changes from there. It takes continuous practice.”

              http://www.eckharttolle.com/newsletter/august-2010/

            8. For me Marildi there is Scientology the theory and what I can understand about it, which could also be aligned with other spiritualities or topics, and there is also the Scientology as theory, practice and group or groups and what the average view of Scientology theory is about. I wanted to disassociate myself from the second, as I don’t agree with significant stuff, nor did I agree as a member, and thus I couldn’t cooperate for long, as our disagreements became significant too. I’m not going to explain again. Just letting it be. As far as I’m concerned, they can do what they want. They will reap the joys and consequences of what they do, themselves. I don’t want to play along. It isn’t that I don’t care, I just can’t join. And I don’t want to be their critic either.

              If it is formless, how come Tolle calls it an ‘inner body’? I need a more precise definition, to fully grasp it.

            9. I understand. I had to go back over that sentence too before I got it, even though I’ve got more background on his teaching than you do so far.

              He says: “It’s ultimately formless; it’s already the doorway into the formless.”

              ‘Ultimately’ (meaning “eventually, in the end”)i the focus on the inner body is formless. It’s only the “doorway” into the formless.

              I took a qigong class a few years ago, which I still practice to a certain extent. The basic principle is to focus on either the breath or the “chi” in the body (or some area of it).

              Definition of chi [my caps for emphasis]: “VITAL energy that is held [believed] to ANIMATE the body internally and is of central importance in some Eastern systems of medical treatment (as acupuncture) and of exercise or self-defense (as tai chi)” http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/chi

              In qigong exercise, when you focus on the body, there factually is a perception of aliveness, an “energy”. At first, you can feel it more easily in the hands, I would say. And btw, you can also feel when “blocked” chi is released – or, in everyday terminology, a release of “stress” which manifests in the body.

              The focusing that’s done in qigong or on the “inner body,” or any type of meditation, for that matter, doesn’t seem to me to be any different from TR0 – because by focusing, one is simply confronting some part of the PT environment – rather than being “in the head,” which amounts to being in the past. Not that all thinking is to be shunned – obviously, it’s needed at times, but has to be done with awareness. or presence. And that is learned through practice.

              But keep in mind that all this is “verbal data” and simply my own understandings. 😛

            10. I see. I have some surface understanding what chi is about too. I’m a little perplexed about body energies as I don’t know which comes from where. Some martial artists claim to have achieved some extraordinary stuff. When it comes to healing, I consider the SCN assists very simple, easy to learn and superior to many other techniques that manipulate body energies. I once gave a one minute long nerve assist to a masseur and he was perplexed and couldn’t figure out how his chronic back pain had disappeared. In the beginning he was like “WTF lets try that too, lol”. I mean he was a pro…how could humble me had done that to him? All it would take to do it would be 10 minutes of a read and a bit witholding of invalidations against something that simple and that easy, without any (good) status. I think assists should rewritten and rereleased as body healing techniques to the broader public.

              At the moment I’m happy with my latest sort of a ‘mediation’ technique, although I haven’t achieved all my goals. But they’re high 🙂

            11. Spyros, sorry it took so long for me to reply. I got involved in another thread of Geir’s and in an exchange on another blog – and then things got busy for me otherwise. Better late than never? I hope!

              First, I wanted to ack all you wrote about your views on discussing scientology, about “hate,” etc. Nice posts, and well expressed. 🙂

              Just above, you wrote “At the moment I’m happy with my latest sort of a ‘meditation’ technique, although I haven’t achieved all my goals. But they’re high 🙂 ”

              I’m curious about the meditation technique you’re using and your goals – that is, if you have any interest in talking about them. 😛

              Sort of on the subject of meditation, recently I was thinking about what happens when someone “gets into” a piece of music (as an example). It’s as though they were vibrating with it, or vibrating in the same energy patterns as the music. In that sense, the person is “being” the music. And this is a way to “know,” according to the following:

              “The mission of the analytical mind, when it thinks, is to observe and predict by the observation of results. Easily the best way to do this is to BE the objects one is observing, thus one can KNOW their condition completely.” (Scn 8-8008)

              (Bear in mind that in the same book, “object” is defined as “any unit manifestation of energy, including matter.”)

              I’m not sure whether it’s a type of meditation or not, but if you close your eyes and “be” whatever is there as the “object” of perception at that moment, it’s a very interesting experience. Just thought I would share that with you. 😉

              I still have some plus randomity going, so my replies might be a bit “tardy” for a while.

            12. “I still have some plus randomity going, so my replies might be a bit “tardy” for a while.”

              Marildi, can you please focus on what matters? I’ve heard this excuse from you before when your attention drifts from blogging and it is getting a bit tiresome. It’s now Thursday morning and if your word-count isn’t up by 2:00 PM, don’t even bother to put in a CSW for libs this Sunday.

            13. I’m going to consult with my astrological map whether I should forgive you, Marildi.

              There was a point in the PDC or maybe in 8-8008 too where it was mentioned that a thetan’s perception of MEST is analogous to his ability to mock up. But it was about the direct perception of a thetan, not the body’s perception. When I say ‘I’ perceive, it is important to define what ‘I’ means, first, and then define ‘be’ too. There is a difference between ‘being’ as having an identity and ‘being’ as ‘existing’. Otherwise, it would be strange if Spyros tried to ‘be’ a chair…you know…

              I don’t think spirits are subjected to physical phenomena, unless they ‘be’ something physical –even if something airy, like a ghost.

              I try to do that ‘meditation’ instinctively (that ‘intuition that was mentioned before) and not based on information, so I think for the moment I shouldn’t explain it either. I have tried to explain it before, but haven’t made it, unless the person knew it already. Some times it is better to have nothing than misunderstanding.

              This is a cool web page though. Don’t invalidate it for the ‘low grade’ of the first meditations.

              http://www.wellbeingalignment.com/spiritual-meditation.html

            14. “I’m going to consult with my astrological map whether I should forgive you, Marildi.”

              I’m counting my lucky stars, Spyros. 🙂

              That was a good article you linked. I liked the explanation for why breathing meditation works:

              “By not trying to CHANGE our breathing, we offer ourselves acceptance…As we continue to practice this, we begin to discover that this peace is who we ARE.”

              I think that is the same principle as what I described to you that I’ve been doing – which is to simply focus, eyes closed, on whatever “energy form” is there and being perceived. But like you said, these things can be misunderstood when relayed in words.

              Anyway, for me – the less significance the better! So some of those “affirmation type” meditations don’t appeal to me at all.

              I’ve read, however, that different forms of meditation appeal to different people, and that makes total sense The main principle with all of them seems to be that focusing of some sort takes one out of the stream of time and thus into awareness/consciousness.

              Btw, as I read that article, I thought – this sounds just like Eckhart Tolle. And then I saw their link to an article they did about him. 😛

            15. Yes, like Caspar and MGT they have gathered all they deem good, and some appeal to me more and some less. This time, in that meditations web page, I got more fond of the references to God. I was almost surprised to see references God in eastern type meditations, but I was googling just in case I would find such a thing. So, now with 8D a bit more ‘in’ I feel a bit more complete. It’s strange that I was seeking affirmation, as I knew all that stuff beforehand. I got so excited that I sent them an e-mail just to tell them how excited I was.

            16. Oh yes, ‘no understanding’ is misunderstanding too, if you get eager to understand and put something there that doesn’t exist like ‘Spyros has a secret. Maybe…” Or maybe “He thinks he knows something…” 😛 But let me tell you that the more I try to figure some things out, analyse them, explain them, the more I abberate from them. I consider knowledge that comes from oneself better than exterior information, so I don’t think I can relay some things well enough, and I also think if somebody wants to know something, he knows. If he doesn’t, then he doesn’t. If he wants to wonder, experiment, analyse, etc he can do that too. SCN was to be tested and analysed, but one’s own cogs were not. Thus…you get it now, I hope.

            17. In SCN -being a set of theories and methods- it was asked that they should be tested for effectiveness. That makes sense. Still, my viewpoint is that the topic ‘spirit’ is much more fluid than physical sciences that are more standard. That’s because I differentiate between ‘spirit’ and the physical universe. Even some spiritualities combine those two. I don’t. Call me wrong but that’s how I see it (I’m not referring to you, M). Even with ‘spirit’ and ‘physical universe’ combined, something can be done, of course. But I don’t think it is necessary.

              I do understand the intention to avoid brainwashing by questioning everything. But understand if you start questioning even your ability to walk, or to do other ordinary things, you might find them impaired. I see vast difference between being convinced (brainwashing) and simply knowing something. I don’t think analysis is the only alternative to brainwashing.

            18. Spyros: “But let me tell you that the more I try to figure some things out, analyse them, explain them, the more I abberate from them. I consider knowledge that comes from oneself better than exterior information…”

              A few days ago someone on Marty’s posted a link to a great website, which happens to include a short article on intuition – but with a whole new perspective on it. Funny enough, I think it relates to all you wrote in the three posts above. Here’s a quote and the link:
              ——————————-
              “Consciousness on the highest level is aware of all that is. Then it undergoes degrees of focus, of self-limitation, of self-definition and may be formatted in various ways.

              “The way of intuition is knowing by feeling or through direct being ‘it’. The intellect works on knowing by representation, by manipulating symbols, breaking things down into their constituent elements and then re-synthesizing the whole.

              “The polarity that is visible in society of scientific thought vs. belief or faith – and the war between these two ideas – tends to prevent a blend or balance of both perspectives. The point we will need to stress is that intuition is also a perfectly valid way to access information.

              “It is the mission of the New Education to bring these two aspects in balance, the intuition and the intellect or what we call ex-tuition.”
              ——————————

              Btw, the owner of this site is a former scientologist by the name of Caspar de Rijk (I’ve heard of him, but that’s about all), who now thinks in terms of a “multi-viewpoint.” I think he’s our kinda guy. 😛 Explore his website a bit and see what you think.

              (Geir, you might like it too.)

            19. Yes, conviction through one way communication (with some religious groups, for example) and personal faith, that stems from ‘inside’ are not the same. Among other things, for that conviction to occur, force, punishment, or fear of (aka brainwashing), had to be used. It was not free. The person’s will was not taken into account. As if omnipotent, omnipresent God had nothing to do with each person’s will.

              But oh well, it’s all part of the game. Embrace deception too, I guess.

            20. I’m glad. I try that too.

              A little note is by ’embrace’ I mean to let it be, and not resist, deny. Not to perpetuate. I think perpetuation is accomplished by resistance, denial.

            21. *not only by resistance, and denial. But it can be a way. One could simply perpetuate to perpetuate. And that could be embraced too!

            22. I think everything can be embraced in the way that you say. One cannot swim until they jump into the water! All the considerations about wetness, temperature, lurking dangers, jumping, etc., can be embraced. Then, when they are, suddenly one is in the water and paddling about and vaguely remembering what one was worried about. Or maybe dead from drowning and I guess we should be prepared to embrace that as well!

            23. “But oh well, it’s all part of the game. Embrace deception too, I guess.”

              Spyros, you are one sharp guy- the fact that you added “I guess” to the above tells me your usual good instincts and intuition are intact, and that you don’t fully buy such ideas as “embrace deception” – which itself can be a deception!

              It’s true that a being is capable of embracing anything – inwardly, that is. But living in the physical universe requires, at times, disagreement, protest, saying NO – even putting a stop to something that isn’t right. That would include instances of deception or conflict when either of these isn’t right to embrace IN the physical universe – as determined by one’s own inner knowingness.

              I know you know all that but I just wanted to encourage you not to Q&A with your knowingness or do what you wrote in a previous post:

              “…the more I try to figure some things out, analyse them, explain them, the more I abberate from them.”

              Of course, I could be of base in my concerns – in which case feel free to disagree, protest, say NO, etc. 😉 😛

              Here’s a 10-minute video that describes in very practical terms what is truly meant by “embracing.”

            24. I don’t know if Geir meant it like that, or if others too. But I, by embrace, don’t mean to do something, nor to seek to have it other occur. There is a thing called ‘acceptance level’ which generally I would define as to not counter-create something.

              We speak of ethics, rights wrongs and how to solve problems. But if the 8th Dynamic is that which includes (embraces 😉 ) everything, from the ‘perspective’ of 8th Dynamic, there are no rights and wrongs. For ‘evil’ and other things that people don’t like, are included in the 8th Dynamic too. Sure, it is ‘wrong’ for a dog to jump off the 5th floor, as it will get crashed, but the 8th Dynamic wont break, nor will the 7th Dynamic.

              I’m not advocating an ethicless human existence, I’m just saying that out-ethics, if resisted, will persist and actually increase, for it is denial of the 8th Dynamic –it’s Source, the Source of everything, even if just theoretically. I only analyse theories. I have no ways nor appetite to prove. But for me the 8th Dynamic is not just a theory, nor an implant.

            25. Spyros, please explain what you mean by “out ethics, if resisted, will persist and actually increase.”

              Did you get that I wasn’t talking about resisting anything other than – at times – doing so in the physical universe?

            26. There is a nice paradox in accepting a conflict, as with more acceptance conflicts reduce, unless one does it fully consciously, without any ‘reasons for’. I mean if you accept, you cease to have those reasons to conflict. But you could still conflict just for the fun of it –sort of like acting (as an actor).

            27. Don’t know what your referring to, Geir. Did you think I said something like that?

            28. Correction: “Of course, I could be of base…” should be “…OFF base…”

            29. p.s. Spyros, earlier, you made some comments about God and the 8th dynamic. On Casper’s website page about “The New Education,” he gave a link to a series of articles by Dr. Noel Huntley. That website is awesome, btw, and the man talks a lot about God so I thought it might interest you. Here are a couple of paragraphs from one of his articles:

              “The whole of our educational system is formulated to create maximum left-brain development and to downgrade all right-brain activity. Over-intellectualisation of art or music will impair the right brain’s aesthetic appreciation. Religions take on a form in which the God concept is external. Objectivity of one’s God will ensure absence of contact and enlightenment.
              […]

              “The new education, plus clearing of negative patterns of information and behaviour, will enable the individual to understand true causes and see beyond the illusions or surface of reality. The withinness (to which Jesus referred) will be understood as opposed to a reality consisting only of the external world.

              “There will be a proper grasp of the notion of consciousness within consciousness, for example, the lower-self (human personality) is within the soul consciousness, which is within still higher levels, and so on to the God concept. There is only apparent separation of consciousness through structure on the lower levels—these are inner, internal fractals.”

              http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~noelh/New_Education.htm

            30. Yes, well, denial of one side of the brain and of other things, and of the 8th Dynamic are part of the 8th Dynamic too, if you consider that it indeed includes everything. So, I’m going to watch Monty Python once more.

              I’ve been giving up on philosophy more or less because of that. It’s all in the game. There is no route between the 8th Dynamic and the 8th Dynamic. That’s what I was having a hard time to explain to you long ago, when I said I considered analysis senseless. I personally feel I want more joking around, instead. But yeah analysis and heavy thinking and reactive thinking is 8th Dynamic too. So, cool. No problem. I just don’t think analysis leads to ‘Basic Truth’. That would be an achievement, and fun to watch, indeed.

            31. “There is no route between the 8th Dynamic and the 8th Dynamic. That’s what I was having a hard time to explain to you long ago, when I said I considered analysis senseless.”

              I guess I still don’t get something. My main point was that a being is capable of accepting and embracing all – and should do so (as part of their Godly beingness, we could say) – BUT, in the physical universe decisions have to be made and just accepting anything and everything would make no sense. Maybe I wasn’t clear as to what I meant by that – did you watch the video?

            32. OK, it seems we still have some misunderstanding about ‘accepting’, and ’embracing’. It makes sense considering the ramifications those words can have.

              I’m going to answer for your next message too.

              As an example you can take into consideration the conditions of existence (as- alter- not-isness etc). If somebody does something (like if he says something) and you alter it, by misunderstanding it, and then not-is it by fighting him/her (or her/him) about it, you abberate from the truth. And that can perpetuate that condition by introducing further fighting and other consequent stuff. You get that. So that is called counter-creation too. One creates something (like a communication) another doesn’t get it, he fights it etc. One gets a pain, a ‘psychological trauma’ he doesn’t get it, resists it, perpetuates it. You remember from the assists that it was mentioned that the being is not in communication with the injured part. Or in running pictures where sufficient ARC with those pictures, —that is to say acceptance of those pictures- ‘handled’ them. The same applies to interpersonal relations and other stuff in the physical universe, as the physical universe is a creation too, thus it exists. You see a guy that YOU deem evil. You fight him. You’re in trouble. You resist (fight) fighting him, you’re into more trouble.

              Ethics is self-determined for that reason, or else it is called morals. That is to say, it is up to the person to be ethical or not.

              To allow self determinism is not to not make decisions. It is to allow a self person to be self determined, just by that you allow him/her to be more ethical, as ethics is self determined.

              I didn’t watch the video as what matters now is what we consider embracing’. I would if it wasn’t 10 minutes long, but I don’t want to right now.

              Also, you mentioned my knowingness is your previous message. Consider that if 8th Dynamic is all Dynamics (including the 7th) then all Dynamics are also the 8th. From that perspective my knowingness includes the knowingness of ‘others’ too, as there aren’t any ‘others’. Another reason why resistance is silly –still part of the game.

            33. “You see a guy that YOU deem evil. You fight him. You’re in trouble. You resist (fight) fighting him, you’re into more trouble.”

              Spyros, there’s truth to the above but it isn’t the whole of truth. There is more to actual living than that – and you sometimes come across as saying “everything is equal to everything” and “nothing means anything anyway.” That view would make me spinny and put me in despair!

              I thought the video would be helpful because it isn’t just abstract analyzing – which you say you don’t like (ahem) – but gives concrete examples. Come on – it’s just 10 minutes, for pity sake. I bet you took longer than that to write a reply that doesn’t seem to me that is even on the same page I was on. 😦 😛

            34. Marildi. I didn’t tell you nor anybody else how to live you life. Without misunderstanding and resistance there wouldn’t be any life like the life we know. So, I’m going to let you think that I said something like ‘everything equal to everything’. But if you want to resolve something you can do it. Those are principles used in processing, and could (just could) be used in life too, despite what I’ve been told by people who know better, which ”better’ knowledge reflects on their causative stance with regards to the COS. Yes, DM did it all. It seems in that pdf I posted that LRH didn’t sympathize much with those theories, after all.

              Apparently, unless I play the game of analyzing I can’t respond to analysis. Or shouldn’t I just answer “I don’t think so.”? I could do that from now on.

            35. “Those are principles used in processing, and could (just could) be used in life too…”

              Of course! And IMO those principles are totally valid – always – as regards what one does in one’s own universe. However, when it comes to living in the physical universe, there are times when the right/ethical thing to do is to to say “I disagree” or “Don’t do that” or even physically put a stop to it.

              What is the stable datum for all this? The being! Because only a being can intuit what is ethical and what isn’t. I’m not saying that every being is yet up to that, which is why there are moral codes. But with regard to ethics, the basic principle holds.

              Does that make any sense to you? Or are we still having our first fight. 😛 🙂

            36. In that case you wont think I do anything wrong, if I spend some more time pointing out what some people have done wrong (out of alignment with SCN) as Scientologists, so as to repair that. Instead, I think it wont resolve much. A reason is I refer to people that have high critical sense of others and no critical sense of themselves, and who always worsen anything I say. Thus, I quit it. And anyway, I thought what I was doing was not aligned with SCN either, for the reasons I explained before. I was becoming like them, instead.

              Live and let live or live and let die. They’re self determined beings. They can dramatize freely. Why should I put myself into that and flow down their river towards the cataract? They don’t have any effect on me, unless I play along. So no, you don’t have to ‘put ethics’, I think. If you put ethics on yourself, you don’t attract such stuff, and you are freer to create what you want, instead.

              That from the viewpoint of a being. From the viewpoint of 8th Dynamic, it is for the LOLs –the nonsense of it all.

            37. No-no, I’m not saying that everything that is “wrong” has to be pointed out or have anything else done about it. Not at all! The majority of the time, one should let it go – accept it, both inwardly and outwardly. I’m just saying that there are certain times when something should be said or done.

              And it’s true that when you try – even with good will – to straighten out someone’s misunderstanding, it can only make matters worse. Believe me, I have reality on that! However, I didn’t even have scientology specifically in mind. I was speaking in general.

              You wrote:

              “If you put ethics on yourself, you don’t attract such stuff, and you are freer to create what you want, instead.That from the viewpoint of a being. From the viewpoint of 8th Dynamic, it is for the LOLs –the nonsense of it all.”

              Lots of truth to that too. I still haven’t quite got it perfected, however, LOL. 😀 How are you doing with it? (Not meant in sarcasm!)

            38. I think to hold on to a viewpoint has much to do with charge. Sometimes I rant or protest against something that is seemingly against my beliefs (of that moment) then I look at it again, and somewhat laugh at myself for having been so upset over nothing.

              Even the most outrageous things are not to be ranted against if you consider the pretense of being a separate individual body as well as the pretense of being a separate individual being, and above that having problems you never had, as somebody else. Get it better now?

            39. And I’m not confused to want stable data. I try to learn things closer to truth all the time. And I change my mindframe often too. And thus I’m more fluid. And you might find that I say contradictory things from time to time. I know. But it’s part of my journey. What’s the point in discussing if we hold on tight on our right data and not accept anything new, to go on being right? I can take another viewpoint in one moment (consciously) if I want to. I could tell and even proove to you completely different things. But my goal is to be closer to that which approximates truth the most. For me absolute truth is not the being, if you mean that. It is 8th Dynamic that beings are included in. And yeah that can be applied in life too. If one can’t doesn’t mean another can’t.

            40. Wow, I’m glad I asked! I should never have doubted you. Who could ask for more than what you wrote above. I’m with you! 🙂

              And I think you have more reality on the 8th dynamic than I do so far. 😛

            41. Sorry, I meant to think you HAVE to have a certain viewpoint is related to charge, not to be able to hold on to it.

              No, I don’t have more reality on the 8th Dynamic.

              What do you mean doubt me. Doubt what?

            42. This appropriate definition of doubt: “to lack confidence in.” 😉

              Which I shouldn’t have done. 😛

              And it doesn’t have to do with whether or not the person has everything right, or is perfect, or anything like that – it’s their attitude, mostly, that I’m talking about. Their willingness – as well as their ability to perceive truth. So you are doing just fine in my “book,” like I always thought. You and I can continue to stumble along together on our way to the 8th dynamic. 😀

              I really liked this comm cycle with you today, Spyros! I call it true communication. 🙂

              Damn, I have to get going soon, but is there anything you would like to say or ask before I do? 😉 😛

            43. Thank you. But I’m sorry, when it comes to such philosophical matters, I have been gravely wrong, which reflects or reflected in my life too. I try to learn better, so maybe that is indeed a stable datum and another is that my goals in philosophy are aligned with the 8th dynamic and with as-isness and absolute freedom.

              I could take the viewpoint of a neuroscientist and explain to you how all we have been talking about is delusional results of chemical imbalances in our brains and also prove it. But it’s just not aligned with my philosophical goals. If my main goal becomes to fit in, make money, feel good, have fun, get real or something else, the rest about my talk will change too. Until then the changes are aligned with what I said before. But I change during my journey, you’re doubt me, and even assist me along the way.

              Thank you back and CU soon –potentially 😛

            44. “…I have been gravely wrong, which reflects or reflected in my life too. I try to learn better, so maybe that is indeed a stable datum and another is that my goals in philosophy are aligned with the 8th dynamic and with as-isness and absolute freedom…But I change during my journey, you’re doubt me, and even assist me along the way.”

              Like I said – what more could be asked of someone than their good will and their intention towards truth?

              “…CU soon – potentially 😛 ”

              You better. Or there will be hell to pay for the little Greek devil. 😛

            45. We Americans dare to trifle. :mrgreen:

              .

              The Devil went down to Georgia. He was lookin’ for a soul to steal.
              He was in a bind ’cause he was way behind. He was willing to make a deal
              When he came across this young man sawin’ on a fiddle and playin’ it hot.
              And the Devil jumped upon a hickory stump and said “Boy, let me tell you what.”

              “I guess you didn’t know it, but I’m a fiddle player, too.
              And if you’d care to take a dare I’ll make a bet with you.
              Now you play a pretty good fiddle, boy, but give the Devil his due.
              I’ll bet a fiddle of gold against your soul ’cause I think I’m better than you.”

              The boy said, “My name’s Johnny, and it might be a sin,
              But I’ll take your bet; and you’re gonna regret ’cause I’m the best there’s ever been.”

              Johnny, rosin up your bow and play your fiddle hard.
              ‘Cause Hell’s broke loose in Georgia and the Devil deals it hard.
              And if you win you get this shiny fiddle made of gold,
              But if you lose the devil gets your soul.

              The Devil opened up his case and he said, “I’ll start this show.”
              And fire flew from his fingertips as he rosined up his bow.
              And he pulled his bow across the strings and it made an evil hiss.
              And a band of demons joined in and it sounded something like this.

              When the Devil finished, Johnny said, “Well, you’re pretty good ol’ son,
              But sit down in that chair right there I’m gonna show you how it’s done.”

              “Fire on the Mountain.” Run, boys, run!
              The Devil’s in the house of the rising sun;
              Chicken’s in the bread pan picking out dough.
              Granny, does your dog bite? No, child, no.

              The Devil bowed his head because he knew that he’d been beat.
              And he laid that golden fiddle on the ground at Johnny’s feet.
              Johnny said, “Devil, just come on back if you ever wanna try again,
              I done told you once—you son of a bitch—I’m the best that’s ever been.”
              And he played:

              “Fire on the Mountain.” Run, boys, run!
              The Devil’s in the house of the rising sun;
              Chicken’s in the bread pan picking out dough.
              Granny, will your dog bite? No, child, no.

            46. Funny lyrics.

              That topic about acceptance like other topics (God etc) can be strange to discuss, as while two might think they talk about the same thing, they might actually talk about opposite things. I just saw for example that some employers now with the ‘crisis’ want to offer tickets (for buses etc) instead of pay. A true christian would tell me to turn the other cheek, and psychology would tell me I have a complex if I openly disagreed. Others might tell me to fight fight fight… but to no end –history has proved it never ended, at least not for long times.

              The point is to not have that condition if you not want it, and none of the above offer that, in my opinion. So the solution is responsibility –that’s the kind of acceptance I refer to. In responsibility you don’t swallow nor do you fight. See black panther mechanism.

              Cheers

            47. Sadly some other spiritualities I have come across, operate on a similar level as that –accept=agree with, swallow. And of course they want to make you feel ‘good’ about it too. It can’t get crazier than to have your will flattened and feel good about it. It reminds me of that psycho clown in some movies who kills happily, you know. And sadly, I have seen ‘theta’ and ‘entheta’ being used in a similar manner by some Scientologists, too. If you don’t agree and be uptone about shit, it’s ‘entheta’, you know. None of those asks do you actually agree with yourself, unless they want to make you feel guilty for overts, as if denying yourself is not an overt.

            48. Spyros, my last post above didn’t show up at first, only after I refreshed the screen, so in case you didn’t get an email notification, hopefully this one will notify you.

            49. Oh, and I should add that while disagreeing outwardly, the being is still accepting inwardly, just as you pointed out. (If you had bothered to watch the video, you would already have gathered that. 😉 😛 )

            50. For me Marildi there is Scientology the theory and what I can understand about it, which could also be aligned with other spiritualities or topics, and there is also the Scientology as theory, practice and group or groups and what the average view of Scientology theory is about. I wanted to disassociate myself from the second, as I don’t agree with significant stuff, nor did I agree as a member, and thus I couldn’t cooperate for long, as our disagreements became significant too. I’m not going to explain again. Just letting it be. As far as I’m concerned, they can do what they want. They will reap the joys and consequences of what they do, themselves. I don’t want to play along. It isn’t that I don’t care, I just can’t join. And I don’t want to be their critic either.

              If it is formless, how come Tolle calls it an ‘inner body’? I need a more precise definition, to fully grasp it.

              p.s. I got what you said about your stance with regard to scientology, and I pretty much feel the same as you. But if someone is sincerely interested in discussing any part of the theory and practice as contained in the materials, I might be interested too. It could depend on the person, though. You and I, for example, do fine together as neither of us has a real “must have” on it one way or another. 😉 😛

            51. Sure, I could talk with similar people, why not. And I could argue with different ones too, why not. The problem is not an honest argument. In integrity you can express disagreements too. The problem is when one cannot have a disagreement expressed, and simply have it, without feeling hatred, for nothing, instead of simply offering his own point of view in exchange, so as to have a talk.

              I don’t like such talks, as I don’t want to spend the rest of my days hating too. I’m usually quite peaceful, if you get to know me in person, but such attitude really gets on my nerves, although still I rarely hold it as a grudge. I’m more like “leave me alone” in such situations. That’s why.

            52. By ‘hate’ I don’t mean necessarily hostility, but mocking, making fun of, belittling I consider hateful too.

            53. Spyros, sorry about where I included your whole post before I wrote my p.s. comment. I usually put the post I’m replying to in the reply box so I can refer to it as I write, but then I delete it before I push the send button – which I forgot to do!

              Anyway, I’ve been too much in a rush because I need to leave now for a while. I’ll get back to your other comments tomorrow, though. 😛

      2. *Just hinting something about capitalism that I think started as something, and became something else. I don’t really take it all that seriously. Actually, although I cannot express it through computer fonts adequately, I think it’s funny how I hear stuff like “The more you work the more you succeed” etc while on the same time, most people know that ‘working class’ is always the poor class. And by some SCNists too I’ve been told similar stuff about work ethics. I don’t feel guilty about work. If I could lazy my days away while having money, I would feel fine and invent many things to do, like I do, anyway. If I took welfare I wouldn’t feel guilty either. If it’s fair for somebody to inherit a big corporation, and make money by maybe making a few deals every once in a while, and other than that nothing, it’s fair for others to take welfare too. Both conditions are unfair. But if the financial system was fair, the lame wouldn’t have any money, and that would be sad.

        So, anyway, I can’t but laugh at political discussions and the solutions I see proposed. Sorry but the question for me isn’t whether the ‘social security’ should confiscate 35% or 40% of my salary so I will start getting bits of it before I die. I just sometimes point out the nationalities too to make others laugh too. I must agree with Hubbard in “If you want an empty larder, tell yourself you must work harder”.

  3. That drive towards conflict of which you speak is the surest sign of the ubiquity of irrationality in human populations.

    The prevalence of “adrenaline addiction” is another manifestation of this. It makes a certain sense as a non-rational biological driver of evolution. As drugs achieve their effects by excitation and suppression of existent biochemical systems in the body that verifies the presence of such addictive biological mechanisms as an innate part of the organism.

    Such innate biological drivers of behavior can be seen to impart an evolutionary advantage for non-reasoning organisms, however its functionality becomes disadvantageous with the development of the capacity of reason as a driver for behavior.

    Adrenaline is a by nature a cheap high. Those people who by nature lack are lacking a contemplative or thoughtful character are easily distracted by external stimuli and accordingly respond to the excitement and action implicit in conflict without a full appreciation or even an acknowledgement of the consequences of their mindsets or actions.

    All times & places attest to this phenomena. What has also been apparent although not nearly as prevalent generally, has been the continuity of attempts by some few individuals in every culture throughout history to supplant that predominant pattern of preoccupation with conflict within their own nation’s through development and pursuit of more thoughtful and cooperative strategies of living.

    It has even been suggested that thoughtful cooperation has been the principle driver of human development, not conflict, despite the overwhelming preoccupation with the latter principle. It’s a plausible argument as cooperation allows for building on prior successes and planning for uncertain futures, whereas continual conflict simply promotes disorder and further disruptive influences.

    If so, then conflict would be seen to have served more as a brake to human development than as its engine.

  4. Geir, how do you reconcile this idea of embracing conflicts with your other philosophy of “letting go”?

  5. That, I like! But your post seemed to be saying something else, such as the example you gave of the Irish – who did not exactly use passive resistance with the British. And yet, you made it sound unfortunate that they are no longer actively resisting. What am I missing?

    1. Action and challenges is an important part of any game. One can get stuck in a game, and to unstick oneself, one can let go. Letting go completely would be undesirable it seems.

      1. What about the idea that the important thing is the TYPE of game being played in the first place? Listen to about 5 minutes of this talk, starting at 5:20, when a question is asked Eckhart Tolle, regarding how the human species is currently evolving.

        He says the old species will no longer be capable of surviving unless it changes – and that the new species no longer needs enemies, conflict or drama. He also references the Buddha, and ends by saying that we CAN live in harmony. See what you think (Geir et al.) :

          1. me too…it is not the words…once one can ‘tune into’ that pure

            energy ( ! ) underlying the words and stay with that, that is

            what ‘waking up’ means….that energy ‘wakes up’ and when it is

            getting more and more ‘realized’ in a person’s life, the outcoming

            actions will be more and more in harmony with what ‘is’ and will

            also manifest ‘new’ is-nesses and that is Change ….

            1. Yes, as he says words are merely a pointer. Of course Tolle is just relaying ancient wisdom but he has a special way of conveying it. I found Power of Now to be very meditative and A New Earth goes even deeper into the ego and has many gems in it.

  6. “Perhaps what most people want is the wanting of a goal and not the goal itself.”

    Perhaps “wanting” is an human abstraction for the natural physical forces that we feel. “Hunger” is like this. So is loneliness. Previously, when you wrote that post asking whether any quality could not be quantified, that kind of stuck with me and I’ve been comparing that ever since and come to the conclusion that yes, any quality can be quantified.

      1. Does it help you to give it a label? It’s ok with me if you do. What about the precise things that I said. Is there any way that you can get the idea of what I wrote? Do you understand what I wrote even if you don’t agree with it?

      2. To clarify, I am paring away what seems unnecessary to see what can be let go and have conditions remain status quo. If I succeed, then I feel ok with dropping out that chaff such as anthropomorphic gods for an example. So I ask what do we know about in everyday life, things like gravity, whatever, that can satisfy these human feelings that we have rather than resort to inventing rationalizations. So what do we know about the qualities of things which can be quantified? You can call me a Marxist as well, and I might be, but that doesn’t really move the discussion along toward a meeting of our minds.

        1. I simply used a word that communicated the concept I got from you.

          “Materialist” is defined as “an adherent of philosophical materialism,” and the philosophy definition of “materialism” is “the doctrine that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications.”

          In the first comment, you wrote that you have “come to the conclusion that yes, any quality can be quantified.” To me, that fit the above definition. But if you don’t see it that way, why not “move the discussion along” and clarify how that “label” isn’t correct.

          You may have tried to do so in the above comment – and I do get what you mean about “paring away what seems unnecessary,” which happens to be to my liking. However, I still don’t see how the view you expressed is not materialistic. Over to you…

      3. I slept on it, then opened the dictionary and realized that I don’t believe in materialism, so I guess I am not a materialist. On the other hand, I found some other labels that were interesting. Let’s compare Hubbard to the following: “delusionist

        Someone who is a master of their own delusions to the point where they exist in the dual planes of true and false realities, often exhibiting extreme mood swings resulting from the conflicts of planar coexistence and living in an impenetrable state of constant denial. The delusionist often has a hard time interpreting non-verbal communication, and in some extreme cases, straight-forward verbal communication, when it contradicts their false reality. Along with their failure to take even the most obvious of hints, they often have a high opinion of themselves and are obsessed with keeping their ego over-inflated to compensate for their numerous inadequacies. In an effort to illustrate some degree of normalcy, and to offset his or her frequent visitations to the false reality when relating to a particular subject matter, the delusionist will have a tendency to point out and/or over-emphasize any incident or situation that is merely a mediocrity in the true reality.”

        Another is “antifragile” briefly defined as “gaining from disorder.” Hubbard was anything but antifragile. The least things set him off like a rocket. But I do feel he was a delusionist. How about you?

        1. Interesting. Hubbard tried desperately to construct the “perfectly machined organization” with elaborate mechanisms and set structures to make it imperishable. With little or no trust in people and with over-inflated trust in The System. Such mechanical systems are bound to fail for the very reason that they lack anti-fragility.

          1. Geir, JFYI, your comment above is one of several in the last few days that I didn’t get an email notification of. Can you fix this somehow?

            1. Thanks. Btw, it hasn’t been just your posts – others too. Strange.

        2. LOL, not your smoothest segue, Or was that a pitiful effort at throwing a Red Herring? 😛

          Seriously, one topic at a time! (Meanwhile, though, you might want to open the dictionary and look at “obsessed.” 😀 )

          To complete the topic at hand, please explain to me how the consideration that everything boils down to quantities differs from materialism.

            1. Yes, thetans can be counted. Theta itself has “no mass, no wave-length, no energy and no time or location in space except by consideration or postulate” – and thus is not countable Thetans, on the other hand, are beings which operate in the physical universe, having assumed a view-POINT, and consider themselves to be integrated with MEST.

              To me, the fact that people recognize thetans apart from their having a body or no body is evidence that there is some kind of energy manifestation – one that is recognizable. Or, as Ron described it, thetans are “in a very, very small amount of mass.” (PDC)

              However, knowingness and creative ability – these things reside in theta itself and are “outside” the physical universe of quantities.

            2. What is this, Geir, the Socratic method? 🙂

              Tell me what you’re getting at. I’ve already given my viewpoint – which is that, even if the thetan is BEing a very, very small amount of mass (if you want to word it that way), there is more to it than that. The thetan is an observer. It can perceive and understand in a way that is different from what the fanciest computer can do.

              Do you view it differently?

            3. I am simply truing to figure out the out here. So, a Thetan is materialistic since it is quantifiable while Theta is not?

            4. A thetan is not entirely quantifiable, as I keep saying. How many different ways do you want me to express that? 🙄

              Now, how about you sharing your views. Enough of the twenty questions game already. 🙂

            5. Let’s settle this first. The fact that one could quantify the number of Thetan on a pinhead makes that part of the equation materialistic, no?

            6. One last comment before I call it a day.

              The significant thing in this topic is that thetans have the ability to have considerations. They can consider. That is the key thing that makes them different from the material.

              As for the old angels on a pin debate, thetans could consider themselves to be in the same space as an infinite number of other thetans. And so it would be.

              Nighty-night.

            7. That would only be consistent with them being quantifiable due to them being (a very, very tiny) mass if that mass is in fact bosonic (although that would render another axiom false)

            8. Okay, Geir, I see what you were getting at. I just looked at the Wikipedia article on “boson” and found this:

              “An important characteristic of bosons is that their statistics do not restrict the number of them that occupy the same quantum state.”

              So then I looked up “quantum state” and read this:

              “Before a particular measurement is performed on a quantum system, the theory usually gives only a probability distribution for the outcome…

              “…we cannot prepare a state such that both the position measurement Q(t) and the momentum measurement P(t) (at the same time t) are known exactly; at least one of them will have a range of possible values.[a] This is the content of the Heisenberg uncertainty relation.”

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

              It seems that the above – specifically, “a range of possible values” – indicates the Axiom you alluded to still stands:

              AXIOM 12. The primary condition of any universe is that two spaces, energies, or objects must not occupy the same space. When this condition is violated (perfect duplicate), the apparency of any universe or any part there-of is nulled.

            9. No, it doesn’t – because it specifically states that there is a distinct possibility that two bosons can occupy the same space given that there is a probability distribution that overlaps.

            10. Well, this is above my pay grade, that’s for sure! But just for fun, would you give the exact quote for me?

            11. There is no exact quote that would distil this area of QM down to your pay grade 😉 You would actually need to study up on QM/particle physics to get this.

              Although it is kinda telling that you would off the cuff attempt a vindication of that axiom without knowing the slightest bit of what you were arguing.

            12. As I said, I don’t claim to know the subject but you got me interested – especially since I already learned (right here on this blog, from you!) about the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and that was what I had in mind. However, I was entirely prepared to say LRH didn’t have it right on this point (honestly), but what I read seemed to indicate otherwise.

              I’m just asking you to quote what it “specifically states” in that article, so I can take another look at it.

            13. Here (first answer): http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24389/why-cant-two-or-more-objects-exist-at-the-same-place-at-the-same-time

              “Bosons however can be completely identical and have no problem sharing the same space with as many other bosons as you please. You can stuff as much light into a box as you want, and the box will never get full.” (http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/largehadroncolliderfaq/some-technical-concepts/fermions-and-bosons/)

              Etc.

              And as that axiom is false, there are some major ramifications to the rest of the axioms and to the tech in general (like duplication in auditing, creative processing and more).

            14. OMG, that is so funny! After my last reply to you, I did a Google search too and found something on that same website!

              It seems that there are differences of opinion about bosons. In answer to the question of what keeps them from occupying the same location, one person wrote the following:

              “…no particle has a precisely defined position. Remember that when we get down to the sizes of atoms etc particles don’t have a position. They are described by a wavefunction that may be localised in space to some extent but never localised down to a single point. As dmckee says, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle prevents a particle from being localised down to a point, unless that is you’re prepared to allow the momentum to become infinitely uncertain in which case the whole thing turns into a black hole!”

              http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/59929/what-prevents-bosons-from-occupying-the-same-location

            15. You need to understand what the wavefunction is and the probabilistic nature of particles and what that means. It does mean there is the distinct probability that bosons can occupy the same space. Like two helium nuclei. Hubbard was dead wrong in that axiom. No more teacher-student here. You do the complete research before you keep jumping up and down with eagerness hoping to vindicate LRH and this axiom. The thing that might motivate you to – in any possible way imaginable – to keep on a relentless path of vindicating him and his axiom is this: You will not like the consequences that admitting this axiom is false will have on the rest of the tech. And when people don’t like the solution, they tend to discredit the problem: http://rss.slashdot.org/~r/Slashdot/slashdot/~3/6BYGae3QJZw/story01.htm

            16. “…the distinct probability that bosons can occupy the same space.”

              So far, then, I guess it is just a “probability.” That hardly justifies the claim that Hubbard was “dead wrong.” That would be rather a premature conclusion, wouldn’t it?

              Btw, when I look over this exchange, it seems to me that you are the one who “keeps jumping up and down with eagerness” hoping to prove that axiom wrong – and that you originated the comm cycle with that in mind. I actually don’t have a problem with that – I was having fun with the back and forth.

              Next time, you should do the same, Geir, and just have some fun with it. Or are you afraid that “you will not like the consequences” of admitting Hubbard was right? 🙂

              I’ll get back later to the other comments you just posted. Meanwhile, have a good night, O sparring partner of mine.

              Btw, I saw aotc posted a comment on this thread. I remember he said that he likes our bickering. 😀

            17. Hubbard claims that there is no probability of two objects occupying the same space whereas in reality there IS a probability that they can, and hence given time, they will. And they have if you do some research on photon-photon scattering. The difference in this discussion is that I know this shit and you have no clue.

            18. I think Marildi enjoys the bickering as well, I know I do. Without her garrulous counterpoint these debates would become watered down, non seq and mild stroking back and forth. She makes me and has made me think about every single Scientology datum that I knew by heart or extreme familiarity and made me challenge my previous stable data as pertains to Scientology, other religions, and ideologies in general… Many of you on this blog have challenged me in this way and I thank you. Geir has provided a neutral playground and thought provoking posts where any of us can pretty much say anything that comes to mind and explore for ourselves without overt interference or censor. This has been and is a very beneficial thing for me.

            19. Wow, Chris, you’re in a good mood today! I’d even go so far as to say you’ve made up for Geir’s apparently not-so-good mood. 🙄

              But I agree with your comments about this playground of his. It’s still the most homey one I know of, due in large part to just what you said: “any of us can pretty much say anything that comes to mind and explore for ourselves without overt interference or censor.”

              Geir deserves credit for that. So he’s still not in the red in my bookkeeping ledgers. Even after today. 😉

            20. A probability, by definition, is not a foregone conclusion. So the question is still not definitively resolved.

              And incidentally, someone who knows their shit should be able to calmly state it in simple terms to anybody, even us ignoramuses, without having to fall back on the logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority (assuming that you are one, as you assert) – and to do so without getting their knickers in a twist!

              For crissakes, Geir, you must have been up too late and downright grumpy in this exchange, because I know you can do better.

            21. Btw, I saw aotc posted a comment on this thread. I remember he said that he likes our bickering. 😀

              I like it too. I am embracing it!

            22. “Classic Gershwin tune from the 1994 cd ‘Mystery Lady – Songs of Billie Holiday’. Great sax work by jazz and r&b legend ‘Red’ Holloway.”

            23. That’s an excellent link that expresses the importance of confirmation bias as it pertains to the efficiency of problem solving. Marildi, how do you feel that embracing the conflict can be applied by all of us to this string of contentious posts?

            24. As dmckee says, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle prevents a particle from being localised down to a point, . . .

              Therefore, Hubbard cannot have certainty, cannot correctly write an axiom expressing the converse that two objects cannot occupy the same space because according to this particular particle view, the particles cannot be localized enough to ascertain if they were ever in the same place. He could not know this according to Heisenberg, correct?

            25. Chris, don’t look now but your entrenched biases are showing. 😳

              To wit – the belief you have that unless there is objective proof, then it (whatever) can’t possibly be true.

              Simple logic tells me that “it” may or may not be be true – unless there is proof that it isn’t (true). And with respect to Axiom 12 – as of yet, there is no definitive proof that it is not true. It may or may not be. Can you embrace that? 🙂

            26. “They can consider. That is the key thing that makes them different from the material.”

              Is there a particular reason to consider that considerations are not material? Does the emeter not react to a material phenomena?

            27. I would agree that considerations are material in that they are energy manifestations. And yes, the meter reacts to material phenomena. But there is more to it than that. The following is from *Understanding the E-meter*:

              “…the E-Meter is an interlocking device along with the electronics of the bank.

              “In the bank, you have a sheet of energy made out of electricity, and when you pass a current of electricity near the thing, it will monitor the current of electricity.

              “Life has the ability to register an impingement and to retain it or duplicate it. Life has that ability, and that is all that the meter measures.

              “The meter is simply measuring reactions to impingements in life.”

              Note this particular definition of “life” from the Tech Dictionary:

              LIFE…3 . a static, which yet has the power of controlling, animating, mobilizing, organizing and destroying matter, energy and space, and possibly even time. (HFP)

            28. “In the bank, you have a sheet of energy made out of electricity, and when you pass a current of electricity near the thing, it will monitor the current of electricity.”

              Please explain this sentence to me.

            29. “Life has the ability to register an impingement and to retain it or duplicate it. Life has that ability, and that is all that the meter measures.”

              Life is a static. “a” Static to me, means one. Is this what it means to you?

            30. Definition of the word “a”:

              “used to indicate membership of a class of people or things. Example: ‘he is a lawyer’.”

              And, in anticipation of your reply – yes, there can be many statics, even an infinite number of them. I see no reason why not.

            31. “The meter is simply measuring reactions to impingements in life.”

              Does it make sense to you that a static can be impinged upon?

            32. Aw, sorry, Chris. I see now that I should have pointed out a different definition of “life” than the one I did. Here’s more context for the meaning, quoted from the same book (UEM):

              “The physical universe as we know it consists of just four parts: Matter
              Energy
              Space
              Time

              “We know these as a coined word, MEST. We would not include theta as an integral portion although theta obviously impinges on it as Life.”
              .

              And from the Tech Dictionary:

              LIFE…2. a fundamental axiom of Dn is that life is formed by theta compounding with mest to make a living organism. Life is theta plus mest. (SOS)

            33. LIFE…3 . a static, which yet has the power of controlling, animating, mobilizing, organizing and destroying matter, energy and space, and possibly even time. (HFP)

              ex·ist

              iɡˈzist/

              verb 3rd person present: exists

              1.

              have objective reality or being. “remains of these baths still exist on the south side of the Pantheon”

              synonyms: live, be alive, be living; More

              2.

              live, especially under adverse conditions. “how am I going to exist without you?”

              synonyms: survive, subsist, live, support oneself; More

              Marildi, Can you reconcile these two definitions? If so, please help me.

            34. I don’t understand the question, or exactly what your problem is with those two definitions.

            35. Marildi – I find the exchanges funny and interesting. I think last Christmas you had a extra special bicker 🙂 It should be a tradition on the blog – Geir and Marilid’s festive face off!!

            36. aotc, I remember that extra special bicker – I guess we were in the Christmas spirit. 😀

              Glad you still appreciate our exchanges. I liked how you phrased it: “Geir and Marildi’s festive face off!!

              Yes, it can be festive and a lot of fun (with lots of chuckles behind the scenes, that I don’t ever admit to Geir. 😉 )

              And your input is always interesting too! Do more!

  7. It’s like we’re all trapped in a convergence, we work our whole lives to improve to what end? we don’t know, when we get close we get really bored of it.

    Not to change the subject but I was listening to Neil on http://www.startalkradio.net/ talking about gravity and he starts to get philosophical.

    Answering questions about gravity, we have no clue what it is, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton

    So the theory is the universe is expanding, planets in equilibrium, by a force we call gravity which we have no clue about and can’t measure yet, same goes for ourselves.

    Inward, and outward, it’s a circular balance that ends in mystery on both ends.

    LIFE IS GOOFY!

  8. Regarding IRA: “With less to fight for, with less to die for…” Question is, how did present generation of young Irish came out at this point? Did they become “tired” to fight for an ancient goal, are they prisoners of some kind of mind globalization, are they simply looking to the future more than the the past?

    1. I do think tiredness played a part. And the fight wasn’t really going anywhere. With the British resources and advancement in technology, I believe they were bound to lose in the end. But they did win important political ground with the Good Friday Agreement.

      1. It makes sense what you say. Exactly like Scotland…”we want independence, but money are still coming from London”.

          1. Absolutely. I’m curious if in the near future will prevail the old national dream or (an eventual) financial safety.

        1. Occchhh! Noooo y’ve starrrted doooon a blettthherrrin’ cul-de-saccchh, laddie. Begorrrrahhh! @&%^$!** !!!

          1. Oh-oh – next it’ll be the Scots and the Irish in conflict. Or maybe the Scots and the Romanians. 👿

            1. Whittttttt??? Ah’ll hav’ y’ knoooo, weeee lassssie, tha’s n’ auldddd dirrrrty tricccckk fr’mmm the Sassenaccchhs. (Englishhh!) — Divaaayde n’ conquerrrrr! Ah’m no’ bay’nnn’ i’ !!!

              —- Nooooo, Wherrrrre’d y’ puuuute m’ bo’tllle a’ Johnnnni Walkerrrr’s, ???????

  9. Great OP Geir. Also must have been an interesting get-together, ‘stressing’ the assorted concerns. Pretty handy to have rocked up with your take on ‘Anti-Fragility’, to fuel your angle, not so?

    Sigh..whichever way we rattle this thing around, what is NOW clear for me, is that from the moment of conception, there is always this either hidden, cloudy, or clear imperative. called…… “A PURPOSE”. 🙂

      1. Excellent, Sis’. Profoundly shared by Adya, as always. Of course, this always leads us back to the primary BE-ing, behind the innumerable pile of ‘add-ons’ we consider necessary, for our continued existence.

        What’s truly incredible, is that the whole enchilada , may turn out to be nothing more than a ‘sick’ joke, that we’re playing on ourselves? Anyone care for a mystery sandwich ?? LOL 🙂

  10. Geir, perhaps you or someone there, mentioned the influence of global communications (the ‘net), having had a major impact on world events, as well as upon the activities of various leadahs and their protagonists?

    Interesting, in that regard, that there are currently public protests underway in Hungary, over plans to foist tax upon currently ‘free’ internet usage. That, smacks of cause for real concern, imo.

    From the various concerns that have filtered down, over a ‘coming’ One World government, and its designs to obliterate, or ERASE 95% of the world’s population, leaving a manageable number of ‘slaves’ to toil as labor, we find ourselves asking:

    At the end of the day, exactly WHAT is ‘it’, that needs to be ERASED, to tidy up the toxic playground, we alone have created for ourselves?

    1. Ahoy mr Aussie. Do you remember in Star Wars that concept that there should balance in the force, between the light and dark side? I think the internet is a very potentially fortunate thing that counters plans for an unmovable world government, an unfortunate thing. I’m so glad to be able to talk with people that I otherwise couldn’t, through the internet. And no, I don’t think that talking through the internet means you can’t talk without it. I see it as broadening your horizons. I’m in Greece, how could I talk to people in Australia without it?

      But I also think both the internet and globalization can (potentially) be good and bad, depending on how they are interpreted and used. I think to unite people can be good. To enforce unity, not that good. You don’t put two angry cats in the same box, not even if only one is angry, because the other will go mad too.

      I also think that no matter how far this goes, it will not go to the end. I mean some global slavery is not going to exist. Hard times can exist here and there but not to an ultimate end. It is like when you spin and bounce against some problem and at some point you are like “What problem?”. Has it happened to you? It is being cooked right now, like the opposite is being cooked too. Problem: Two equal forces that collide. On one hand you have greater peace than ever on the other a threat for global slavery… And you get more of one pole when you view from the opposite pole…But ‘the Force; is both poles, and all poles there can be and no poles at all.

      1. Hey Spyros. Just to straighten out the facts for you. Though I do have Aussie blood running through the veins, (via paternal Grandad), The other blood is Irish (via maternal Grandma) 🙂

        I’m actually ‘South African’ via both parents! ( And married to my Scottish wife, of 41 years,)

        Very interesting, hearing your views, Spyros, especially in the light of conditions that I’m aware of, taking place globally.

        That globalization, is and has been underway, for some time, is simply the consequence of facilitating instantaneous planet wide comm. Ergo (therefore) “What I want, I get, because someone, somewhere can/will provide ‘it’, that not only looks better, goes faster, etc, etc, at a better price NOW! ( today’s business trade)

        Yep, unfortunately, though it may be unpalatable to some, as Geir has boldly said: “Embrace conflict” since at least you are then mentally confronting ‘it’,—by choice! – (put’s you back at “cause.”, rather than placing you at “effect!”)

        Speaking of conflict, I don’t think there is any greater attention hogging ‘microcosm’ of this anywhere, than the 3,000 + year old
        Jewish / Palestinian territory dispute over Israel.

        That’s one hellava long time in anybody’s book! Truces, when they were drawn, have not resulted in any lasting peace, despite engaging some of the brightest, most powerful ‘negotiatiors’, in history. Perhaps reason to fall back on “the 3rd, party law”
        ‘data’ for the cause?

        The bigger picture, of course, allows for a different, rather callous, view, — Simply, ‘predators’ in pursuit of ‘prey’ That ominous “Big Brother is watching you” — No doubt, ‘he’ is t

        I don’t believe for a moment, for example, that the US government, and others and their covert agencies, are simply turning a blind eye to the Miscavige atrocities. More likely, (as another poster alluded to, recently), Miscavige is allowed to operate with impunity (immunity), from prosecution, as a means for a deliberate study in the effectiveness of his covert slave-making methods, and therefore by extension, experimentation of future population control.

        Whoa, there Gironimo! Enough of the doom ‘n gloom down here in the dumps! What say we head up the mountain, for a bit of fresh air hey? A change in the atmosphere is good for the lungs, n’ good for the SOUL !!!!
        —Giddyup! boy!

        Ahhh… that’s better! So then anyways, how DO we balance the ‘bad’ with the ‘good’ ?

        Why, with your global awareness network (Internet), of course!

        Being fully exposed, on a wide front, is the most formidable adversary that an ALL-conquering ruler/dictator is called upon to face!! 🙂

        1. correction: “Israel”, (a 1948, British declared Jewish ‘homeland’, formalized, to include the city of Jerusalem — central to the ongoing conflict in claims of rightful occupation.)

        2. Sorry, you’re in S. Africa. I got confused. Well, an English speaking colony nevertheless –with a bit of Dutch, right?

          I think if we engage to fight all the bad guys, we will do nothing more and we will wind up being bad guys ourselves. I’m done with that. I’ve done it too much, for my intentions. And I think a conflict between the indies and the COS people is not good either, if you consider the chasm it creates. Who would benefit from that chasm, the indies or the COS people? What was needed was understanding between all parties, not further disconnection.

          The slavery you referred to before, seems to be the history of the earth of the past 2000 years or so –nothing new. Just different technology now. And then, no Genghis Khan, Julius, Alexander etc managed to conquer it all. And it seems to be they only conquered during times of decadence of the conquered people too. If you’re free you cannot be enslaved, I think. So, we enhance the freer ones, and not fight the rest. That’s the kind of balance that is needed, I think.

          My own country here got slapped hard by a financial thingy, but you know I’m not surprised. It would be surprising if the economy thrived. The barbaric countries suffer financially the most too, I have noticed. Simply if the people go down a dark path, don’t want to move on. They stop themselves. One brings the other. So, enhance the positive. 🙂

          1. Some great observations there Spyros! 🙂 It goes without saying, of course, that the current woes besetting your own home country, (Greece), along with Italy and many other troubled lands, appear to be caught up in that all too common quagmire caused by the (deliberate?) State failures to don and actually wear their expected HATS, to just remain FACILITATORS of sound family values, including spiritual, as well as education, productivity, and the REWARD of industriousness on the one hand and on the other, discouragement, and clear and severe PENALIZING of graft, corruption, and criminality!! ie The good old fashioned message of “There are NO free rides, bub, work your ass off, or take a hike!”

            The success of China, India, and other progressive countries, at least focus on productivity, (A means to better morale), and are not held to ransom by crippling trade unions, that squeeze the life out of businesses, who are the actual creators of and sustain employment, if permitted to pay wages they can afford.

            But enough of my feeble babbling! I feel it is only proper and would be really charitable and really interesting, if Geir himself, were to take up a bit more (expand on), what he learned during his attendance of the KPMG Executive Conference, in Oslo. Would you also like to hear more, Spyros (and all here too?)

            Geir? 🙂

            1. Just to clear this up because I hear it often: The stories about people that got paid and didn’t work are partially true. They were mostly friends of politicians that were offered those posts so to vote for those politicians. They were some thousands. Greece has 10-11 millions. It pisses me off to hear from people that buy all they hear from legitimate sources about ‘Greeks’ that don’t work, and make money. I work 11pm-7am for 25euro…about 30 bucks. And my salary was the same before that ‘crisis’ too. So, actually it is the opposite. It was a justification to impose the IMF measures on 10 millions of people instead of taking the money out of their now rich friends, who probably have fun with hookers in Switzerland as we speak, while and the German and Greek people fight. It’s another reason why I could never take political discussions for serious –too much propaganda, and too many believe it. The decay I referred to was something different. I shouldn’t analyse it now.

              Cheers 🙂

            2. “It’s another reason why I could never take political discussions for serious –too much propaganda, and too many believe it.”

              Wise. What can or should the little guy do?

            3. Little guy=someone without political power? I don’t know. I just don’t believe all that I hear –specially when what I hear is about millions of people that I’ve never met. If I believed the cliches about ‘Americans’, ‘Germans’, theists’, ‘atheists’ etc I would be full of enemies. I do see tendencies from country to country, ideology to ideology etc but they are usually not as absolute, general and bad as rumored.

            4. Yeah, the little guy. Small sphere of influence. Not saying whether we should try to do something about the bigger picture, just discussing.

    2. Before world unity there were threats for (cold) war which -if occurred- could be the most bitter ever, considering the weapons technology. Now there is more unity and it increases. It is a good solution, I think, to that problem. One could see it as an effort to dominate the earth, another as world peace. And also some could actually intend to dominate the earth through this unity and others to liberate it as a whole, too. There can be space made for problems and solutions to be created in each condition. And I don’t take all that I hear about the power of evil much into account, because of the evils that have been done in the name of fighting against evil. If that ‘evil’ is so powerful, why does it need to control people? I think it’s ‘power’ is not it’s own, but the people who believe it, and fight in it’s name.

  11. Hey Calvin, I think you own a gym in or adjacent to an area fraught with crime. Am I remembering this correctly? Referring to the original post, how do you or how would you apply or not apply the concept of embracing these conflicts or potential conflicts? Are you proactively engaging that environment and how so?

    1. Chris. Ex gym owner. Now only part time personal trainer.

      Currently manager and part owner of a massive storage complex in a crime ridden area. I use several units from which I run my renovation and trophy manufacturing businesses..

      You’ve pretty much got the rest right. I’ts back to ‘understanding how things work,’ Whether you’re dealing with gangsters, giraffes, or geriatrics! — You get nowhere, unless you’re on their wavelength, mate! 🙂

      1. “You get nowhere, unless you’re on their wavelength, mate! :)”

        Would you say this is a definition of embracing? And is embracing another lateral definition of pan-determined?

          1. Hey Calvin, I’m practicing pan determinism where rather than pick apart the little nuances of meaning, I rather am trying to see just how much to what degree we already agree. The questions about the crime in your neighborhood is my exploration of embracing and how many ways and means we have of doing this. Your wavelength comment made me think of embracing, harmony, etc.,. Problem is kind of the opposite of this, I think.

            In a similar vein, when George W. Bush (the younger one) was in office, his daughters misbehaved in public causing some embarrassment and his parenting advice to them was something like, “You cannot screw up enough to make me stop loving you so you might as well stop trying!” I thought this was embracing of his daughters who have done very well since that time.

  12. Embracing the Conflict:
    “The guitar is an instrument, and it’s like one day you pick it up and you feel like a great master! . . . and the next day you pick it up and you feel like a fool!, you know? And you say, ‘Well, what’s wrong? Why can’t I play it?!? And you know, it’s because WE are different every day.”

    1. Okay Chris, thanks for filling in the direction you were heading. At least I get the context, better.

      I suppose we can agree that, yes, it would indeed be difficult, if not terrifying, were one attempting to deal with (embrace) conflict, especially of an extremely dangerous nature.

      I agree also, that in such a case, having ‘practiced pan-determinism’ in meeting such a challenge/s head-on, (ie a hostage negotiator), or crack police squad leader, facing a rioting crowd, or war strategist, deciding on the best approach to diffuse the scene one is confronting, all possess a certain degree of confidence (know-how) in pulling it off.

      So yes, from my angle, taking a pan determined (or over-view), of the challenge/s one is to face, includes being capable of and willing to assume the view/s of the opposing party. Getting ‘on their wave-length’, simply amounts to having stepped into their shoes (or ‘shoeniverse’, as I like to think of it 🙂 .

      Or putting it the ol’ man’s words: “If one could simply BECOME the enemy, then one would no longer HAVE an enemy, would he?” This, along with your George Bush examples, give a good example of how it’s done.

      When you thing of it, Chris, ‘Embracing’, when done with Affinity and sincerity, simply acts to ‘close the gap’, –facilitates the attaining of agreement (Reaity), and thereby opens up the willingness to Communicate.

      That old, faithful, unwavering (but sometimes invisible) triangular foundation for any relationship to ‘work’ — ARC! 🙂

  13. Geir? Several inserts earlier on this thread, I requested that you share some of your own takes on the meeting held in Oslo.

    Even a brief elaboration on some of the high points mentioned in your OP, would suffice.

    ie. The ’embracing the conflicts” concept: Did this occur to you only after the meeting? If so, most unfortunate, in that there was a real opportunity for you to expound on actually ‘having a clue’ 🙂

    Geir?

  14. Well, hi guys ‘n gals. Saturday morning it is (here in sunny South Africa), and having now read and responded to Chris’ posts just above this, brought home to me, the value in Geir’s OP. There really is an enormous potential — for the alleviation of conflict — were one to simply EMBRACE it.

    Also, are you aware that ’embracing,’ as an overt ‘reaching’ act, actually sets one up as ’cause’ to the creation of an intended ‘effect’?

    Here is another little gem, from the ol’ man, that can bring a bit of warmth to those struggling to make sense of a relationship that has ‘iced over’ — (“Understanding, washes away everything”) 🙂

    From my angle, there’s the potent clue, (‘washes away’) that can:

    1) Fuel people to hang onto a grudge, (fight, argument), that that they simply must win! (MUST avoid being wrong!) And they will persist in this wise, no matter how absurd their assertion is.

    Being WRONG, or worse, being PROVEN wrong, –is tantamount to ‘washing away’, — one’s being RIGHT! (‘rightness’ being built into the computation of ‘survival’!)

    This of course, perpetuates an evident ‘need’, for conflict, or opposition, essential if one is to have a ‘game.’ In this case, ‘washing away’, would be heavily resisted, as it threatens the continuation of the ‘game.’ (probably thoroughly enjoyable, too!)

    2) On the other hand, when the ‘games’ become more ‘serious,’ overwhelmed with mass and dire importances, consequences, and inconceivable tragedies, such as war, etc, there certainly is appeal in any answer that appears to ‘wash away’, the mayhem of loss on the grandest scale. This could be viewed the via a situation such as the loss of a friendship, or alternatively, the loss of the common habitat of ALL ‘earthlings’, from the bigger view of things,

    To summarize, I reckon that ’embracing the conflicts’ is a concept, that really does need ’embracing’!

    Potent stuff, Geir! 🙂

  15. @isene

    Hey there mister “I know this shit and you have no clue.” (posted 8 hours ago by Geir Isene in reply to marildi) … so glad you’re into embracing conflict… or, as I put it in your previous thread, our proclivity for a fight.

    Re: your contention that “bosons can occupy the same quantum state” implies ability to occupy the same space, which argument implies Axiom 12 is false…

    I will set out to disprove that argument.

    Interesting that you bring up photon-photon scattering as that is both a phenomena which exemplifies subtle weaknesses in your argument and is yet another phenomena which is consistent with my own theory that quantum states are memory based and that the active component of memory is a space-picture.

    Let me elaborate:

    1) positrons and electrons (leptons in the group of fermions) both have a quantum state that translates as rest mass, a quantum state of charge, and a quantum state of spin

    Rule: Fermion pairs can’t occupy the same quantum state (like spin) whereas bosons can.

    2) a positron – electron collision causes annihilation with the release of a gamma photon

    3) the gamma photon has no rest mass and has a bosonic spin of 1

    Question to isene: do you see the bosonic “spin=1” spinor as the sum of the “spin=1/2” spinors of the leptons? If so then we have quantum states summing, not just “able to be in the same space”. (Further spin questions arise, but that can come later.)

    Rule: photons only interact with charged particles

    4) the gamma, now a photonic boson (from two leptons) will only interact with charged “particles” (using the term “particle” loosely here)

    5) in order for “photon-photon scattering” to occur (only seen at gamma) you need an intermediate step of the gamma transforming momentarily into a positron – electron pair

    Physical observation: this breakdown of a gamma into electron – positron pair is rare.

    Question: does this rarity indicate that only gamma produced by electron-positron annihilation would be a candidate for future photon-photon scattering? If so, this suggests a causal path (history) required for that particular behavior, i.e. a gamma (call it gamma #1) produced by electron energy loss would have a different causal path than a gamma (call it gamma #2) from electron-positron annihilation and as such gamma #1 would not be able to transform into the positron-electron pair whereas gamma #2 would.

    Physicist speculation: causal sets exist (Causal set = the set of former quantum states experienced, i.e. particle memory) (see * ref at end)

    My conclusions:
    1) bosonic quantum states are not proof that space can be shared in a perfectly overlapping way: the spin spinor indicates summation; rest mass zeroing indicates subtraction; the quantum state of charge oscillates
    2) the rarity of the photon-photon scattering process indicates that a “memory” (called a causal set by physicists) may exist within the gamma. This memory is consistent with the space-picture memory I have previously proposed as the element which occurs is the probabilistic state (non-condensed state) of wave-particle duality.
    3) the existence of a space-picture would be proof that certain spaces can overlap as an infinite number of space-pictures can exist recording not only every quantum state of every particle in this universe but every memory made by every thetan from that thetan’s first moment onwards.
    4) the space of the space-picture is different from what we call 3-space (or 4-space Minkowski M-space, or 6-space CalabiYau V-space, for that matter)
    5) if memory can be defined in terms of space then the isene argument against Axiom 12 would hold. However, Hubbard had his own definition of memory as a picture form that he also saw as infinite in capacity, so we would be down to splitting hairs on what constitutes a thetan memory and whether that point is in contradiction to Axiom 12.

    The main point here is that I don’t see that you have sufficiently stated an argument against Axiom 12 by using bosonic quantum states as an argument for the mechanism of overlap.

    And, since I at least have some clue of what I’m talking about, I look forward to your counter-argument. And whether you really know this shit.

    * reference on causal sets begins at about 45:00 minutes

      1. Ribby,

        The fun begins when the dogs come out to play.

        Give me a dog that can integrate the path to the flying frisbee, make the catch and ask for more.

        Puppies and pussies can play with the crying children.

        1. Evidently, 2ndxmr! Unvorjuniddlee, ZENU sedits zimpozible toodztngwsh wotthfugyuwuronnabout unlezzyou zpkinulllangwijj thad izzadleest broaddlee rkognnizbl! Ondeeuzzahnd^^ gvmi avreevlyng Stratozz dbble wnng hnggldrr kappabbl ov wrkng dathurmalzub2adleest10K,an eyejuzz mai dake uu WALLubb onnatt! Brng yrone zchudd thowanna janjov unndawwher, azz eye willnoddbbeehelld rzponzbl vorrenneeaggzidnntz!! izzzadd klleeer?! (fuggnconzeetd fizzisizzttz!! Relli finddayknoshit whenn dayfinday have enttrrdunun-Xpectidrota wadingvordem juzzbaggov dasoaring ridge edge. Ozzoles!)

          Heeyawhreye livinnZunniZuidAfrika owrr puzzeezar alodd bigggathen yooannd yrr lddl doggeezz2!! daonnleee probizzdad dayar breddiddorz ovdatobborda! Daddmnzdaddew wddnt magidd home vor yr yuzual zupppadime kozz ydd dzzzappeervor Brkfzzt!<<<<<< = O (prrrr-prrr.lick-lick prr.ROOAAAR-R-R–R lick-lick!)

          Ferr X-janje = norobbberee??

          rb39 🙂

          1. ZENU haddizjwz hwirdschuht whneezeddit.

            Mschuddsgodda hollnit nmaschordz2. Bfrrrzzznmbllsov, schiddnsteddaschuddin.

            Have a good ride.

            1. Hey you two, I cracked the code and doooooplikaytd most of what you guys wrote!

              Google translator was of no help though. 😉

              Btw, Geir, these last two posts of Calvin’s did not send out email notifications, at least I didn’t get any – once again. Maybe it’s because I’ve switched over to my hushmail address recently, for email notifications? (That was done to change my “image.” 🙂 )

        2. “Give me a dog that can integrate the path to the flying frisbee, make the catch and ask for more.”

          I’ve seen some dogs do that as well as the top football players. There’s a knowingness in that species of life form too!

          I don’t know about cats, though. 🙂

          1. Nice observations, Marildi. Additionally, wouldn’t you agree, that as a precaution to prevent ourselves inadvertently slipping into an admittedly, habitual, ‘self- consuming’, confining view of our existence, it is at once extremely liberating to just simply Switch OFF, for a while!

            Just simply BE-ing, accomplishes that fundamental awareness, to OBSERVE one’s fellow ‘earthlings’ and opens up to view, the splendor of their intricate and fascinating purposes and activities.

            Ahhh, just… to be… and…observe… witness ‘purpose’, in action, and appreciation and understanding, as a result. 🙂

            1. Calvin – as a matter of fact, I would agree with everything you wrote. 🙂

              I think you’ve basically expressed both Adyashanti’s and Eckhart Tolle’s teachings – and those of the Buddha and probably many other sages.

              Tolle compares the egoic mind (the ego) to awareness or consciousness – the latter of which you expressed above as “simply Switch OFF…simply BEing…OBSERVE one’s fellow ‘earthlings’.”

              The egoic mind (or the ego) is described as the collection of all thoughts and emotions a person has accumulated throughout the course of life, just by virtue of being human and the indoctrination brought about through culture, education, etc. – i.e. an accumulated record of all physical universe experiences of any kind.

              Incidentally, part of the accumulation is what he calls the “pain-body” – defined as a storage of painful emotion, which is essentially the same concept as the reactive mind, I believe. And the egoic mind is simply the mind as opposed to the spirit (using common terminology),

              Tolle’s whole message is that if we can step away from the egoic mind and thereby stop identifying with it, meaning we no longer believe that this mind IS our identity. In other words, we realize it is not who we are, and we we do we can then begin to increase our awareness/consciousness in life.

              In fact, consciousness, presence, formlessness, stillness (some of the other terms he uses) IS who/what we really are, and this is the only absolute truth – all is relative truth and mere illusion. The only difference I see between these other teachings and scientology is that in the others there is no individual being/thetan – they teach that we are all one.

            2. Correction on this sentence : Tolle CONTRASTS the egoic mind (the ego) with awareness or consciousness…

              Also on this one:
              In other words, we realize it is not who we are, and WHEN we do we can then begin to increase our awareness/consciousness in life.

              One more:
              In fact, consciousness, presence, formlessness, stillness (some of the other terms he uses) IS who/what we really are, and this is the only absolute truth – all ELSE is relative truth and mere illusion.

              (Haste makes waste! 🙄 )

    1. Wow, 2X, I guess this here is whatcha call glove on the ground! 🙂

      Geir, now’s your chance for a real scientific argument, with a sparring partner at least of comparable magnitude. Aren’t you going to take the challenge? Or are you still boning up for it? 😉

      2X, as regards your theory about quantum states being memory based – it occurs to me that this fits in with the theory that information “codes” are embedded in each and every particle in the universe. I think one place I read about that a while back was on the informationphilosopher.com website (which, just to warn you, is huge!).

      1. First, a primer on quantum state changes:

        Quantum state changes have a similarity to climbing a ladder: typically you make a climb or descent one step at a time.

        With the information (codes) theory, the ladder looks more like a diamond shaped net, allowing sideways change as well as vertical change

        The climbing rule is that you can only move by one net square at a time. With that restriction you can see that you could go straight up or zig-zag any number of times. That is how quantum states change on the information tree.

        With the causal path (memory) model you would be able to jump between different sections of the net as long as you’d been to the destination spot at some previous time.

        So there is some correlation between the “information theory” trees and the causal set / causal path theory if the causal path is well behaved.

        However, the photon-photon scattering phenomena (using the plural “phenomena” here because there is a plurality of quantum state changes) seems to go beyond the “information tree” while still remaining consistent with the causal set / causal path theory.

        That is to say, with a causal set (memory) and a causal path (history), the particle has the capability of spontaneously “remembering” some set of quantum states it previously occupied and sort of magically jump (transform) itself into that earlier set of states.

        That is how a gamma created from a positron-electron annihilation could spontaneously revert to being the positron-electron despite there being 6 to 8 quantum state changes involved.

        The important thing here is to understand that there is a plurality of quantum state changes that all have to occur for this kind of transformation. This cannot be explained with the “information trees” which demand that only one quantum change can occur at a time and each change can only be one “step” up or down the tree.

        Both theories still align with the phenomenon I have called quantum inertia because in both cases the most likely state to find a particle in would be the state it was in just a moment before, and that it typically takes an external influence to cause a state change.

        So, other than the limitations described, one could say that there are information codes embedded in particles.

        1. Thanks a whole ‘quantum’ for that primer, 2ndxmr. And lookee, no zzzzz-z-ee’s from me as a result! 🙂

          “Cracking codes/pathways along with plurality of changes in state, etc, ” – Has suddenly morphed ‘me’, (at least), from a totally ‘no clue’ — to suddenly ‘intrigued’ and now alert to a subject I felt totally ‘excluded’ from, previously!

          Please take credit for making the subject at least approachable, via the generosity and patience to make it ‘duplicatable’, in the first instance. Esoteric, it does not ‘have to’ be!

          I really appreciate that gesture. Thanks man! 🙂

          1. I’m really glad you got something out of it. Quantum physics has its mysterious aspects but those of us who are aware of awareness have a really good chance at understanding those mysteries.

            As an inventor you probably approach things from the viewpoint of observation of a problem, intuition of the mechanics involved, and what mechanics need to be implemented in the invention to solve the original problem.

            Quantum mechanics isn’t much different.

            But if you were engineering a sooper secrit new hnggldr to compete with the Stratozz, you might incorporate some coded rules of operation so that only certain people could ever fly it.

            The engineers of the universe did the same thing.

            Codes can be broken.

            1. 2X That is to imply: those broked Codes ain’t gonna work no more, no more, no more. They ain’t gonna WORK no more! 🙂

              Check planet OITH, for proof, boss?

        2. 2X, I’ll start out with the same thing Calvin said and tell you that your primer is surprisingly duplicatable – thank you! And I think I get why the causal path (memory) model is a better theory than the information (codes) model. I found the following especially interesting:

          “With the causal path (memory) model you would be able to jump between different sections of the net as long as you’d been to the destination spot at some previous time.”

          It’s wild to think that particles operate very much like beings, with regard to memory, when you consider the above to be an explanation for how memory works in the realm of consciousness as well.

          And wouldn’t this infer, then, that beings/thetans really are all interconnected and that there does exist such a thing as “collective consciousness” (also termed “hive mind”, “group mind”, “mass mind”, and “social mind,” according to Wikipedia)?

          Quoting you again: “…with a causal set (memory) and a causal path (history), the particle has the capability of spontaneously ‘remembering’ some set of quantum states it previously occupied and sort of magically jump (transform) itself into that earlier set of states.”

          Your use of the word “magically” again brings to mind the ability of a being – specifically, the “magical” ability to intend/postulate/consider and thus “create” and otherwise influence energy manifestations

          Or is it just too late at night and I am I letting my “creative imagination” run wild? 🙂

    2. 2ndxmr; You are overcomplicating the matter. Hubbard states that there is no probability of two particles occupying the same space. Reality says there is. There are two ways to go about demonstrating this.

      One is the fact that two bosons can have the same quantum state – including the overlapping of probabilistic placement in space. Reality shows that there is in fact a chance that two particle can occupy the same space.

      The other is a much simpler calculation: Take the volume of the observable universe in Planck units. Then take the number of particles in the observable universe. Then calculate the number of interacting particles (force carrier particles photons, gluons, gravitons, higgs, Z & W) needed to hold the universe together (remember – all gravity-sensing particles will have interaction with all other gravity-sensing particles in the whole universe). Add then the sea of intermittent, “virtual” particles. You will find that bosons would have to occupy same spaces for the equation to solve.

      Simply put: Hubbard was wrong about axiom 12. No need to try to defend it. Believers should rather try to revise their faith than to try to fit reality to Hubbard’s holy axioms.

      Believe me, I would love for all the axioms to be true. It makes for an orderly, neatly arranged universe. If I could sensibly defend this package of axioms, I would. And I have been – until the evidence was so squarely against some of them. Time to move on and figure out more of the existence and not get stuck with fitting reality to old, erroneous maps.

      1. isene:”You will find that bosons would have to occupy same spaces for the equation to solve.”

        I’d call that a specious argument.

        Entropy is your falsifier.

        Given that the universe is expanding at near light speed and no new energy is entering the universe the falsity should be self apparent.

        You actually do need to consider the quantum space level in order to make your argument, and at that point it becomes simple arithmetic, not an estimation of how many gluons there are in the universe.

        Just look at the simple question: what quantum states change in a positron-electron annihilation that account for the birth of a gamma boson?

        1. Do the simple math I advised, then get back to me with the answer. Your rebuttal here is not really a rebuttal at all.
          And the universe expanding at “near light speed”? Really? You are off by a factor of 4000. You don’t know this shit.

          And then we embrace the conflict. Like.

          1. Oooo the puppy put on a dog face and tried for a snarl.

            Good job there, Rover.

            isene:”Do the simple math I advised, then get back to me with the answer.”

            Do people really buy that kind of shit? You couldn’t do that math accurately and you know it. So come off the bullshit-baffles-brains high-horse and get back to the simplicities of quantum mechanics.

            And I’ll grant you that I’m not the expert on cosmology that you claim to be, however the universe is expanding, so volume increase is undeniable. Even if “dark energy” is uniform you still have entropy to deal with in your calculation of density of energy, ergo you haven’t unfalsified your argument.

            But what is that about, anyhow? I tossed you a bone and you drop yet another turd at my feet: you persist in attempting to switch to cosmological numbers to evade the Planckian numbers of the original argument.

            That’s the shit, Jack.

            You started the argument based on quantum measures: specifically the boson and how two bosons could occupy the same space because of spin = 1.

            C’mon, Jack, finish that argument. Tell me how the collided electron-positron spinors occupy the same space and don’t sum.

            Tell me your interpretation of photon-photon scattering. I’ve told you mine. It’s time for you to put your knowledge where your mouth is. Enough of this bullshit putting down of people as “too stupid to have a clue” without ever explaining your argument.

            1. I have pointed out that LRH’s axiom 12 is false – with two proofs. You have provided no counter-proof, and you even came with a wild claim that was off the mark by a factor of 4000(!). Sorry mister , I cannot take your arguments in this area seriously.

            2. Well, I’ve disproved your proofs.

              Hang onto your bone, puppy. You wouldn’t want to drop your 4000 morsels in favor of a bigger meal, would you?

            3. Since this is the point in an argument chain where you usually try to change the subject by starting a new OP, might I suggest the yet untendered topic of “Psychic Phenomena – How might we measure it?”

              Or “American Thanksgiving – Is it too close to Christmas?”

              Mmm, taste that. Turkey. 🙂

            4. Noooo! I vote for the bigger meal!

              And I’ve already readied the popcorn. 🙂

            5. Dear Maiden in Distress; You should have called for another Champion to defend your Cause. This one was useless.

              😉

  16. A Time-Killing Conversation With a Very Smart Person Led Me to Repost This:

    ***

    THE TRUE BELIEVER’S ALGORITHM THAT PROTECTS FROM COGNITIVE DISSONANCE – By William Harper

    When a fact disputes a deeply held religious belief in a conversation,a true believer will do these actions in an ongoing somewhat random manner without addressing the ACTUAL EVIDENCE AND ITS CONCLUSIONS.

    1. Silently, or verbally, with a good-natured happy manner they will blame you for having a bias or moral flaw based on their faith’s tenets AND USE THE CREATED BIAS OR FLAW TO IGNORE THE ACTUAL EVIDENCE.

    2 Silently or verbally, with an accusatory tone, they will blame you for having a bias or moral flaw based on their faith’s tenets and use that CREATED BIAS OR MORAL FLAW TO IGNORE THE ACTUAL EVIDENCE.

    3. Once they realize the point is not to be side stepped, they will provide ANY evidence, no matter how flimsy, to support the point and with the point “creatively supported” CONTINUE TO DENY THE EVIDENCE.

    4. When you try to prove their “creatively supported” evidence is weak, they will reuse #1, #2 and #3 to the point of frustration AND AVOID THE EVIDENCE.

    5. Once they see there is no where to run, they will argue that the evidence and fact isn’t important in the light of the WHOLE of their religious dogma and you should accept the GOOD ideas of their faith.

    6. Any frustration shown by you at their lack of ability to deal with a evidence and its conclusion will be deemed as a moral flaw and potentially kickstart #1 and #2 and be pointed out by them AS THEY IGNORE THE EVIDENCE AND ITS CONCLUSION.

    7. AFTER MANY, MANY WORDS AND LOST TIME, THEY WILL EVENTUALLY DEFAULT TO, “IT WORKED FOR ME” AND REPEATEDLY ASK YOU TO ACCEPT THEIR FAITH BASED ON YOUR WEAKNESSES DISCOVERED ABOVE. AND IN TWO DAYS, THEIR MIND WILL RESET COMPLETELY FORGETTING THE CONVERSATION AND THE POINTS MADE. THEIR FAITH WILL AGAIN BE PERFECT AND YOUR BRILLIANT ARGUMENTS ARE MININALIZED. THEY WILL THINK THEY HAD ACTUAL POINTS AND PAT THEMSELVES ON THE BACK FOR STANDING UP TO THE NEGATIVE INFLUENCE FOR THEIR RELIGION.

    And …

    SOMETIMES THEY WAKE UP.

    ***

    How do I know this? I DID THIS. I WAS THIS. And I still do it.

    1. Especially like the part describing how a person’s mind resets back to the default ideology like a self-healing hole. This process seems to exploit a real reason for a person becoming involved in a discussion in the first place, whether they are trying to learn or whether they are trying to teach, or whether they are trying to reinforce their preconceived bias.

      1. Tell me this, Chris. Why would a person start a discussion with another poster and then when that other poster responds, he drops the comm?

        Seems like you’ve been doing that to me for quite a while now, which is why I tend to ignore your posts most of the time. But yesterday, you wrote about a dozen comments specifically directed at me – and you seemed to be in genuine comm, real ARC. Thus, I took the trouble to answer every one of them, with at least a short reply.

        However, you haven’t responded to a single one, in return, even though you’ve replied to several other posters since then, whose comments weren’t necessarily even directed at you.

        Seems like a weird game to be playing, if that’s what it is.

        I thought – with all your inspirational talk of yesterday on the topic of Geir’s blog and discussions – that you would be walking the walk today. But maybe you just haven’t had a chance yet.

        I’d be glad to be made wrong about all this, though.Speak up or forever hold your piece (or peace – I’ve seen it both ways 🙂 ).

        1. Because when I ask for you to engage, if I’ve asked something too persona, uncomfortable, or what you maybe think is a trick, first you deflect and if I push on, you get upset. I think we have that understanding by now.

        2. So none of this is important enough now for me to intentionally create an upset with you and I know when to drop it. Then it seems that the weird little game that you play is to pretend that you did engage. You are a very careful and play it safe kind of blogger and to my thinking I don’t see you here trying to learn or engage anyone but to incessantly argue the merits of Hubbard. So either way, I get to lose when I press on.

        3. I’d be glad to be made wrong about all this, though.Speak up or forever hold your piece (or peace – I’ve seen it both ways 🙂 ). Sincerely? I don’t believe you as you have not to my knowledge been made wrong yet. No one has the final word except you and you do not concede when your arguments are defeated.

        4. It’s ok with me. I’m glad when we occasionally connect. What would be fun for me is to explore together these many interesting topics, not just argue the merits of Hubbard, why he already covered the current topics in his works, why he already knew quantum physics, why he invented the internet (not exactly, but back in the day, INCOMM and the SIR search engine were promoted as inventions of Hubbard. I would like the real code writer to come forward and claim ownership of that).

        5. We don’t need Hubbard, you know? We can just take what we know and what we can do and just continue on from here. My efforts are toward improving my understanding of scientifically proven knowledge. If any of that happens to coincide with a consistent fact that I’ve previously learned in Scientology, then fine, I’ve no resistance to that. What doesn’t make sense to me is to endlessly beat the dead horse of Scientology when there are only a handful of people even lurking around this blog and we are each one of us well studied, degreed Scientologists. The Scn quotes are all old, well worn, and only useful when learning Scientology. That tenacious effort to justify everything Scn is off-putting. I’m not telling you anything you haven’t already heard a lot from others and yet there has been no concession from you about this and I do not expect one from you tonight. We aren’t embracing the conflict, not stating succinctly the conflict, or I think it would resolve. Nevertheless, peace.

        6. Something you don’t give Geir credit for is almost endlessly answering your questions. I watch you nip at his heels, and I think, “She’s deliberately doing How to Dirty and Clean a Needle, Drill #20, on him.” Are you deliberately driving his TA through the roof? But when do you clean his needle? To me, you only insist that yours be cleaned when it is dirty and that does not seem fair to me. At least your TRs are IN. Or are they?

          So now I’ve crossed the line and there will be a price. I guess I’m ready.

          1. Chris, following your thread to Marildi, I find myself agreeing with much of what you said. On the other hand, Marildi too, has made some equally valid observations.

            The common ground for ‘consensus’, as I see it? It appears that in each case, one gets so ‘intense’ and ‘set’, on one’s agenda, that one is suddenly adrift from the ‘vehicle’, that makes a smooth and less bumpy ride (relationship) possible.

            Oh, the vehicle? — Good old fashioned ARC. And the vehicle’s lubrication of choice? — Good manners: (1) grant importance, to the other person. (2) maintain 2-way communication.(3) Grant beingness.

            My conviction on this ? — Not at all idealistic, or theoretical!

            –I actually have a model, by which to ‘LIVE it’. And have been fortunate to have for the past 25 years. — All via my number one employee (JOE) He has taught me, with great humility, just how simple it is, to LIVE ARC, and good manners, along with the unconditional ‘granting of beingness’, gratitude, and a ready sharp sense of humor. A real ‘angel from heaven’, if there ever was one. He constantly shows genuine appreciation, for the new things he learns each day. I, in turn validate him, for the lessons he has taught me too. Overall, because it amounts to something of a consciously created on-going ‘pleasure moment’, there is your ready made antidote to the very real physical dangers we are subject to, (environmental and work related) on a daily basis.

            We have another tremendous exchange factor going as well.

            A genuine compensation, by one, which makes up for a ‘lack’, in the other. Whereas I tend to be the inventor, creator, fearless one who takes up daunting challenges. He is the overly cautious one, with super sharp, wide and ever-ready perceptions, that miss nothing going on around him. That and his enviable ‘sanity’, that manages (or at least attempts!) to keep me grounded, when necessary. (definitely MOST of the time! LOL )

            — A quite formidable ‘team’ to beat, wouldn’t you say? 🙂

            1. Marildi, “Take heart”. You not only really have a big one! ( btw, thanks for the cheering up while I had the ‘flu, ), But as Chris alluded to earlier, your keen energy in pursuing any comm particle, with dogged persistence, shows an enormous strength inherent in your dynamics! I have also observed that you show a huge amount of ARC, when your ‘need’ for defensiveness, is put aside!

              Where you may benefit (no make -wrong, this), is in the exercise of conscious restraint, to keep shining the laser pointer on LRH and Scn here, as this only seems to act as a red flag to a bull, to some on this blog. I sympathize with you, and your eagerness, as I not only feel, but often act just the same as you. The BIC blog, as you know, is a much more welcoming site, for these views. 🙂

              One area, (rightly or wrongly assumed to be attributes of one’s ‘star’ sign), that I feed off quite naturally,( as a ‘Cancerian’ ) is that of vibes and subtle messages, that say much more to me, of underlying tone, attitudes and agendas, in any given comm.

              The incoming signals, are simply interpreted as either actual, or potential ‘friend, or foe’.in the making. Although a really complex filter, it never the less just amounts to a binary switch, that ultimately accepts, or rejects a comm particle and/or its sender.
              Our computer processor/s at work, if you will.

              Fortunately, we are ACTUALLY very privileged and privy to a vast array of ‘tools’, —codes, TR’s, practices and a ‘book of case remedies’ (LOL), that we can DISCREETLY refer to, should the need arise, eh? 😉 (the hallmark, btw, of a highly SKILLED auditor!) 🙂

            2. ritb39: “Where you may benefit (no make -wrong, this), is in the exercise of conscious restraint, to keep shining the laser pointer on LRH and Scn here, as this only seems to act as a red flag to a bull, to some on this blog.”

              Ribby (as 2X called you – and I like it 🙂 ) I hope by now you have read my reply to Chris just below. You will have seen that from my perspective, it hasn’t been a matter of lack of restraint on my part for quite some time. I keep it much more low key than I used to.

              In fact, and this is not to make you wrong either, I am surprised at how many VERY pro-scn comments you write that make it appear as though you aren’t aware how few people here are even interested – including the persons you direct the comments to.

              The comments you post certainly go beyond any pro-scn comments I have posted for quite a while. So please don’t buy Chris’ remarks that, at best, refer to the past, and mainly the distant past. I hope Chris will be able to see that now too.

              Unfortunately it’s getting too late for me to write more, but I appreciated the other comments you wrote too. And I especially appreciate your good will. 🙂

              Got to hit the hay! zzzzzz

          2. Chris, compare what you wrote in the several posts above to what you wrote yesterday, which was the following:

            “I think Marildi enjoys the bickering as well, I know I do. Without her garrulous counterpoint these debates would become watered down, non seq and mild stroking back and forth. She makes me and has made me think about every single Scientology datum that I knew by heart or extreme familiarity and made me challenge my previous stable data as pertains to Scientology, other religions, and ideologies in general… Many of you on this blog have challenged me in this way and I thank you.”

            What a difference a day makes?

            Just to see for myself what actually occurred, I looked through my posts on this whole thread, and I didn’t see a single one where I was the one to originate the topic of Hubbard or Scientology – not with you or anyone else. In fact, my exchanges with others besides you and Geir are all on other subjects.

            I also noted that you were the one who brought up Hubbard or Scientology in the majority of comments about them on this thread. And only a few of your posts were on other subjects. It surprised me that you weren’t even interested enough in the subject of physics, for example, to comment on those posts. although this has always been a subject of great interest to you..

            There may be truth to some of what you wrote with regard to the past, but I think you are seeing things through your own filters, as we all do – and thus, my assessment differs from yours in various ways.

            As for the three of us you named above, along with a number of others who have been regulars here, I don’t believe any of us is without fault in past exchanges – so none of us can afford to throw stones.

            What I think is needed is for everybody to step out of the past and engage one another in the here and now. If you are up for that, well and good.

  17. Geir (OP) “Perhaps what most people want is the wanting of a goal and not the goal itself.”

    Yes, possibly! A speculation, among an ocean of speculations.

    Of course, “wanting” in itself, remains an almost endless human condition, except for that gap period, when one actually ‘gets’, what one ‘wants.’

    This ‘wanting’ appears to have ‘happiness’, or its various equivalents, as a common desired end result for each and every one of us, irrespective of our situations in life.

    However, Geir, this can get quite amusing, when someone attempts to answer your question, as worded above.

    viz.

    + “I want to WANT a goal. Duzzn’t matter ’bout what goal!”

    + “Where AM I?”

    + “Here I yam… now wot?”

    + “If I can’t find out wot I’m doing here, I’m effing off!”

    + “Is this a trick question?”

    + “Who sez I want anything, Bub?”

    + “I don’t like this game! I’m Not playing anymore !!!! ”

    + “Wot the phuck R U doing here?”

    + “Hey Anophalezeus, someone is trying to steal your thunder!”

    🙂

  18. Sorry to bring up the usual topic again. I didn’t intend to, but somebody sent me this LRH interview from ’83. In page 6 He refers to SCN. It is interesting that he was missing since ’66. And it is something different than what I had in mind while in SCN.

    1. Oh yeah a minor detail –I forgot the link.

      1. Spyros, thanks for posting this article of an interview of LRH. I only skimmed it except for page 6, which you mentioned, and on that page there was one particularly interesting comment LRH made. Just before it, he had been talking about changes happening in the field of music, specifically computer music, and then he said this:

        “Books too, will change. You will be able to carry your own pocket computer library. Later, the computer will be able to ‘talk’ to you and ‘read’ to you.”

        I thought that was rather prophetic to be said in 1983.

        1. “I thought that was rather prophetic to be said in 1983.”

          Not at all! L Ron Hubbard invented DOS, the tablet, and i-phone, which Steve Jobs and Bill Gates absconded. Their releases by superior Scientology management were being perfectly timed by to coincide with society’s coming uptone enough to be ready to receive them when the ideas were stolen by others and prematurely marketed. Cell phones would have been a real big hit if their release had been better timed.

          Also, that dirty bastard Chester Gould absconded L Ron Hubbard’s other prophetic idea for a 2-way wrist TV-radio in 1946, and L Ron Hubbard never received a dime for that prophetic idea either! What a world!

          1. My, how you bristle at the very thought of LRH getting credit for something. And then you try frantically to discredit it, even if you have to mix apples and oranges.

            Goes to show how the brain can turn to mush when it’s soaked in vitriol. 😛 You really should take Geir’s advice: “Chill, dude – you gotta let that shit go.”

            1. “You really should take Geir’s advice: “Chill, dude – you gotta let that shit go.””

              My how you bristle at LRH being called out for the charlatan and con-man that he was. Do you need to take Geir’s advice and let that shit go? Or do you need to embrace the conflict?

        2. “Books too, will change. You will be able to carry your own pocket computer library. Later, the computer will be able to ‘talk’ to you and ‘read’ to you.”

          You know, Marildi, the more I think about it, the madder I get about Gene Roddenberry stealing L Ron Hubbard’s prophetic ideas for computers talking, etc., in 1964 for Star Trek. Stealing L Ron Hubbard’s ideas almost 20 years before he had a chance to prophesy them is patently unfair. Then Gene Roddenberry goes and lives the life (for reals) that L Ron Hubbard pretended to, what with copying his experiences of being a WWII hero, working at an LA policeman and all. Depressing! I’m just going to stay in bed this morning.

          1. LOL! 😀 Well, at least you’re funny.

            Albeit uninformed. 😐

            You need to read Margaret Lake’s well documented research paper on LRH’s naval career. She concludes it with the following:

            —————————–
            “CONCLUSIONS

            “Hubbard’s Navy service record (as today supplied by the National Personnel Records Center [NPRC] of the the National Archives) is demonstrably incomplete, and in certain cases also provides false and inaccurate information with regard to Hubbard’s actual activities during World War II. This is especially true for the South Pacific period, during which he was a Naval intelligence officer and also attached to the US Army. In all likelihood, most of these incomplete and inaccurate records are due to administrative oversight and error. There may have also been intelligence-related activites which affected certain documents. And some records may have been lost in the 1973 NPRC fire of Army personnel records.

            “If one relies solely on Hubbard’s service record from the NPRC to understand Hubbard’s military career in the Navy (as most earlier Hubbard researchers and biographers appear to have done), one will be left with an inaccurate and incomplete picture of Hubbard’s World War II years. One must look into the military, travel and other records of the National Archives (as well as other reliable sources) in order to get a more complete and accurate picture of Hubbard’s Navy service. This is especially true as it pertains to accurately answering the questions surrounding the South Pacific period, i.e. the truth behind whether Hubbard was flown home in the Spring of 1942, whether he was injured, and whether he saw combat.

            “When more extensive research was conducted into these areas, it was found that Hubbard was in fact flown home from the South Pacific (as he had claimed), did in fact sustain injuries while in the South Pacific (including being “blinded” by something which physically damaged his eyes), and was sent into an area where he may have seen combat. The injuries, combined with a later duodenal ulcer, left Hubbard in a debilitated condition after the war. As a result, the Veteran’s Administration considered him 40% disabled, after World War II, after conducting physical exams and tests.”
            —————————-

            You can get all the details, and see photographic evidence of the navy records, here:

            http://scientologymyths.com/hubbardww2.htm

            1. It is not LRH’s “service” record which is incomplete or misleading but LRH’s own autobiographical information which is pretty much a pack of outright lies. Not embracing this leaves your future track meandering down those dead end trails with the pretty colored rocks that he sends you down. That red herring no longer hunts! (I love a mixed metaphor!)

        3. Thanks for your kind words Marildi. I don’t mean to promote any ill feeling between you and Geir it just reminds me of a brother and sister thing 😉

          M – I get where you’re coming from on Scn! It’s not about worshipping LRH it;s about not dismissing something just because he said it and paying some attention to the practical time he and other put in, regardless of his intentions. There are many great posters on here M but imho none are more fair-minded than you.

          1. Gosh, aotc, you are nice! 🙂

            And I didn’t get that you were promoting ill feeling – rather the opposite. Btw, Geir once said he loved me like a sister, and I think of him as my (pesky) little brother – who, I have to (begrudgingly) admit, has his good points. 😀

            Thanks so much for duplicating my views about LRH! Like I said before, you should post more often. 😉 Seriously, though, I have no doubt that you could add much to the good flows in the universe.

            1. Geir, dear 🙂 , just to let you know, there may not have been any email notifications for the above post of mine, because it didn’t show up until I refreshed the screen – which is another oddity that has been occurring, so I think it might relate to the times no notification goes out. Sorry to keep nagging you about this, but it would be nice if you could look into it. Or at least let me know that you’ve are aware of the problem. Danke schön.

            2. Thanks Marildi, I appreciate it. 🙂 (If you’re on Facebook you can get my name of Geir if you like, would be good to have you as a friend on there.)

            3. Thanks so much, aotc, but I’m not on facebook. I tried it a few years ago, and it turned out to be too complicated trying to deal with my “still-in” friends. But I have a hushmail account now, if you want to write me some time: marildi(at)hushmail.me. It would be fun to hear from you and to have a look at your facebook page (see how UNfair-minded I can be? 🙂 ).

            4. Sorry for late reply Marildi, it’s the busiest time of year at work! No problem on the Facebook thing, I’ll keep reading you on here so long as Geir keeps posting 🙂 (Thanks for the hushmail address)

            5. No problem, aotc. It’s a busy time for me too.

              And anyway, I think Geir and I already had our annual, extra-special Xmas bicker. 😉

        4. “I thought that was rather prophetic to be said (Hubbard) in 1983.”

          Then there’s the internet. Arthur C. Clarke also plagiarized and just outright stole Hubbard’s ideas as well as we see in this old video of Clarke in 1974 pretending to give his opinion which we all know he stole from Hubbard about the future internet.

  19. Jeez. I have to say, the G & 2X sparring session, was the best entertainment seen here for a while. 🙂

    Which brings to mind, the value of real ‘ring’ training, and the ‘physics’ involved — viz. ‘reach & withdraw’!

    Of course, at the same time, one can appreciate the value in Geir’s OP piece, ‘Embrace the conflicts’, later explained as ‘like’, or ‘enjoy’.

    Needless to say, those who get sucked in ‘seriousness’ as a result, have not yet mastered their own ‘ego’. Ergo, the wrong thing to do, is stepping back into the ring, (reach) as ‘front man’ for ‘ego’! — Ergo, ‘front man’ gets thumped, in lieu of ‘ego’ 🙂

    –Whereas ‘ego’ can sit there, in his front row seat, going: ‘hrrumphhh’, while front man, is busy counting stars – (****** !!)
    — ‘ego’, has the audacity to yell ‘Foul’

    If any of ‘That Shit’ happens to you, you could do worse than ‘going back to the drawing board’ (withdraw)

    –viz. ” KEEERR-U-N-CHH!! — splatttt! (tweet tweet****** ) 🙂

    1. Hey Valkov, I read that article and have been wanting to comment for days, but lost the place and am just now finding your comment again… I’ve read Ayn Rand and though the author made some pithy points I could barely recognize the Rand with whom I feel familiar compared to the article. Nevertheless, I liked the author’s comments relating some of Rand’s severe attitudes to PTSD as I also liked your comparison to LRH and COS.

      1. Thanks Chris. I read Rand in high school and really got behind some of what she was saying. She was objecting to suppression of the 1st Dynamic, as I see it. A valid objection, as I see it.
        Thr article reveals more, however, focusing as it does on her derision towards the majority of people, whom she dismisses as worthless or worse. Quotes of her writings resemble the worst of LRH, as in for example his dismissal of the majority of humanity as “DBs”, at whose mercy the “Big Beings” struggle to survive and thrive.
        On second thought, do you suppose LRH and Rand were right? 🙂
        Did you notice it was the author himself who compared the two, at the end of the article?

        1. Yes, I see that comparison to LRH. The vehement flavor of that entire article reminded me more of an LRH article (with whom I’m familiar) that I thought it should have of Rand, but again, what do I know about her.

          The chord she has struck within me is the fairness of something for something and her discomfort and distrust of government. I do see politics as a tool of the rich, the newly rich, and those who want to become rich. What could be better than taking a little nick from each and every person the way banks do?

      2. Chris, from the article: She announced that the world was divided between a small minority of Supermen who are productive and “the naked, twisted, mindless figure of the human Incompetent” who, like the Leninists, try to feed off them. He is “mud to be ground underfoot, fuel to be burned.” It is evil to show kindness to these “lice”: The “only virtue” is “selfishness.”

        “She (Ayn Rand) meant it.”

        Similar to LRH’s concept of the “wog” and DB, no? And the antidote is exemplified in the person of David Miscavige, Scientology’s “Stalin” (fist of steel) no?

        Ironically, the Sea Org has turned out to be very “Randian”, and “communistic” as well, grinding everyone within reach under foot at the behest of the “Dear Leader”…..

        1. You’re preaching to the choir with that one Valkov. I really agree. My concept of concept of Rand’s philosophy was as a “quid pro quo” type of philosophy as opposed to doling out sustenance to the sluggards, the lazy, the men who will not work. I can modify that opinion easily as I have nothing invested in that dead author either for or against. In Scientology, we confused this lack of spirit with indigence and blended indigent with lazy, but I now see the difference. Now you won’t see that word bandied about anywhere near welfare lines, so dirty is it. So I’d like to ask what is the motivation for a man to work for his sustenance if it comes to be not required? What is this conflict? We should name it.

    2. I think that morality is tempered and relative to the social frame in which we apply it. For example, long before reading either Rand or Marx I came to my own version of observing the “increasing misery of the proletariat (working class)” under capitalism. And yet, in actual practice, if Marxism is correct in its framework defining that “political and social structures are determined by the economic conditions of people,” then a way must be available for a man to change his economic condition and in practice I believe it is irrefutable that change must not be in the form of a government handout.

    3. I have a customer whose CEO received $65 million last year while cutting benefits and laying off “deadwood.” No person with an ounce (gram) of empathy would argue for a situation like this to have been fair. And yet, what would the solution to this be? Is it a problem that a man made $65 million and if so, does the government taking this away from him actually help the person who was laid off? Does taxing cigarettes and alcohol mitigate lung cancer and liver failure?

      1. This is a great oversimplification, as I see it. Among the questions I would have, are such as “How did he make the 65 mil?”

        Walmart makes lots of money. Part of how they make it is, they ctaer to people with little money. Doing so, they have captured over 30% of the SNAP market (what used to be called “food stamps”), which they encourage their employees to use. Obviously this benefits the company, as they can pay the employees less, and their employees contribute to the company’s income by shopping there. So it is your taxes that are helping to make the Waltons wealthy.
        Is this wrong? The Waltons are ‘playing by the rules’, yes?
        It sounds like you are stuck in the false “individual effort” vs. “government handouts” dichotomy of thinking that is so common in America.
        There are other ways to organize things, other economic and financial systems, that may be more equitable and not so easily gamed. The one we’ve got going is rigged. It is corporations that are getting the “government handouts”. The country is wealthy enough on an ongoing basis to provide for everyone’s ‘welfare’ while still allowing for the motivated ones to get ‘rich’.
        Recommended reading: Robert Heinlein’s very first novel, “For Us, the Living”, (1939), chapters 9 and 10.
        (Not to be confused with Rand’s first novel, “We, the Living”, 1936).
        Here are Heinlein’s ideas in a nutshell:
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_Us,_The_Living:_A_Comedy_of_Customs
        They are based on earlier works, (1924), and were actually partially implemented in parts of Canada for awhile.

        1. Valkov, I’m sure there must be other better models than I know of. What are they? When distribution of money or EBT cards, whatever is the source of sustenance, say for myself. Then I will be making a career of acquiring this sustenance. If I lived in one of the Middle East shit holes without hope and were groomed to become a suicide-murderer, I would totally do that as well. I am not so enlightened as to think I wouldn’t. It’s what I do now. I have skills and I swap them for various sustenance. If the market paid less, I would take less. When the market pays more, I try to go for it. I am utterly aware of being conditioned into the model I live in but without a counterpoint to compare, I don’t know and don’t have an imagination of what that would be. For example, when I watch Star Trek, I find myself wondering who is cleaning the toilets in that shiny future, and are they well paid for it, and are they happy?

    4. My own experience in rising economically tells me that a man must not simply be economically wealthy to be happy, but that a man must be playing a game in which he feels that he wins a little each day. When he fulfills this, his happiness is not fixed by his accumulation of money, but rather by his accumulation of moments of happiness. Yet so much of a man’s personal freedom in a first-world pivots on his having money to be able to afford whats a first world has to offer including discretionary time. What would need to change to make a significant improvement within a system like this? For myself, living in a relatively free society, free for all practical purposes, I find that a personal change of heart and of education to be more important than minuscule changes in politics which seem to consistently, wholeheartedly support stripping money from the rich and giving it to the government. Yes, there is “public assistance” but does it make any change or shift in the increasing misery of the proletariat? It did not seem to in Russia. Welfare policies seem to overall not be working in Eu. Or does anyone think these are successful and why?

      1. This ‘politics’ is a mirage, a delusion. In a word, you are being gulled. The actual politics that is being played is stripping away from the majority everything but the meanest subsistence. I think LRH had it right, when he said there is the deliberate creation of a climate of “economic duress” under which the majority lives. This increases generation by generation. Gore Vidal wrote about this to some extent, although in the end he chiickened out of exposing all the details.

        The cry for stripping away wealth from the wealthy is purely smoke and mirrors. It is the monopolization of a countries wealth that brings about revolutions, with all the attendent destruction. From which a small minority then profits. Like Cheney profited from the Iraq ‘war’ through Halliburton. All the rest is hot air.

        1. “I think LRH had it right, when he said there is the deliberate creation of a climate of “economic duress” under which the majority lives.”

          He would understand this Marxist thought (not derogatory) and he practiced it well on his own lackeys all of us had less than ever but groomed and conditioned for that pie in the sky when the planet was finally cleared. (There’s that mixed metaphor again)

          1. No matter the topic, it is always about what LRH did wrong. Do you think those Churches has done anything wrong…like gross that was not in accordance with LRH? Do you think that for example publishing people’s confidential O/Ws is something evil and not in accordance with LRH’s tech? Or how about releasing those confidential -and allegedly dangerous- OT materials to the internet so it’s members will disconnect more from the internet and the rest of the world, to avoid them? LRH?

            1. Maybe you should be a little more careful who you label ‘SP’ and ‘enemy of Scientology’, then. Unless you (plural) as criminals blame others for what you yourselves are.

            2. Not sure what you mean. I just relating a bit of my experience and former fanaticism. Sometimes I think the English -> Greek doesn’t get the idea across…

              It clearly is a conditioning goal of Hubbard to stifle criticism by attacking his critics. You know the one I’m talking about, “I’m rubber you’re glue, your words bounce off me and stick to you.” I’m sure they must have the same saying in Greece. Anyways, Cheers!

            3. Sorry for the generality ‘you’ (plural). I meant those who are a bit too eager to label and fight ‘SPs’ and ‘enemies of Scientology’.

            4. Sorry for the generality ‘you’ (plural). I meant those who are a bit too eager to label and fight ‘SPs’ and ‘enemies of Scientology’.

              No worries, I didn’t take it negatively.

            5. …the evil at the root of Fair Game is LRH. If Dave Miscavige is doing evil, well he learned at the feet of LRH and he is doing Hubbard’s bidding. This is a very difficult fact to swallow for the true believer, very hard to swallow. But there it is.

            6. Yeah it’s difficult to swallow that somebody wanted to mess with me just for wanting to get auditor’s training outside the COS. I don’t see how the fair game fits in.

            7. “I don’t see how the fair game fits in.”

              My point is that one of the defenses of Scientology is to somehow try to separate its application by COS from its creator, Hubbard. This tactic of blaming the good and decent people who gave all to support the founder, L. Ron Hubbard, and got duped in the bargain is despicable. My point is that the sense that Scientology was created for good because LRH said it was created for good (as a con) is belied by the practice of Scientology by L. Ron Hubbard – himself. If Hubbard had been a man of good will and had practiced doing good and had stood up for the goodness of his creation instead of deliberately and arrogantly breaking civil and criminal law and had not run away and hidden while his VERY devoted wife and friends took the hit and went to jail for him, then he could be remembered kindly. All roads in this problems of this subject lead to him. His treatise on “The Responsibilities of Leaders” turned out to be a self-fulfilling prophesy and he all but died in a ditch. He died alone and hiding from the law. Only his fellow vultures were near at the end waiting to pick his bones.

            8. Chris, I think it is good to see goodness in people. But there a limit beyond which it becomes naive. Not all ever involved with Scientology had intentions to help. I think to manipulate with ‘friendship’ a person so as to utterly control him is quite evil. I think to stick your nose in people’s relationships so that you will know who your puppet mates with who you want ( ‘good standing’ Scientologist, of course) is kicked in the head, and not aligned with Scientology. I was a Scientologist too, and found it kicked in the head. I think to label somebody SP because he tells somebody to not go to AOSH (I have seen that in an SP declare) is not aligned with Scientology. To spy on people that practice Scientology outside your narrow group, is not Scientology. I’m just warming up. Could be telling you what is not Scientology all night (it’s night here) long. Scientology does not equal LRH for me, for very solid reasons.

            9. Have you or anybody else seen this happening in SCN? I used to, most often. Is it aligned with SCN?

              Self Analysis:

              LIST 11
              Invalidation
              Aberrated individuals use two distinct and very aberrated methods of controlling others.
              The first consists of forcing the other person to do exactly what is desired with the mechanism
              of recrimination and denial of friendship or support unless instant compliance takes place. In
              other words, “You do exact what I say or I am no ally of yours”. This is outright domination.
              Additionally, it seeks by anger and outright criticism, accusations, and other mechanisms to
              pound another individual into submission by making him less. The second method might be
              called domination by nullification. This is covert and quit often the person upon whom it is
              exerted remains unsuspecting beyond the fact that he knows he is very unhappy. This is the
              coward’s method of domination. The person using it feels that he is less than the individual
              upon whom he is using it and has no the honesty or fortitude to admit the fact to himself. He
              the begins, much as termites gnaw away a foundation, as in California, to pull the other
              individual “down to size”, using small carping criticisms. The one who is seeking to dominate
              strike heavily at the point of pride and capability of his target and yell if at any moment the
              target challenges the nullifier, the person using the mechanism claims he is doing so solely out
              of assistance and friendship, or disavows completely that it has been done. Of the two
              methods, the latter is far more damaging. A person using this method seeks to reduce another
              individual down to a point where he can be completely controlled and will not stop until he has
              reduced the target into a confused apathy.

            10. Both. They are inseparable. Like other religions, In the working theory, tech, and policy of Scientology we can and do find and excuse for every depraved impulse neatly shielded by the con. It is unpopular to bind these two together as I have, but that’s where I am at.

            11. Yes, I know the story about the unconditionaly loving God who unconditionaly loved everyone unless they bid his will, in which case he condemned them to eternal suffering. I just don’t think that was the case in SCN theory, at least. I think it’s more popular to put all those together in one bucket like theism vs atheism etc –as if there haven’t been anti-religious people who had that God-like attitude. Labels can misguide.

            12. I just see as religion as a long-standing political tool. The beauty of it is that it is so deeply conditioned into our cultures that we can be successfully ridiculed for not buying into the con. And also, those who have are unaware of their having been conned. How perfect is that?

            13. I know what you mean. In my country it is not that unusual anymore to not be a theist, or to only typically be. Younger generations are mostly on that side. So, I don’t have that issue anymore, myself. Actually, Scientology and any other minor (in size) religions are frowned upon as manipulative tools. But hey, Marxists were not religious and were much more hardcore in mind-control than others in their time –or at least so I’ve heard. If you intend to play ‘God’ you can find your way…..

            14. Speaking of ‘God’s I have met a few in my life. Those guys that demand to be in control of you, or else…

              I have been one too -fortunately briefly- in some moments in my life. I consider it something regrettable. They don’t. And they have the fun of their life in Scientology with their mockery of an ‘8C’. It’s a suitable ground to play ‘God’, if you so wish.

              I think God (8) is everything, and I can’t be him more than the other dude, not matter who he is. In Scientology too the 8th Dynamic is everything.

            15. You could be on the right track.

              I do not believe in ideological gods (except for my own!) I know how it seems to me, the metaphors, but I know I am guessing and that’s pretty good for me. I like that state of non-commitment to an ideology. As I practice, that vertigo and instability that go with letting go becomes a tolerable state, more alive, less confining.

            16. I don’t think I could put the subject ‘God’ into a theory, either. I think whatever I’d say about it, wouldn’t be true. ‘8th Dynamic’ is already too untrue. I just think of it as something better than to identify God with The Devil. He is God alright, but so is my cat.

              Yeah, I’m not ‘inside’ any ideology either. And my agreements with SCN are mostly triggered when I see it being used in reverse. I’m then like “That’s not SCN”. I don’t even know why I do it, anymore. Ask God? 😛

            17. “And my agreements with SCN are mostly triggered when I see it being used in reverse. I’m then like “That’s not SCN”.”

              Good people like you are everywhere and do not support the harm that their political ideologies do, don’t believe these damaging actions align with their true beliefs. I think this is a good commentary and a reason for possible hope for the human species.

            18. I’m within the possible hope for mankind lol thanx.

              I guess if people don’t actually actively support the destructive aspects of their ideology (instead of just denying it) things will be great and we might as well have boring peace on earth, and such. Then Geir will revolt.

            19. My frame of logic says the guy wouldn’t be as stupid as to warn them of such things, so as to not have them happen, and then teach them to do it. A logical person would then say “Are you kidding me? You yourself told me to not dominate and not be dominated. And now you’re tell me to dominate?”.

              You know what. I think Scientologists just buy idiocies like “Oh look at me, I work my guts out for you –to help you (pity pity)”. Now as I tell you. The world is dying. You must do what I tell you, or else. SPs everywhere (Not me. Don’t look at me). Work work be upstat, disconnect from SPs, avoid entheta. Everyone who speaks against us has overts. Believe anything I tell you (“Look don’t listen -LRH”). ARC yippie! Avoid contanct with non Scientologists. We are so uptone stuck at 1.1 Hurray! Let’s clap for LRH.”

            20. “My frame of logic says the guy wouldn’t be as stupid as to warn them of such things, so as to not have them happen, and then teach them to do it. A logical person would then say “Are you kidding me? You yourself told me to not dominate and not be dominated. And now you’re tell me to dominate?”. ”

              Yes. It is a work of art in that respect. A swindle to be admired and studied by aspiring grifters anywhere.

            21. “You know what. I think Scientologists just buy idiocies like “Oh look at me, I work my guts out for you –to help you . . . ”

              That’s me!

            22. It isn’t that there aren’t people who actually do it to help. But in my experience, the highest posts (the most controlling ones) were mostly held by the most manipulative guys. If you see any blame from me towards Scientologists, it goes to them. It doesn’t go everywhere. Besides, as per LRH too, they were most responsible for what went on in their Churches. I think

              I should end my ranting now, if you got my point.

            23. To be a little more specific: Some OSA dude (he admitted it, and he was caught on the meter too), visited us and he was trying to convince me that ‘the world’ is so fragile and that I was going to die, while staring me in the eyes, with a smile that kinda resembled the devil. Don’t you think if that went on, and if I believed him I might get something like ‘panic attacks’ and even go ‘Type 3’? Or is it fair game to be the SP yourself, against whomever merely doesn’t follow your Marxist group, and follows another group, instead? Where did that guy read that?

            24. Perhaps the problem is, that while he does the “evil” he learned from LRH, he failed to learn the “good” he could have learned to do from LRH, and fails to do the good.
              By his own satement, he sees his “job” as nothing but seeing SPs and dealing with them. But he is lying right there, because he has revised and edited “the tech”, and manifestly, with programs like the IAS and “Ideal Orgs”, he is NOT doing what LRH taught.
              Let’s try being a little less “black and white” thinking……

            25. “Let’s try being a little less “black and white” thinking……”

              I may change my mind later if the situations change. Let’s say Miscavige is demoted and suddenly Scientologists who have somehow escaped the conditioning of KSW emerge to take the reins and take Scientology in a benevolent direction. I cannot actually imagine that, can you? Yet, if it did, if the walls came down, I would soften. I wouldn’t go back, but my antagonism toward the practitioners would lessen.

              Scientology is profane, it bends conventional morality, it respects creative lying to such a degree that only the statistic matters. The method by which a desired statistic is achieved has become irrelevant. The personal statistic of a person is the thing, the only thing which matters about a person’s beingness and character. That is pretty black and white, isn’t it Valkov?

            26. I do understand what you mean Valkov. But if the cherries weren’t there, then I wouldn’t be able to pick them. I do not declare that there is no good anecdote, no useful datum within the metes and bounds of Scientology. I just think I have to cherry pick to find them and when I do find them, I find they are not exclusive to Scientology. If Scientology, or Islam, or Christianity, or Mormonism become less rigid, take themselves less seriously, chillax, I will take a commensurately milder attitude toward them as well. I feel my attitude is consistent with embracing the conflict more than burying my head in the sand. I don’t even need to forgive Scientology, I just need it to back the hell down. When it is no longer continuing to damage mine and my family’s life, then I can and will dial back my rhetoric.

            27. The results of a recent study, publiched in Main Street, reveals that 25% of Americans believe that people who are poor, are poor because they don’t work hard enough. In other words, they are pulling it in, are in effect, “poor by choice”.
              Many of the people in Scientology think that way too, but it is a reflection of the overall culture. A perfect example is the transportation company Uber, whose ethics is about on a parr with the Church of Scientology’s. Google has invested to date at least $130,000,000 in Uber, which has recently been valued at $18 Billion. Yet Uber has no ethics at all except for it’s own survival and expansion, but is seen by many as a real “winner”.

            28. I don’t know about Uber, but I can easily believe you could be right. The thing is I am not picking on the Scientologists exclusively, that’s just because we are all -exes or current-Scientologists and Scientology has been nearer and dearer to me than Uber. Lately I’ve been boning up on climate change. Having trained in geology in college (more so than Hubbard trained in nuclear physics in college) I do not find climate change to be an particularly interesting subject. The climate has always changed. The notion that man has effected a climate change in a few hundred years is an alarming idea to me. I find myself trying to cipher the data and understand if this is the current reason for the warming. The reason is that I feel a responsibility to come down on the right side of this important political issue. The fact that the petroleum industry, more so than healthcare, insurance, or computers is the backbone of our industrialized cultures and utterly profit-motivated, makes me naturally suspicious about the continued use of petroleum in a time that we no longer need to continue it for energy. The world could change over to renewable resources if we wanted. On the other hand, on a long enough time line, petroleum is a renewable resource.

            29. I haven’t studied it but I have the impression that burning coal causes a lot of air pollution too. But petroleum must play a big part too, witness the photos of the air in Beijing and other cities around the world.

        2. “The cry for stripping away wealth from the wealthy is purely smoke and mirrors. It is the monopolization of a countries wealth that brings about revolutions, with all the attendent destruction. From which a small minority then profits. Like Cheney profited from the Iraq ‘war’ through Halliburton. All the rest is hot air.”

          And like Putin and the rest of the ruling class profits under the “Federal Republic of Russia.” Nobody much wants to be left behind when there are rubles about. Not the ruling class and not the proletariat. I’m not much seeing different motivations in people when it comes to remuneration, but I’m willing to.

  20. I’d like to embrace a conflict: A short while ago I read a document supposedly by the OSA that blogs and forums are infiltrated by OSA people that spread disaffection between out-of-the-COS groups or between ex COS people and SCN in general. One should be very naive to not have expected that for one. For two, one should be too stupid to not have figured it out by some too obvious comments.

    Mr Miscavige and OSA and friends, a short while ago I sent a message saying I’m not going to bash at the COS anymore. I wanted to stress again that it was not because I’m scared of you, but because I don’t want to any longer contribute to the stupid conflict, and increase it. I would like to ask you, if you wish to take me out somehow, to do it fast, cause waiting makes me horny. I have been straight and honest to you, that I think you are fakes, and that although I don’t read nor practice SCN I like LRH. I’m not going to change my mind, because of your feeble efforts, that invalidate my intelligence. If you have anything to say, say it and quit the underground games. Your ‘beloved’ LRH has made me to not be afraid to die, so please don’t bullshit us all equally in the same way, as we don’t all buy the crap, and we’re not all afraid. I’ll be doing whatever the fuck I want.

    Hopefully, Goodbye forevere. I wish I will have nothing to do with you and your likes again.

    1. Spyros,I read an article about about karma, which talks about the different ways people “overcome” it. Most of the time, they do so in the ordinary, painful way, but sometimes in a way that involves a higher awareness/conscousness. Your post reminded me of the latter!

      Btw, the article neatly relates the whole of karma to quantum physics. But here’s an excerpt that isn’t too technical:

      ——————————–
      “Thus if we have two people, A and B, representing the perpetrator and the victim respectively, each will have this duality in their own mind, that is, perpetrator/victim polarity. Person A will, say, be dramatising being the perpetrator, and B, the victim (they may change roles in another life). Each person projects out into the external world the imbalance. Person A seeks a balance by finding a victim B, and person B seeks a balance in perpetrator A. Eventually the duality resolves into unity and wholeness but as implied it appears as though it may take many roles of A and B, alternating from perpetrator to victim until they resolve the imbalance internally by observing their internal condition reflected outwards. Conscious awareness of this will speed up the process.

      “The ego is essentially a mass of unresolved dualities each (duality) influencing the individual to resolve the polarities into unity. We can draw the conclusion that a behaviour which involves no conscious effort and intention of the individual to resolve these dualities results in learning by misadventure; that is, the basic imbalance reacts to seek balance—person A kills B, and A must now be killed. This is the slow and painful way of overcoming karma—it isn’t very efficient.

      “Is there any other way this could be resolved? It is apparent that if A attempts self-improvement to a sufficient degree, or works in service to others, depending on the extent of this, etc., the basic reaction could be alleviated and a will not have to be killed in turn. The very activity of applying effort to bring about change of a positive nature should eventually cancel the karma. A miraculous change would always be possible, however, in which A perceives the imbalance within self by some therapeutic process or otherwise, and realigns it, resolving the karma immediately.”
      ———————————-

      http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~noelh/Karma.htm

      1. Yes, I’ve heard of all that, before. It is drama.

        My point with ‘I’m not afraid to be killed’ is simply that unless I make my body Highlander or something, it’s going to die anyway at some point. I think better die having accomplished something, and being freer than cowering in fear of death, than of old age. It’s simply code of honor.

        I’m not going to provoke any such thing to occur, but I’d like to make clear that if I or any of my friends gets harmed, I wont hold back due to fear. I might hold back due to letting them play with themselves, by themselves. But I know I have triggered some hate with my posts (like others have too) and maybe in some people, some appetite to make me ‘respect’ them, whatever that means. I’m not going to make amends to all the COSes or others like the COS so they wont hate me. That would be slavery.

        But indeed, I’m withdrawing from the COS business because I don’t want to be contained in this game. I’d preffer to have a straight and honest talk, so as to resolve something. It seems that is not going to happen, at the moment.

          1. No, I don’t think anyone is in such danger. If I tell you “I’m gonna bite you” or if I talk of people I have bitten before or even if I want to bite you, it doesn’t mean that you will get bitten 😛

            Compared to some other religions and groups, Scientology -even in it’s present state- takes it too easy, for the press bashing it gets, in return. Kinda like the Germans who took all the blame for 2 whole world wars and it’s dead people. Kinda like Greece who takes all the blame for the EUs demise…mostly by Germany, lol.

            1. I have to think about what you said and reply later when I get home. Meanwhile, did you read that blog post I linked?! Or am I gonna have to bite you! Read it and report back. 😛

            2. How is it that I have to explain what I say over and over? 😛 It gives me a big fail when the lag is also long. I never said anybody’s going to kill me, but that I’m not (even) afraid to die, so don’t try to f*ck with me and my friends 😛

              About the Germans: You can count the dead of each country’s history. You could start with the British colonies… See who wins…

    2. Hi Spyros. Very truthful and sobering post. VWD and thank you.

      A couple of days absence for me. (Useful time to recover from the neck-aches sustained while watching surely some of the longest blog tennis matches, on record?) Swat-Blat! Swat-Blat! Swat-Blat! Swat-Blat! ad infinitum!! LOL! 🙂

      Well, several things come to mind, reflecting on the substances of postings by you, Marildi, Chris and Valkov:

      1) Though it is generally quite a difficult task, to duplicate, another’s viewpoint, (attempting to walk in their shoes, or “shoeniverse”, as I have come to think of it), — I nevertheless believe it is essential, if one is to come close to a ‘duplication’ and thereby, understanding of any given concept/s communicated

      2) Achieving the ‘understanding/s’ desired, is far more easily achieved, through the ‘willingness’ , to do so.
      (Have you, for example, ever been surprised to discover how you managed to decipher some ‘gibberish’ uttered to you, by an over zealous one-year old, trying to tell you ‘what’ he saw “under the table?” Or the animated directions given to you by a foreigner, in explaining how to get from A to B?
      — In all cases, it appears we succeed (when we do!) through the WILLINGNESS on our part, to ‘step into the other’s shoeniverse’.

      3) I feel it is truly appropriate here, to drop into the shoeniverse, of Chris. It appears likely, that of the five of us involved, erstwhile, in this discussion, Chris has experienced the very worst Scn betrayal of all.
      To have your family relationship destroyed, through the actions of a ‘church’?, clearly would seem the most heinous, unforgivable act of all!! And Chris would feel completely justified in feeling that way.!! (The perp/s, should expect NO mercy, for ‘their’ part, in this betrayal of trust! — Again, full empathy for Chris, and what this has done in splitting his family!) I’m convinced that the healing process will ultimately be forthcoming, following the exit of “DMadness.”

      4) At the same time, in an attempt to draw a distinction between the subject (Scn) and the ‘applications’ thereof, one need go no further than this very device by which you are reading this right now. Your almighty # computer, capable of ‘free-ing’ you, in ways that you had not previously imagined! Or destroying you completely!

      example: Taking the ORIGINAL philosophy of Scn, and using it intelligently, to enlighten and free you from ignorance, aberration and fear of death. The ORIGINAL processing, similarly, can free one further, into new realms of ethics, and ability, previously lacking.

      example: Under “DMadness” of COB, the above examples are reversed into products of fear, mind-control, blinkered subservience, and a willingness to sacrifice one’s integrity, family and fortune, to “Command Intention” in order to ‘reach’ HIS (promised, but never delivered) Golden Carrot of “your Eternity”

      # DEPENDING on HOW and WHAT use you make of it, (your computer)

      example: Where would we be today, without the capacity to discover, broadly and individually, all the facts we now have at our disposal, in an instant, to make informed decisions that affect our our lives, future and state thereof.

      example: Or conversely, messing up you head, and therefore your life and relationships (ie, porn addiction, pedophilia, stalking, bomb making instructions, aberrative addictions, compulsions, and unhealthy relationships, etc. And the ease with which to commit bullying, fraud, and other cyber crimes.)

      In conclusion, perhaps it is only by “walking a mile in the other man’s shoes” (his shoeniverse) that we may come to fully grasp the ol’ man’s offering of: “what is true for you, is what you have observed yourself.” (subjectively and objectively, too.) 🙂

      1. Hello there 🙂

        ” Swat-Blat! Swat-Blat! Swat-Blat! Swat-Blat! ad infinitum!! LOL! :)”

        Hehe yes, that’s my usual. Sometimes I feel sorry for spamming Geir’s blog like that. I hope he’s somewhat cool with it.

        “To have your family relationship destroyed, through the actions of a ‘church’?, clearly would seem the most heinous, unforgivable act of all!! And Chris would feel completely justified in feeling that way.!!”

        I think I would take it as invalidation to be told that I think or act in a certain way because of my past. It’s a bit like making somebody wrong –that he doesn’t see the truth and such. Chris and everyone can plan their own courses. It is respected, whether agreed with, or not. I ask for similar respect sometimes, but to not take it is part of the game too, and it’s alright. I’m just sorry to not be able to agree with everybody through a single viewpoint.

        I have bashed at some of my past experiences with SCN quit a bit. But truth for me is I would enjoy the companion of like-minded people. With SCN I had something intense in common –though something negatively intense too on the same time. Thus, the contradiction of it all. Ahh good times.

        1. Spyros, I enjoyed reading today’s exchanges, and let me just say to the little Greek devil that it is becoming more and more apparent that you are a force to be reckoned with. 😛 Very good comments from the little Greek devil.

          Your post above and Calvin’s brought to mind again that article on karma. So before I hit the pillow. I’ll post another excerpt for you and the others to contemplate. I think it applies to all of us former scientologists who (to quote you) “had something intense in common – though something negatively intense too on the same time.Thus, the contradiction of it all. Ahh good times.” 🙂

          “Possibly the most advanced method as far as knowledge is concerned, of handling karma, requiring not only persistence but a great deal of awareness, as alluded to earlier, is through the recognition that the environment is reflecting one’s inner state.

          “More specifically, all problems, discomforts, conflicts impinging on one from the environment are fragments of oneself which one has disowned. This applies even if one is merely an observer of a discomforting situation.

          “If one could understand that these experiences reflect one’s own attributes that one has rejected, and integrate these into self – bring them in, not push them away – Karma becomes pointless.”

          http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~noelh/Karma.htm

          1. Mmmm I don’t know whether I fully agree with this Karma theory. I’m not saying ‘no’. I just don’t know. Again, some -apparently- minor details could make big difference.

            There can also be a condition that one creates the Devil and calls him an angel. It might seem devilish and ‘entheta’ to call that angel the Devil, but that would only be an apparency.

        2. Got you Spyros.! To paraphrase you a few posts up: “How is it that I have to explain what I say over and over?” 🙂

          Kindly re-read what I ACTUALLY said, re Chris’ experience, which he recently posted here, by which I’m admittedly assuming he intended for us to duplicate?

          JFYI, I wish to make it clear, that there certainly is/was no intention for me to invalidate any aspect of Chris’ origination, in this exchange, Okay?

          N.B!! — My sole intent is/was to highlight the importance of being able to step into the “shoeniverse” of another, in order to appreciate the background of circumstances, to which one may still actively be the adverse effect of, in present time!

          A short spell of us ‘wearing the auditor’s hat’, would do the job just nicely in that situation, doncha’ think? 🙂

          Finally, perhaps, Chris’ direct response to my assumptions, may clarify any misunderstandings here, whether on my part, or yours? (Over to Chris, if/when ready ?) 🙂

          1. “(Over to Chris, if/when ready ?) :)”

            Chris: Huh? I know your position toward Scientology, and you know mine, right? Mine evolved through years of blogging and of auditing from my former true believer to the one I express today. How I expressed it in the past was equally valid representation, even if different from the one I post today.

          2. Calvin, when did you start blogging here? Because to me, it seems like a year ago? – or longer? I’m not sure. But if you read my old posts back 3-4 years ago, you would read someone with a world view more more kind to Scientology theory — not COS as by then I was barely unraveling from the organization. It was right here on this blog, with everyone’s help and auditing at home where I began to learn the stultifying nature of ideologies and how it could possibly be that I was not thinking for myself.

            1. I wonder what did you audit at that time?

              Just so you know, my SCN arguement is not called ‘COS’, nor ‘DM’ in specific. That would be too narrow. My argument is when it doesn’t go where it says it go, and even goes to an opposite direction, instead. And there is no reason why there cannot be COSes outside the COS, either. For me, It isn’t some evil dude that does all this. It is rather something collective.

            2. Some people feel invalidated when I talk about some collective ‘wrong’ about Scientology. They prefer the invalidation that all Scientology is about making one feel better –sort of like an alternative psychology kind of a thing. Well, it seems Hubbard aimed higher than that, and he wasn’t very fond of psychology either. I don’t want to feel better about getting divorced (imaginary example). I want the whole divorce as-ised, if you get me.

          3. At the end of a year of solo-auditing, After decades of anticipation, I was like “WTF? Is that all there is to it? hahahahahahaha!” To say that I had mixed emotions is an understatement.

            1. There ya go, bro’! That was beautiful. Succinct and straight.

              Don’t mind me either, please….. I love tinkering around in the ol’ man’s toolbox. there’s plenty of practical gadgets and wigits that fix all manner of things, that less efficient tools just don’t seem able to pull off. Hey, brother, like you, I’ve spent a few decades honing my skills at what I consider workable. Whether by trade or profession, it’s being confident and/or competent, that delivers the goods, that gets the job done right, right Chris? 🙂

            2. Likewise, Chris! I think there’s a sort of mutual admiration thing that is recognized by all who enjoy the freedom of paddling their own canoes? 🙂

          4. Hey, yes I read it. Sorry for no ack. Many topics are being discussed. I’d like you and everyone to read this as well.

            http://www.matrixfiles.com/Scientology%20Materials/Tapes&Lect%20chrono/5212c01%20Philadelphia%20Doctorate%20Course%20Lectures/Pdc%20-%20htm/5212c12%20PDC-39%20Game%20Processing.HTM

            “Now, “How to make a piece. This is how to make’ a piece: First, deny there is a game. Second, hide the rules from them. Three, give them all penalties and no wins. Four, remove all goals” – all goals.”

      2. So, anyway, I read some issue that is supposedly issued by the COS, which is actually a course about how to mess up non COS SCN through the internet and make ex COS people hate SCN in general (not the COS) and make non COS SCNsts fight among each other. So, I got charged about it and…

        I don’t want to post it because it looks mean and I don’t want to charge others too. When charge wears off I become a bit like a hippie “Peace, man” etc.

        But it’s good that I found another ‘excuse’ to break my oath of totally abandoning the subject, once more. Good times. 😛

  21. Spyros, my friend, you keep talking about the CoS but you don’t say anything about the biggest news ever on the subject!

    I mean, it is HUGE that there are reportedly going to be two movie-length documentaries coming out soon – like in just a couple of months. I think this is what Marty was alluding to when he said that in 2015 something very big was going to happen. (That was a few months ago in his “Reality Check” blog post.) I’m sure he had a significant role to play in both of the coming documentaries, so he would know what’s up.

    Anyway, sorry about the comm lags in my replies these days, but as I mentioned earlier things have gotten very busy for me. And now the holidays are upon us with Thanksgiving this week already, so my posting will be even less for a while. 😦

    Have a great day. 😛

    1. Again I didn’t get notified of your reply.

      I don’t see how the documentaries make what I say about the COS (I don’t only talk about the COS. Actually, I mostly don’t) invalid –that I shouldn’t say it. In both cases there will be a one way comm line. The COS wouldn’t allow me go talk to it’s members about what I think. The documentaries will not allow me to argue either. At least here and in Marty’s I got a chance to say something –something like everything does not equal everything.

      1. Hi Spyros, here you are, making a lot of interesting comments and no takers! (Oops, I see Valkov just gave you a reply.)

        WE Americans have had the excuse that yesterday was a big holiday, second only to Christmas. In fact, it’s a 4-day weekend here and a lot of us even have guests from out of town – so we’re still preoccupied for the most part.

        But I thought I would make a short reply to what you wrote here:

        “I don’t see how the documentaries make what I say about the COS…invalid – that I shouldn’t say it.”

        Agreed – and I didn’t mean that. I just thought the documentaries deserved some comment TOO. But after my initial enthusiasm, I’m not so sure these films will make any reall difference in what goes on with the CoS…

        You also wrote: “At least here and in Marty’s I got a chance to say something – something like everything does not equal everything.”

        Yes, and you do a very good job of it. (I hope you already got that I took back my earlier “doubt.” 😛 )

        Anyway, I’m at least reading the comments, even though my replies to those addressed to me are few and far between. 😦 🙂

        1. Hi Marildi,

          “here you are, making a lot of interesting comments and no takers!”

          Yes, kinda disappointing. A liability with conflicts is it can lead to disconnection and apathy. See FZ and this blog. Maybe if we taunt people they will come here and fight? 😛

          “WE Americans have had the excuse that yesterday was a big holiday, second only to Christmas.”

          Thanksgiving?

          “Yes, and you do a very good job of it.”

          I do a good job of running ridges online. I hope they will remain confidential within this planet.

          The bounces between opposing thoughts I’ve had are amazing. You wouldn’t believe what has been crossing my thought world since yesterday.

    2. False PR VS Black PR. Hmmm whose side should I choose?

      How about we -on our own determination- actually talk?

      I see it as an action-reaction kind of a thing. There was a line deeply hidden somewhere about attacks from the press etc occurring only if ‘we’ don’t bring about results.

  22. Religion takes away one’s natural intellect and replaces that intellect with mental structures that hold a promise of replacing that removed intellect at a future date. Yes, it is that circular. I find Scientology to be a true religion. I do not pretend that my experiences in Scientology are terrible on a scale of atrocities that religions perform. Scientology does not burn witches. But it does not burn witches because governments block it, not because Scientology ethics codes do not allow it.

    The Scientoloogy ethics code of Fair Game is clear. Scientology’s treatment of church defined apostates is strictly and only reined in by the law of the land in which it is practiced and then only to the degree that an envelope can be pushed without actually getting caught out. Then like a mission impossible spy, the law breaker if caught is disavowed. This was true personally of Hubbard when he wrote Fair Game and continues to the present. Hubbard set up a situation where his own wife was the patsy who took the fall and went to prison in his place.

    1. “Religion takes away one’s natural intellect and replaces that intellect with mental structures”

      It’d be fortunate if just religions and theories of the supernatural did that. I see it very frequently where there is ‘mass’ communication –well I see an intention, but I don’t buy. See, in the age of information everybody knows everything, or at least he thinks so. A different perception of things is quickly discarded as unrealistic, crazy, whatever. “You like in your own world”….not in the world of your tv.

    2. See for example the press with regards to Syria. What a crazy mess. On one time Assad is evil etc, the other time the rebels are evil and Assad must be helped. Didn’t something similar happen with Iran and Iraq long ago? Of course if you don’t mind about all that stuff you don’t have contact with reality –like meself 😛

      In the SCN VS antiSCN thing I don’t play for similar reasons. I think there’s a lot of BS involved –much more than usually imagined. And in the end the victims are meant to be the honest folk, of course. The dishonest ones, are victims of themselves, already.

      1. Having said all that about how belief can cause war, I realize I myself have believed a bunch of things in my life, just because some things that I know resemble what I’ve heard. Example: I know somebody has punched another, so then one day I hear he also punched some other another, and I believe it.

        Actually, that’s what I’ve been trying to differentiate here all along. Yet, I’ve been a believer too, some times, to some degree.

        OK, I have the craziest idea ever and it’s OK if somebody wants to disembowel me for expressing it. I’ll take it as TAA. I go through something similar with some personal stuff of mine here. So, I say since we are not Marxists, fascists etc here in the out-of-the-COS world, we could vote for a commission to meet in neutral ground with a commission of the COS and talk –communicate possible complains of and from both sides, what they want, etc. With the possibility to reach agreements. The discussion should be openly available to all (recorded) who want to know about it.

        I find this better than to talk behind each other’s back.

        I know the COS watches over, so it wont be difficult to let them know, in case they decide to join in.

        I can enjoy a good fight, I just want it to be as true as possible. I mean to get in a ring and fight –fine. To fight with somebody, from a distance, because what happened 15 years ago –lame, and not too much action involved.

        I’d vote for Geir to participate in such a thing.

  23. I have a funny connection to Ronnie Miscavige. We both love the Exergenie. I personally own about five of them from different points in the product’s history.

    I’ve never met the guy, but I hope the best for him.

    Anyway, he sells his very own package of this amazing device. The Exer-genie went on three Apollo missions and actually landed on the moon.

    So, if you have a fitness enthusiast in your life, I really suggest you get one of these babies from DM’s Dad. It will do most of the TRX suspension exercises as well as a tethered run, a 500 pound squat and almost any exercise you can do in a gym.

    And it fits in a bag.

    Here is his Exer-Genie Model.

    http://www.exergenie.com/product/exer-genie-dynamic-life-training-system-by-ron-miscavige/

    1. Good post KG. At only $319.85 that’s a bargain, However, I would be remiss to say that the Exer-Genie is not medically or scientifically useful for the diagnosis, treatment or prevention of any disease. It is not medically or scientifically capable of improving the health or bodily functions of anyone.

      The Exer-Genie can never replace a personal relationship with Shrek who invented the Exer-Genie in 1833. Let us pray for interpretation, “Shrek is Love, Shrek is Life.” For in the words of our Heavenly Father, “It is all ogre now.”

  24. There’s been a topic about fighting and peace and spirituality under discussion for a long time now, and the Church has been talked about as the fighting party, mostly and that it was put to do that by LRH etc. I don’t think the Church fights.

    If we met at some square to play kickboxing or something, then it would be a fight. At some point it would end. We would probably never meet again. When somebody hides behind status, laws, money and anything else but himself, he doesn’t fight. That is called bullying, or suppression. He doesn’t fight. He hopes to harm and not be harmed back. And those guys usually don’t appear anywhere. They send others instead.

    I’m not going to join another front (the opposite pole) of anti-SCN that operates with anti-PR, hoping to achieve anything good. And in present I’m no longer willing to be informing people about SCN like they cannot know by themselves or like they’re not responsible for what happens to them. I used to do that, and I didn’t lie in what I said and I bet others have honestly said what they experienced too. But I invalidated their self determinism and their right to do whatever they want with themselves. And that nobody needs pampering.

    When Marty defended his home that was a fight. And I’m glad he barked at them, and maybe I would had gone further and bite them too. And then they would be going around whining what psycho Spyros had done to them, because bullying is not psycho. Well, like some do with Hubbard –it seems. It is OK to get harassed, but don’t fight, stay calm. Lol. That’s suppression.

    Still the guy(s) that would had incited all that, wouldn’t be there. So, that would be lame.

    That to conclude about fighting and spirituality and peace and love and light. There is some balance in between. No, force is not always bad, when needed –but when needed, indeed. And actual force, not hiring goons with money to do it for you, or other indirect stuff.

    What, all those guys from both fronts could solve their differences easily and quickly, the direct way. In the end, they might even become friends –that’s actually happened to me. So, Marildi you have my view about this. I don’t agree with holding your TRs all the time. And if you make that body angry, it doesn’t mean you’re not in PT either. If anyone from the Church or elsewhere has things against me, I’ll be glad to meet and chat or fight or whatever. But this backstabbing, behind-the-back shit PRing didn’t start from me, and I don’t think anyone would agree to face me, but rather shit PR me more, in hope I will apathetically retreat, or maybe send some irrelevant expeditor to try to scare me. That challenge alone made start to blog, in the first place, fools. Because you tried to shut me up. And if you want it to stop, better change your tactics with others from now on. I bet I’m not the only one who thought of it like that. And quit playing victim of the light side. Your good purposes don’t make you holy. And I unlike other don’t think you are Hubbard’s victims.

    Still all this talking about fighting, while there is no fighting makes me feel like an old lady who watches by-passers on the street. And I don’t like it. Anyone down for a good match? I don’t think so. But at least I answered this thing about fighting and also the code of honor once more is great and that point about using force in particular, is awesome. It shows LRH was not a shit PR coward.

    1. Spyros: “What, all those guys from both fronts could solve their differences easily and quickly, the direct way. In the end, they might even become friends –that’s actually happened to me. So, Marildi you have my view about this. I don’t agree with holding your TRs all the time. And if you make that body angry, it doesn’t mean you’re not in PT either.”

      I tend to have the same view as you, about force sometimes being necessary. But as for dealing directly with the CoS, through whatever form of communication (whether talking or fighting), the problem is that those terminals are not live terminals.

      The communication formula requires the intention to communicate – to duplicate and to understand, and (in the reverse) to be duplicatable and understood. Communication wouldn’t occur with the CoS on any significant matter, because they aren’t being live terminals. They’ve been indoctrinated otherwise. Do you see what I mean?

      1. I don’t know it seems kinda apathetic and invalidative to me to think that because they’re not live, they can’t understand. I understand that due to failure after failure ‘we’ might have fallen in apathy about it. But is it true that they can’t understand?

        And another thing: Considering what I have experienced in the gulfs of SCN all those years, the sort of manipulation I have witnessed, I’m sooo glad LRH kicked some ass, when he did. I should had done that too. Because now you even talk about those guys as victims, and that makes my brains twist. They should had gotten declared, kicked out, and kindly given a chance to return, instead the honest people are, and no chance to return without undergoing God knows what.

        1. Not “live” in the sense of real time. When I say they aren’t “live,” I mean they are more like robots than beings – beings are alive (or can be) and for that reason can communicate in a true sense, not just speak as though from a script with fixed lines to relay and fixed purposes. Your comm to them goes through their filters and they respond accordingly. It’s not that it would be impossible to get through to the being – but it’s not likely for the most part.

          Basically, there is a big fat barrier that makes it difficult if not impossible to get through. But what is the issue you’re trying to solve with the CoS? I thought you said at some earlier point in time that you were done with putting your attention on it.

          1. LOL it seems your telepathic comm, became my comm before, as I wrote about the same, OK. So we agree over apathy, typical lol.

            I’m not trying to solve any issue. My topic was more about force and then I connected other things like the COS and LRH and how I love that he kicked ass and wasn’t a peaceful hypocrite.

            1. Kewl. 😎

              Hey Spyros, I just looked at your Facebook page, using my son’s password, and I think you should use one of those photos of yourself for your avatar. The dog/wolf is cute but you are much cuter. 😛 Maybe use photo #1 or #6 (a closeup, just the face).

              Too bad my day is ending when yours is beginning. Catch you later. 😛 🙂

            2. It’s a polar fox and cute yeah. It’s coincidental, but foxes are supposed to be witty, and avoid traps 😛

              Thank you for your good words, but I have an issue viewing photos of mine. I’m usually like “Is this how I look like? Noooooooo”

              Sleep well

            3. To hopefully avoid that black and white logic. No I’m WITH force in general. I’m with with force, when it’s to avoid the worse, like this neverending force-loving, force-avoiding backstabbing conflict. Other than that, I think friends should love each other.

            4. “how I love that he kicked ass and wasn’t a peaceful hypocrite.”

              That’s a funny way of putting it Spyros. “A peaceful hypocrite.” Yeah, he lived large, so I suppose we can say he was the opposite, a conflicted hypocrite?

            5. There can be ‘a conflicting hypocrite’ too. And a ‘peaceful non-hypocrite’, as well. My point was that usually those who blame you for using force, do it only because they want to be the only ones who use force, even in a gentle way. Like ‘Oh how I love you, let me mess you up for your own good’.

            6. Like today we have ‘peace’ in society, as long as you don’t deny to give your monies and work for some not-that-honest people that like to play gods.

              I would prefer to live how I want to (without harming others), and even use force to defend my freedom. Or even better live how I want to, and not even need to use force and defend it. But Jesus, Mohamed and Lenin said we should be good to our masters.

            7. “But Jesus, Mohamed and Lenin said we should be good to our masters.”

              Because religion and politics are control tools. They are designed to do your thinking for you.

          2. I’m sorry I don’t think Miscavige made them do it, nor LRH. What an excuse. I never read during my time in SCN, that bullying is ethical, and I never accepted it. If you (anybody), your bad. You did it. Instead I thought if anyone would be bully enough, suppresive enough, I was ‘allowed’ to use force for a fair cause. I didn’t, but I knew it would be Scientologicaly OK. Quit attributing everything to two guys, guys. I have studied SCN too.

        2. “I understand that due to failure after failure ‘we’ might have fallen in apathy about it. But is it true that they can’t understand?”

          Yes, quite true. There is nothing in their reality to understand about our disagreements nor our views as their own opinions are completely consistent within their own frame of reference. There is a “buffer” if you will within a frame of reference which counters and smooths “Godel’s Incompleteness” and that buffer is what we call faith.

          1. You know, I have too liked and still like SCN as philosophy, and in the past more than that. I’m thinking there is something in SCN that can be found in Christianity as well as elsewhere too, which makes fanatics out of free students (people that just study it) –guilt.

            Christianity has much to do with sins and punishments of sins. Sadly SCNists are made even more guilty. It is pointed out that spoken disagreements with SCN equals either sins on behalf of the guy who disagrees, that only criminals would actively oppose it, and also those accusations as well the OW write ups that (the way I experienced them) cause a whole infection just to treat the surface symptoms mildly, and give an F/N on the meter. You can’t write down your ‘3rd dynamic overts’ for example, as those would include -according to SCN itself- the overts of some quadrillions of years. You will write some down, be relieved, F/N, the rest will remain, and you will try to protect the group as a result and fight it’s enemies or ‘enemies’, as in the occasion of an overt (those that you missed), you are the enemy yourself. They keep pounding ‘help or you are guilty for the doom of the earth’, ‘donate’, ‘work’, etc. That infection is constantly scratched. That is the relief I got recently, that I wrote down in here. You know, in SCN itself that system of guilts is called ‘PTS/SP’ condition.

            1. “I’m thinking there is something in SCN that can be found in Christianity as well as elsewhere too, which makes fanatics out of free students (people that just study it) –guilt.”

              There is an entire side of recovery which I believe deserves a mention, one which is never mentioned, or is discounted, and you could quote me on this, “The first step to recovery is recognizing that you do not have a problem.”

            2. That is awesome.

              Yes, I don’t have any O/Ws 🙂 All that stuff could be created/thought to be had and their effects could then be then observed.

            3. Although it is an ideology with it’s own frame of reasoning, I think it’s endgoal, if it was reached, was supposed to be that –no ideologies, no fixed ideas, limitations, problems and other things. That’s why I don’t oppose it as a whole.

            4. All I write in here is relative to the topic. Logical bridges and all. I compare the subject to the subject. In my life, out of discussing about SCN in here, I don’t make such thoughts. I’m certain I don’t have all that mental phenomena. Are the guys who think their brains, their star signs, their subconscious etc etc etc certain too? They have their own constructs. By a workable construct they could remedy that, I think. Still I think that workable construct is not true. But hey, I also think the universe is not true either.

            5. Social constructs, mild ones, can be useful. But I do not care for elaborate ones that attempt to achieve consistency through verbosity. Example: American legal codes. These attempt to “mistake-proof” our interactions with one another and with the government. It’s too much. No one could ever wrap their mind around the lot of it, and it tries to do our thinking for us. Not going to work in the long run.

            6. Yes, and it is strange you need to be a lawyer to know what the laws that you are supposed to be subjected to are. And yes, too many complications.

            7. I think -for example- it is better to ‘treat depression’ by imagining a few stuff until you are no longer depressed, or even better know you never were, than to go on meds. I know I cannot have any depression.

              All that stuff is relatively good or bad. But none true. I agree. Physical sciences are also relatively true to their physical workability. And the physical universe reltively true to the physical universe human bodies. But to a spirit? Who cares?

            8. “But to a spirit? Who cares?”

              Right, but spiritual matters seem to be personal in the extreme with not much connection to the real world except through the behaviors of the practitioner. I am in favor of people following their spiritual paths, “do as thou wilt” as Marildi quoted, but “your fists lose their freedom when they begin swinging close to my head.” People would be well off to stay clear of the religion business and work these things out on their own research lines. Not knocking small groups with commonality. Just knocking rock solid doctrines of all types.

            9. ““do as thou wilt” as Marildi quoted, but “your fists lose their freedom when they begin swinging close to my head.”

              I agree with both. There can be balance between both. After all, if I do what I will, I wont try to harm you. But that’s me.

            10. About religion: it is being replaced by psychology, that is no less dogmatic, righteous and constructed. It claims to be true and the only truth amen, until it decides otherwise. It would be a trap for one to leave SCN and go to them. As you said ‘on their own research lines’.

            11. And one last thing is that I know spirit or God can impact physical universe matters, directly without some physical person doing so. I don’t think spirit and God are ‘inside’ it. But they can.

            12. Sorry, that was not the ‘last thing’. About psychology, because I can imagine it can cause some upset. Yes, there is some democracy, and tests and other scientific approaches. But it is not free. It is a closed circuit. Or else me and you and whomever could write psychology books. I’m not going to get into details what I agree and disagree about psychology, but as far as I am concerned, they can do what they will, alright, but with themselves, and also keep their hands away from my head. If one who has a different viewpoint than them is ‘mentally ill’ they can go *beep* themselves together with their fanatic religious friends.

          2. It’s comical and tragic how we were told that we as people who wanted to help others, with SCN, were guilty if we didn’t do our best. It was being pounded constantly. We had those ethics conditions, but an endless Liability condition was assigned to us. We were guilty but people who didn’t do anything to help others, were not.

            1. “We had those ethics conditions, but an endless Liability condition was assigned to us. We were guilty but people who didn’t do anything to help others, were not.”

              You’ve pointed out a basic and important piece of this whole puzzle which what are we supposed to do with the cognitive dissonance? Scientology’s “Tech” turns the person’s attention for a recovery within. Sometimes this helps but it is not so true as the Tech says it is. Check out Al Pacino playing “Devil’s Advocate.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGR4SFOimlk

          3. Whenever you utter a disagreement someone will jump up and say ‘so, “what did you do/didn’t do’ that make you feel this way?” They think talking is about overts only. Everything is about overts. You can’t be overt-free and not be perfectly aligned with SCN and all it’s implications. And you can’t be pretty responsible and still communicate a disagreement. No. Good, responsible people must always agree, and hate those who disagree.

            1. “No. Good, responsible people must always agree, and hate those who disagree.”

              Nothing wrong really with your having this point of view. The point is that it is a point of view and not an axiomatic truth outside your own frame of reference. It may be an axiomatic truth within your own frame of reference. To you, your truth seems quite true. I may even agree with your truth. What we all say makes perfect sense to us, and is consistent with our own reality or perception. These points of view are not universe swallowing truths, but my saying so may be. At least, it is a larger, more general, more opinion embracing, and more tolerant truth. It is good to have truths in our lives and for us to hold to them lightly so as to be ready to release them in favor of greater truths yet to come.

            2. I said “No. Good, responsible people must always agree, and hate those who disagree.”

              You understand it was sarcasm, right? I was just quoting the ideas I had seen”

            3. “You understand it was sarcasm, right? I was just quoting the ideas I had seen””

              Yes, but I didn’t write my idea very well. My point is that your sarcastic point of view can be justified and consistent because of the ideological framework in which it resides. I was agreeing and enlarging your idea.

            4. OK, got it.

              Well, just so you know, I didn’t mean the opposite, either. I think freedom is free –no ideologies. Just when I refer to SCN, I speak it’s language.

      2. I hope I am provoking enough. Because all those stories about SP declares are bullshit. No SP has gotten declared –if so, only accidentally. SP is to break up couples, and to brainwash and to suppress. In other words, all that which most people now consider normal Scientology. That’s what you get with FALSE pacifism as well as with force directed in the wrong direction. It is more than obvious no COS wants the conflict to end, or else they would. They would contact Geir, Marty, other popular ones, they would be nice and with ARC and try to do something. Instead they provoke –in public. Like in the last incident with Marty.

      3. They are not capable of any ARC. They’ve only learned robotic TRs and how to make you guilty. And they wonder how come bad SPs out there write shit about them. They lack in some basic self criticism. ‘They’=wherever it fits.

        But you know, they are also well, therein, from another perspective. Let them gather more heat, and stay secluded. That’s how you treat SPs. You don’t want them out there trolling around.

  25. New viewpoint: Like I’ve told you before, I undergo some changes, and there has been some wild shifting of viewpoints.

    I was talking yesterday about suppression and force etc and came to realize how I made it happen myself, to myself. I even mentioned that good purposes don’t make ‘you’ holy. Well, that was addressed to me, as well. The point is I have been forcing -since a long time ago- myself to do certain things. One is to help –either by informing, protecting, any way that I can, you name it. Another is to create understanding. Another is to force peace, awakening and other things. Those seem to me good things, but the ‘enforcement’ part of them is still enforcement. And since I mentioned yesterday ‘your good purposes don’t make you holy’ I think for myself too, my good purposes don’t give me the right to force.

    The ‘problem’ is that with such level of freedom (from needing to help etc) I run out of things to discuss, about SCN, as well as to philosophize in general. Not a bad thing.

    I still don’t think if another does it, it is wrong. That would be an enforcement too, you see. “You are wrong”=don’t be like that or even be like I tell you to be. I don’t want to play that either.

    Generally, you can do whatever you want. I’ll be chillaxing 😉 and it doesn’t mean i don’t care.

    1. I like your views, Spyros.

      So then. you’re not a fighter – you’re a lover. 😛 🙂

      I got that already from the last thing you wrote yesterday:

      “I think friends should love each other.”

      And I already know you care too. Hope you have found a path that is working for you. 😉

      1. Thank you 🙂 Did you like my ‘cover photo’ on facebook (the one that looked like a galaxy) I made it 😛

        My point is I don’t feel I have any duties, as Spyros. I used to assign duties to myself like to help. It is not that those things are bad, but duties are not self determined. I am total effect of myself, alone. I only obey that. That is my point. I was sick in the morning and in pain for days. Now I’m fine. 🙂

      2. HAha I had to introduce some mysticism to make it sound fancy. ‘total effect of myself’ simply means I control myself. I see all those posts on facebook and elsewhere about those poor souls that suffer and no, I don’t think it’s my business to save them. They can save themselves. Again, it is nothing like ‘I don’t care’. I can have it.

        1. I get it. That’s fine for someone else, and it’s probably what they need to do as a next “step,” to make it to where they want to go.

          See that? We’re still philosophizing. 😛 But it’s true.

          1. Yeah well I shouldn’t tell them what to do. It’s not nice. I personally don’t take advices (oops code of honor again).

            In older times I thought that to be good, I should have a desire to help, but no no no no. From a very different viewpoint I understand only I can help myself and others the same. Also, their trouble is not truth. Their inabilities are not truth and our separation (from that higher viewpoint) is not truth either. So then I could only help myself –just not through Spyros. It’s not needed.

            1. Hmmm… Okay, but are you sure that’s not a “pendulum swing”? I still tend to think we can help one another sometimes. It may be just by indicating a particular direction to look in – then it’s up to the other person as to whether they want to take that direction.

              I do agree with you about no force, though. Hey, we’ve learned something since the “old days.” 😛

              Tell you what – I’ll sleep on it. And you have a very good day, my friend. 🙂

            2. Yes, It’s been pendulum swing, because often when I get charge I ‘run’ it. You know how ridges are like. One side is one thing, the other is the opposite. I knew I disagreed with something I did with SCN.

              That I say we don’t HAVE (enforcement) to help, doesn’t mean we cannot co-operate and live in harmony with each other or help or care. If you needed money and I had, I could give you or lent you (COULD). But to point out to you what you do wrong, is not help anyway. Help is to help the person’s self determinism, the way I see it. No matter what that is –even if it is to jump off a cliff. So then you help him by allowing him to control himself. The code of honor is pretty much a code of how to be self determined. Ethics and self determinism are not irrelevant.

              And anyway, generally speaking I don’t think there are such standard rules about right and wrong. Why should I feel bad for not getting a job, for example? Do I owe it to anybody? Why do I HAVE to help with another’s case if he is cause over it? I could, if he wanted to –COULD. But to force myself or him…nah.

              Plus, very important, I have a feeling things are alright, and I’ve been troubled over nothing.

          2. I’m ‘sorry’ I change my mind so often and might make feel another distrustful. It’s just that I too try to make things clearer inside me. If I cognite something I cannot lie so that my words will be good and true. The truth for me currently is we don’t have to do anything. I could sit on my ass all day long and be fine. Actually, I’m doing that now.

            1. “I’m ‘sorry’ I change my mind so often and might make feel another distrustful. It’s just that I too try to make things clearer inside me.’

              This is all I understand that any of us can do.

  26. Wow, you did that? It’s beautiful. So you’re an artist too. 😛

    “I am total effect of myself, alone. I only obey that. That is my point.”

    And I got it. Your personal freedom seems to really be expanding.

    You know, it sounds kind of like Aleister Crowley’s “Do what thou wilt” – which I think is misinterpreted by most people. My understanding of it is that if a person is really himself, the being, what he “wilts” will be right because it’s his purpose.

    Sorry to hear you were sick! Had there been an upset? Just curious.

    1. Oh I just noticed this message of yours (notifications, again)

      I haven’t read anything by Crowley. I only know that reference in the PDC.

      I’ve always been free. To ridge and to this and to that was my choice.

      Body was bad off (in pain) for days and in the morning I was starting to feel sick too (like flu). I solved it and its gone now.

      By the way, do you or anybody else knows the difference between ‘stable data’ and ‘service fac’? I’m asking because I’ve read a definition of ‘service fac’ to be ‘a solution to a confusion’. And they seem to be the same thing, then.

      1. Very OT on “solving” the pain and feeling sick. 😛

        “a solution to a confusion”

        That definition of ‘service fac’ may be right as far as it goes, but there’s more to it. Here’s a pretty good definition from the Tech Dictionary:

        SERVICE FACSIMILE…6 . that computation generated by the preclear (not the bank) to make self right and others wrong, to dominate or escape domination and enhance own survival and injure that of others. (HCOB 1 Sept 63)

        So from the above, I would say that a ser fac could be considered a type of stable datum, but it’s a very specific type.

        Looking at that construct in a new unit of time, it seems to me it could be described as a condition of excessive individuality, duality, and black-and-white thinking – and that it is the basic on an “us vs. them” mentality.

        1. Let me rephrase the last paragraph above:

          Looking at the construct of ser fac in a new unit of time, it seems to me it could be described as a result of excessive individuality and is based on duality – and that it results IN black-and-white thinking and an “us vs. them” mentality. There. Thought of the day. 😛

          Also, here are the other definitions of ‘ser fac,’ some of which tie it in with illness, if that’s what you were interested in:

          SERVICE FACSIMILE, 1. these are called “service facsimiles.” “Service” because they serve him. “Facsimiles” because they are in mental image picture form. They explain his disabilities as well. The facsimile part is actually a self-installed disability that “explains” how he is not responsible for being able to cope. So he is not wrong for not coping. Part of the “package” is to be right by making wrong. The service facsimile is therefore a picture containing an explanation of self condition and also a fixed method of making others wrong. (HCOB 15 Feb 74) 2 . this is actually part of a chain of incidents which the individual uses to invite sympathy or cooperation on the part of the environment. One uses engrams to handle himself and others and the environment after one has himself conceived that he has failed to handle himself, others and the general environment. (AP&A, p. 7) 3 . it is simply a time when you tried to do something and were hurt or failed and got sympathy for it. Then afterwards when you were hurt or failed and wanted an explanation, you used it. And if you didn’t succeed in getting sympathy for it, you used it so hard it became a psychosomatic illness. (HFP, p. 89) 4 . every time you fail, you pick up this facsimile and become sick or sadly noble. It’s your explanation to yourself and the world as to how and why you failed. It once got you sympathy. (HFP, p. 89) 5 . that facsimile which the preclear uses to apologize for his failures. In other words, it is used to make others wrong and procure their cooperation in the survival of the preclear. If the preclear well cannot achieve survival, he attempts an illness or disability as a survival computation. The workability and necessity of the service facsimile is only superficially useful. The service facsimile is an action method of withdrawing from a state of beingness to a state of not beingness and is intended to persuade others to coax the individual back into a state of beingness. (AP&A, p. 43) 6 . that computation generated by the preclear (not the bank) to make self right and others wrong, to dominate or escape domination and enhance own survival and injure that of others. (HCOB 1 Sept 63)

          1. ” The service facsimile is an action method of withdrawing from a state of beingness to a state of not beingness and is intended to persuade others to coax the individual back into a state of beingness.”

            ‘You be responsible, as I am not’. Yes, without it we cannot about what could be corrected in SCN, psychiatry, the world at large, this that and the other, who is in/out ethics and such. And all our discussion here, are for nothing.

            1. By the way, without such a condition, you wouldn’t need to coax anyone to process the bad case, the IAS to fight the bad psychiatry, The out-of-theCOS people to open the eyes of the wrong COS people and such and such. It makes nice fighting games. It can be created, but it’s not necessary.

          2. I think it’s funny to point out irresponsibility, because it shows your own responsibility. His own is your own, you see. In theory ‘you’ survive AS 8 dynamics. And essentially, from a high responsibility viewpoint, nobody would point out irresponsibility in another. No ethics officers and no police is needed if ‘you’ consider what you experience to be your own creation. And that would be a powerful viewpoint. Instead, now power is considered to have a stick and hunt bad guys, no matter who they are.

            1. “No ethics officers and no police is needed if ‘you’ consider what you experience to be your own creation. And that would be a powerful viewpoint.”

              We just have to find our way to this if we are to continue forward as a species. Police states have always set us back.

        2. I haven’t studied the subject thoroughly to judge adequately, but it seems to me from my frame of reasoning, that any data that are stable, stuck, are source of charge, abberation, fixation or dispersal. One ought to be able to operate without exterior data, to fully control himself –be source of data, instead.

          Marildi I have this problem with communication about SCN that it seems to me it gets ‘stuck’ at some point. I mean it seems there are some parts of it that people feel they must remain unchanged –stable data. I don’t like that. Data shouldn’t be masters. It is understood for a person who makes money off the OT levels to not want them invalidated. But for a mere Scientologist to consider you an enemy, if you point out to him that they are not what they are advertised to be? Why am I an enemy if I try to warn you about something? Do you think if there were any OTs anyone would have any control (in the sense of manipulation) over them? Is OT to be told who to be friends with or pull other tricks on them, and those OTs to be going around crying for decades? I don’t intend to invalidate anybody, really. But the phenomenon I see is that OTs although they don’t invalidate the subject ‘OT’ as much, they invalidate themselves, by considering that since OT is not that big, then big in general cannot possibly exist. Could it be that this was the purpose?

          And I know there are good people here and there in SCN. But they possibly have things against me without me ever having done anything to them –just because they were told that I had by their slavemasters. Come on…that’s not even Div 6 code of honor. Leave alone ‘OT’.

          Also I know there are true OTs too, and I don’t invalidate that either. But they are not OTs necessarily due to that tech. Also, I don’t think tech is necessary for OTs to be OTs –or to rephraze that, for spirits to be aware of themselves and their potential.

          1. “But for a mere Scientologist to consider you an enemy, if you point out to him that they are not what they are advertised to be? Why am I an enemy if I try to warn you about something?”

            The problem you run into in communicating with scientologists is that most of them are fundamentalists – indoctrinated to be so. And thus their beliefs are fixed and they are usually not even open and willing to hear your data and have a real comm cycle. You probably know this by now, don’t you?

            1. Some times, yes. Although the being is always intact –even if not awake and active. The normal is for minds to communicate instead of beings, which is unfortunate. But we can play like that forever –endless fun.

            2. You’re getting me back to Eckhart Tolle. He says we can play the game of life – and do a good job of it – and still have the (absolute) moments of being in The Now. We don’t have a better choice, if we’re alive, do we. 😉

            3. That’s the theory – Ron’s theory, for one. But is that choice available to you or me right now?

            4. No dear, because you and me are bodies, with minds and a sparkle of spirit that keep that machinery running. We for the most part are creations. But you and me the spirits are not subjected to any MEST rules. So, yes too.

            5. Okay, got it 🙂 This reminds me of something I thought of recently, which is that when we “key out” or “as-is” something (in OR out of session with no techniaque) – at that moment we are free of Mest. Or, in Eckhart’s way of saying it, we are in “stillness.” in the Now. Or, in Spyros’ way of saying it, we just do it. 😉

              I gotta call it quits but as always, it has been fun chatting with you! Tonight was, as you put it earlier – fun! We were in especially good comm, I thought. On the same wavelength – it mainly takes intention, as per the comm formula. 😛 🙂

            6. Yes, thank you for intending it 😛 🙂

              Fine, I will let you go, and think of reasons to play games, that are not my choice, until we meet again.

            7. Sorry for the invalidation. You are what you think you are, OK. I see myself as Spyro, as that. I don’t intend to as-is Spyro nor kick him out of MEST 😛

              I see myself as spirit as completely out of the game…just peeking through a few vias, some times.

            8. “I see myself as spirit as completely out of the game…just peeking through a few vias, some times.”

              Then I’d say you are doin’ pretty fine. Keep truckin’ 😉

            9. I set a goal for myself -after I decided to play- to give data about that choice. I can’t pretend that you cannot do without it –that you need it. But I’m saying it again, we can as-is now without any technique.

            10. “I set a goal for myself -after I decided to play- to give data about that choice.”

              Awesome.

              “I can’t pretend that you cannot do without it – that you need it. But I’m saying it again, we can as-is now without any technique.”

              As-is what now? Our existence In the MEST universe?

        3. Anyway, to sort of dodge the logical and illogical labyrinths, I mean to communicate one thing that I want to arrive –that a preclear, a Clear, and OT, a fisherman, an SP are all fully OT, free, fully able. What changes is only their mindset –the data they have about it and the data they managed to get rid off through processing or whatever other means. Case is NOT truth. That’s what is meant by as-ising it. And no Truth is not any ‘high quality accessible when we get rid of psychiatry and Donald Duck. Truth is called truth, because it’s alteration causes case. So, don’t alter it.

          1. Okay, very good. I don’t think there’s anything you’ve said that I would disagree with. I might just add that I agree with Ron too (and you probably do as well) that all truths in the MEST universe are relative, and that the only absolute truth is Static.

            1. Hehehehe you know I agree. But I think you overestimate the power of MEST over that Static. You put the puppet over the game master. Fine. I also try to make myself understood, though it is not needed, anyway. Fun isn’t it?

            2. “Fine. I also try to make myself understood, though it is not needed, anyway. Fun isn’t it?”

              Wait… how – in this universe – is it not needed? And what do you mean by “fun,” then?

            3. No, I said that partial inability to be understood is a game created on purpose for the fun of it. And it’s not needed. If we want we can understand with the snap of a finger, wanna try?

            4. Okay, I’m with you…up to that last sentence. “…wanna try” did make me chuckle though. You go first. 😛

            5. You know, Chris, as regards all things being quantities, you might be right – in your own ideological framework. 😀

              Razzing aside, it does seem to me that spiritual beings have an energetic aspect – just by virtue of being in this universe, i.e. being able to interact and operate in it. And you have a point about qualities that can be reduced to quantities – except for the qualities of creativity and will. If those particular qualities of a being could be summed up in quantities, that would equate to their being subject to, and part and parcel of, the laws of physics – and they would not be actualities at all, other than hallucinatory cause. And that would amount to materialism. Do you follow?

            6. It’s been good but I need to go again to focus on my business here. Maybe we’ll talk again, later. Be well.

            7. Aw 😦

              But okay, I understand. You need to do what you came to do.

              And the world needs to discover you. (Like I did. 😛 😉 )

              But you have to pop in once in a while, at least. Meanwhile, be well yourself. 🙂

            8. Yes, I’m here to create chaos, then undo it. The usual stuff 😛

              Well, I ‘wish’ each one will find his/her own way, no matter what that is.

              I just don’t want to choose sides, anymore. And it seem inevitable when you participate in conflicting topics.

              The backgound philosophy I have ‘in mind’ is that there is nowhere to seemingly ‘arrive’, unless you seemingly ‘depart’ from it. And you can do that forever –back and forth. So, what for? I’ve been a wog and a churchie and a fzer and other things. And in trying to assist all sides I have managed to attack all sides hehehehe. They can manage. I believe in bad people as much as I believe in victims. I could be both. But not truly.

              And I need to put my attention elsewhere now, unless you’re willing to talk about non philosophical, religious, political or otherwise serious topics. But thank you once more for your kind words. 🙂

            9. Hi, Spyros. Here’s something we could talk about – does Sypros rhyme with gyros? 😛

              So what subject would you like to talk about? Or what conflict would you like to embrace. 🙂

            10. Haha those cliches about Greece. I wonder how you pronounce gyros, as some call it ‘jairow’, while it’s ‘geeros’ –yes, same as ‘Speeros’.

              I’m conflict-free at the moment. Life is good and such. But I could tell you how we don’t only eat gyrow, feta and olives, and that most us only know those traditional dances from tv.

              Also, I would like to plea the USA and Deutschland, to actually do something about those bad Greeks that dodge taxes etc big time, instead of equally accusing and punishing 10 million people for having done so. Then maybe do the same to the US and Deutsch companies that bribed and co-operated with those people so that they the Greek state will do business with them. Thank you 😛

            11. What?? It’s “Speeros”? All this time I’ve been calling you SPYros, – as in “The Spy who Loved Me.” 😛

              As for politics – it’s all Greek to me. Except I do know this: Corruption abounds. 😕

            12. I pronounce it “gheeros” with a “GH”. It’s kinda like a voiced “H”, or voiced “ch” (as in loCH ness).
              Some Americans pronounce it “Gyros” as in “gyroscope”, and I’ve even heard it as “jeeros” but that’s rare, to my knowledge.

              I believe the name of the “hero” sandwich is a corruption or Americanization of “gyro”, because of the h-like sound (GH) at he beginning of it.
              Isn’t English fun? 🙂

            13. “Isn’t English fun?”

              Oh yeah. English has more combinations of letters for a given phonetic sound and more phonetic sounds for a given combination of letters than any other language. 🙂

              Hey Val, did you see that Tony Bennett vid I just posted? He’s 88 years old! Inspiration for you. 🙂

            14. Yeah SPYros sounds better to me. There was a Playstation game called SPYro the Dragon. It seems they saw my name somewhere and English-fied it. They must have combined it with ‘pyra’ which is ancient Greek for ‘fire’ –thus, Spyro (the fire breathing) Dragon 😛

              Better that you skipped the political stuff…

              Jazzy pop, huh? Here’s some Jazzy trip hop.

            15. Really? SPYros sounds better to you? But SPEEros is closer to the sound of “spirit” – which is the meaning of the name Spyros.

              I love that song! And what a beautiful voice she has.

              Speaking of jazz, the other night I watched a filmed concert of Lady Gaga and Tony Bennett. It was good!

            16. Yeah, you and others wouldn’t want me to post the metal music that I usually listen to 😛

              You know about this topic of conflicts, sure it’s fun and maybe more fun than watching tv –more fireworks included in conflicts. I have noticed -like Tolle said- that no matter how I feel about something, I always also feel fun about the it. Anyway, I have decided to hold neutral stance in conflicts, though. And even what I did talking about LRH VS COS etc I don’t want to do it anymore. To be honest, I think it’s not needed that I should take any side’s part, and I also feel best that way. I can have a good fight, I know it. I can also not have it 😛

              And I don’t see myself changing my mind about this any time soon.

            17. “To be honest, I think it’s not needed that I should take any side’s part, and I also feel best that way. I can have a good fight, I know it. I can also not have it.”

              I really like that. And believe it or not, I’m coming around to the same place.

              Yeah, you surprised me with the video you posted. I was wondering if you’re still into heavy metal. I can go as heavy as Eddie Van Halen. 🙂 He’s a great guitar player! Especially loved him when he was just a kid – watch the awesome TR 0 here 😉

            18. I’m mostly into metal but not only. I have a preference for coarse and ‘dark’ sound. Some people find it upsetting, but it kind of feels to me like sweet ballads would feel to others :p

              Another good non metal:

            19. That’s pretty nice. Kind of spacey.

              Here’s something cool that I just saw today. Have you ever seen an orb?

              Thanks for the lullaby. 😛

            20. Pink Floyd approximates my style. Many of the bands I listen to say they are influenced. My favorite is the Animals album. And of course, The Wall has some great lyrics and music too.

              I have seen various spiritual stuff. I just think that while some people might consider the whole subject to be scary or loony, it might not be a good idea for me to write about it. I admit I am loony, but at least I’m not normal.

              Here another about conflicts and normalization.

              http://higherperspective.com/2014/12/banana-experiment.html?utm_source=DMT

            21. So many has tried to claim THE objective, right, true viewpoint for themselves, and thus make all other viewpoints seem invalid, wrong, bad… Peace has much to do with allowing others as well as oneself to have it’s own. And to allow doesn’t mean to believe it, nor let it conquer you. Just let it be…if you want peace. Thus, I think the ‘normal’ viewpoint is only normal because of commonly disseminated ideas. If we were a different kind of world, different kinds of ideas would be normal, and if you disagreed you might get thrown into a fire pit…

            22. As you must have noticed by now, the views I had been expressing had been much more on the pro-LRH side than the anti-. So then how come I never wrote in pro-SCN groups? I hang out here and in Marty’s -that you introduced me to- instead. I connect better with the relative neutrality. It isn’t that I haven’t taken sides myself. (from now on I wont be taking) . I would expect in a pro-SCN group only pro-SCN ideas would be tolerated by the people, and similarly in an anti-SCN, only analogous ideas. And it’s ok, for me, to have views and talk about them, but not to bash with the purpose to make another shut up. I think acts of public defamation have that purpose to make the defamed subject go hide, and then democracy and honesty are no more. So, if we are to ‘oppose’ some lack of freedom of speech, we shouldn’t do it by imposing another unfreedom of speech on our behalf. Scientology, christianity, atheism, psychology or not, I want people to freely speak their ‘minds’. I have friends psychologists, you know. I wouldn’t go to them for counseling, but they are my friends, and good people. I let them speak and I speak too.

            23. Spyros! Sorry for the long delay in replying. I’ve been busy-busy!

              Nice post your wrote. 😛 Makes me think of the youtube vid below of a reunion of Independents in 2010. Geir features prominently at about 2:35 into it and elsewhere. You’ll probably recognize other people too – like Marty. It was held in Texas and Marty sort of organized and hosted it, I think.

              As you can see from the video, there was a lot of ARC among all of them, as in the comments on Marty’s back then. And now some of the people who were there are no longer even in comm with each other because of their “philosophical differences.”

              I don’t know if the monkey experiment you posted the link for is true (I read that it isn’t), but a similar idea is the “meme”:

              “Any unit of cultural information, such as a practice or idea, that is transmitted verbally or by repeated action from one mind to another in a comparable way to the transmission of genes.”

              I can’t help but suspect that many people who have turned against scientology did so for the most part because of the influence of others. There’s a group think – a meme – type of phenomenon, IMHO.

            24. I watched the video. Thank you.

              I think the lines between peace and war can be thin. And by saying that I mean some times even a war could be better than peace, if it’s peace with something unethical. If SCNists and others stand their ground, and communicate freely, there will be ways through. It might take a little chaos to have an unsuppressed peace. If somebody curses my views 24/7 I can have it. If he doesn’t want me to have own views, that’s where I will bye-bye him. Fortunately, those aren’t that many. The rest should not follow them. I’m with every group, really. I’m not with the guys I mentioned before.

            25. I must confess when I first started to read the blogs I didn’t like the positivity of it all. You see ‘positivity’ was ‘pro-‘. For me positivity is freedom. I seeked to stir up a little chaos, from time to time, but just to upset. I felt an intention to be ‘pro-‘ to protect the subject. But the mistake was to protect it all, along with some dark side of it. I think to condemn it all is similar. It takes more thorough examination, and more communication, if some communication is not enough. People shouldn’t be hasty to draw conclusions, as that limits their future potential for further understanding. And yeah in the final analysis I want peace, too. But free peace.

              Peace \/

            26. Wouldn’t it be the coolest thing to have a neutral ground with even representatives of the COS? The chaos would be great -in the beginning- but it would eventually go through, no? It’s basic SCN 😛

              There is a problem with that solution in that if two ex’s realize their problems were not true, and snap out of it, the present partners might not feel that comfortable with it :p I’m almost kidding. Then they will have to be in comm all 3 (or more) of them and go through that. 😛

            27. Spyros, I like how you are disposed towards diplomatic efforts – and peace. That’s one of the things I like about the little hero sandwich from Greece. 😛 😉

              I probably won’t have time to post again until after Christmas, so let me wish you and Geir and everybody here a lovely, jolly, happy, peaceful, and very Merry Christmas! 🙂

              Something for everybody:

            28. Hehe I only suggest free communication with tolerance and stuff. But hey, we could also tolerate an absence of it, or maybe also tolerate intolerance 😛

              Merry Christmas and a Happy Nu Years to you too and to all, with truth above all and whatever you like. I’ll probably ‘see’ you next year. 🙂

            29. I am not a sandwich Marildi. I am many sandwiches, when I write here. When I see in a group some honest, good, people self-sacrificing for their ideals a few others dishonestly control them like dogs, and in an opposing group similar things, and in an opposing of both groups similar things, I am many sandwiches. I can’t take anybody’s part, nor oppose, without being unffair to somebody. You understand. The critics when they address the really dark stuff are right, too. I only don’t sympathise with people who distort stuff –as in generalising.

            30. Spyros, my friend, looks like I am still going to be super busy for a while, so I won’t have much blogging time. 😦 Don’t know if I ever told you, but I do freelance copyediting and currently I’m working on editing a book. This is the third book for me (I mostly do shorter writings) and books take concentrated effort for weeks or months at a time – especially if the writer needs some co-writing, like the one I’m working with now.

              But, I did want to point out to you that I didn’t just call you a sandwich. I called you a HERO sandwich. It was kind of a play on “gyro sandwich,” you being Greek and all. And your name rhyming with gyros. 😉 But I meant it literally too because of your viewpoints, which I happen to like. And yes, you are many sandwiches all rolled up in the one and only Spyros. 😛

              Anyway, don’t expect many comments from me for a while. Besides posting here, you might want to check out David St. Lawrence’s forum. There are some topics being discussed over there that I think you would like. http://independent-spiritual-technology.com/discussion/index.php But hang around Geir’s too! “Make new friends…but keep the old.” ♫ ♪♫ ♥

              😀

            31. LOL this connection between hero and gyro was hard to grasp.

              I used to be involved with editing and translations too, while in the COS. But not editing and translations in specific (few translations). I was helping to organize the stuff and I was being the tech wiz ;P

              So, fine. Take your time. I’m going to take mine too. If I look for new challenges, and to say new things, I’ll check out that new forum. But at the moment neutrality eats my games 😛

              Have a great one 🙂

            32. And other than that, I think opposition is good solution –no matter what you oppose. It can be fun ok, and it can be better than to oppose and hide in fear, pretend you don’t oppose, or worse. But counter-creation stimulates what ‘you’ counter-create. I think you know that, already.

            33. Didn’t work. I see it’s number 21 of 25 – you can keep clicking on the forward arrows up to 21. 🙄 Maybe Geir or someone else knows how to post it directly.

            34. Sorry! I changed my mind about the Pink Floyd. Here’s the orb video I meant to post.

            35. Oops, I meant does SPYros rhyme with gyros?

              I almost made you into a Cypriot. 🙄

  27. Oh boy, do we have fun in getting those inflections right, or wot, dearrr Marrrilllday? Ochhh, f’ goooodness’ sake, lassssie! Begorrrragggh! LOL!

    As a matter of interest, I think ‘Speeros’, will confirm that the correct pronunciation of Cyprus, is also a surprise to most English speakers. It goes: “Keepros” 🙂

    1. Well, what do you Setheffricans know, anyway? 🙂

      I actually knew a girl at Flag who was from Cyprus and she pronounced it like this:

      .

      Maybe you’re thinking of Celtic?

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