Defending free speech

Free speech is one of the most basic human rights. Defending it often
comes with a cost. Those brave enough to defend our right to speak out
despite personal loss deserves our admiration.

Some people claim their beliefs are such that it should not be countered,
criticized or ridiculed. And a few are so convinced they hold the key to truth
that they reserve the right to bully, crush or kill anyone daring to
challenge their beliefs.

Like Scientology. Ingrained in the subject is the belief that Scientology
holds the Truth, the Whole Truth and Nothing But the Truth. And so
Scientologists are encouraged to bully and crush all opposition. Tender as
they are, they cannot stand having their beliefs countered.

Before the Internet, the Church of Scientology was able to target its
resources to hunt down and remove any critics. After 1995, the scene
started to change. With champions of free speech such as Andreas
Heldal-Lund (of Xenu.net) and scores of others on the old newsgroup ARS,
Scientology was countered, criticized and ridiculed. The church tried to
battle the waves of criticism coming from this new frontier, but to no
avail. The founder of Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard, never predicted the
Internet and so he never devised any policies or plan to handle such a
massive arena for free speech.

Jews_Scientology

In recent years, Scientology has been made to grow up through waves of
free speech champions on the Net. Anonymous did a splendid job of grinding
down any effective opposition to free speech left in the marrow of
Scientology.

Whereas before it was dangerous to speak out against Scientology, today
you can freely speak. You can counter it with scientific arguments, your
own subjective hunches, satire or obscene ridicule.

No beliefs – political, religious or otherwise – should have any special
defence against criticism. No people of any belief should be able to pose
special restrictions on the free speech of others.

Free speech is a two-way street. We should reserve our right to be openly
criticized.

Today very few would support any special rights for Scientologists not to
be the target of satire.

How come the same can not be said of all religions or political views? Why are we so
sensitive to criticism against Judaism, democracy, Islam or the US?

I believe we should massively criticize all beliefs to the point where
those holding the beliefs defend them sensibly using free speech instead
of unfair play or violence.

I vote for more satire, not less.

Thanks Andreas. Thanks Anonymous. You have shown effective means.

110 thoughts on “Defending free speech

  1. Wait. Hold on a minute. I liked your post but I live in the dragons den where the age requirement for girls is 14 raised from 12 in 1997. NSA is hot and heavy here. May I say that I ‘socially’ liked this post?

  2. Geir” “How come the same can not be said of all religions or political views? Why are we so
    sensitive to criticism against Judaism, democracy, Islam or the US?”

    Why? Because such criticism violates one’s own BELIEFS.

    The ones who complain the most about “beliefs” are many scientists. They have no clue that their own RELIGION is based on the firmly held belief that truth lies only in the material and the objective.

    1. And those Anonymous guys don’t realize how fixed they are in their own BELIEFS. (Now I’m going to run for cover. 😀 )

    2. And if anyone is sensitive to having their beliefs violated, then more violating is needed for them to attain at least some level of anti-fragility – rather than acting as the sandbox bully in kindergarden.

      1. Sort of like a ‘tongue-in-cheek’ group bull baiting session, with the purpose to ‘flatten’, the button/s tof the ‘student’, given beforehand??

        — Sounds like a pretty beneficial ‘drill’ to me. The results may prove to be much deeper, if the exercise were conducted in this (ARC) fashion, if you ask me? (Of course, ‘flatten’, in this wise, implies the removal of reactivity, or charge! – not smash to pieces or invalidate into submission, a la Co$!!)

    3. All beliefs are based on unproved assumptions, the real question is if this is a good or a bad thing. I mean, what is better, believing in full OT or in saint George the dragon killer ( or nirvana for that matter ).

            1. Dear Rafael, I’m not sure. Maybe it actually is possible to work out a universally agreed-upon system of basic freedoms. What do you think?

            2. marildi, I have my own assumption on this. I guess that the important part of existence are the beings with personality, and that the respect for such personality ( i.e. not using violence to break it ) is the way to find higher levels of spiritual freedom.

            3. Yes it is an interesting point of view on what is worth amongst the factors of existence. What I mean is, if you have a cave in the mountain, you can have a place to rest for animals. But if you put a flower there, it is a home. It is the same with personality, you can have a lifeless robot moving around as programmed or you can have a self programing being who puts new things in him or in his group, an architect of personality, a creative being. This is the worthwhile part of life. imo.

            4. Nicely stated – creative a poetic touch. 🙂

              I would agree. Without creativity, there would be no evolution to higher states – rather, a de-evolution.

            5. yes, rafael…and a caveman, instead of searching for a flower and putting it into his cave and call
              it home may ask oneself if the flower he wishes to find and put in his cave is already there…as one
              who seeks will find, when one has found it, one may start to build one’s organic home around it…in
              other words, one will find only those things outside of oneself which one is already creating…

            6. Dear Marianne Toth, it is always a joy to hear from you. Your comment is pretty interesting as it seems to set the assumption that the creations around us are self created ( living things and persons included ). If I agree with this line of thought then you are a created thing of me. Am I right ?.

              El Domingo, 25 de enero, 2015 9:06:25, Geir Isene – uncut escribió:

              #yiv8723972715 a:hover {color:red;}#yiv8723972715 a {text-decoration:none;color:#0088cc;}#yiv8723972715 a.yiv8723972715primaryactionlink:link, #yiv8723972715 a.yiv8723972715primaryactionlink:visited {background-color:#2585B2;color:#fff;}#yiv8723972715 a.yiv8723972715primaryactionlink:hover, #yiv8723972715 a.yiv8723972715primaryactionlink:active {background-color:#11729E;color:#fff;}#yiv8723972715 WordPress.com |

              Marianne Toth commented: “yes, rafael…and a caveman, instead of searching for a flower and putting it into his cave and callit home may ask oneself if the flower he wishes to find and put in his cave is already there…as onewho seeks will find, when one has found it, one ma” | |

            7. Dear Marianne Toth, it is always a joy to hear from you. Your comment is pretty interesting as it seems to set the assumption that the creations around us are self created ( living things and persons included ). If I agree with this line of thought then you are a created thing of me. Am I right ?.

            8. dear Rafael, the answer to this question may be so huge, that one had better find it in oneself…
              i am always delighted to read your comms which are coming on, let me use this word, Heart-line..

      1. I think Rafael makes a good point. We have to start somewhere if we’re ever going to discover what is true. All theories start with assumption (one or many), and from there it can been seen how well they explain actual data (objective or subjective).

        Any progress seems to require some sort of structure. There’s a “theory” that the physical universe itself, with its structure, enables beings to grow in understanding – and thus to grow spiritually. BUT, all you science types, we can’t limit ourselves to that particular structure, any more than any other structure.

        My current belief 😛 is that we have to evolve from one structure of beliefs to the next until we are finally free of structure altogether – that is, free to have it or not have it.

        This is possibly one of the best features of scientology – i.e. it’s a very good structure from which data can be evaluated. I believe it even has the potential of putting people much closer to freedom from structure – whether that’s because they see better what is true or what is not true. 😉

        1. All that is good and well – but on a straight tangent to the OP. And I reiterate that all those assumptions and beliefs should be challenged, yes violated, to the point where the subject is no longer overly sensitive to criticism and no longer resort to bullying, fair gaming or violence to protect one’s sacred beliefs (to the exclusion of other’s beliefs).

          1. So you would choose to challenge and violate over tolerance. Okay, could that simply be a belief?

            I’d say there is no fixed way to go about it, that there has to be judgement as to what is best in any given situation.

            1. Of course. And this belief should likewise be challenged – IF I would be sensitive about it. The point here is to iron out any insensitivity that prompts a person to resort to fair game, batshitness or violence. Overly sensitive beliefs – political or religious in particular – needs to be violated enough to iron out knee-jerk reactions. And of course the same goes with scientific beliefs – although I have yet to see scientists resorting to fair gaming, cat-killing or horrid violence because their equations were disproven.

            2. “…although I have yet to see scientists resorting to fair gaming, cat-killing or horrid violence because their equations were disproven.”

              True, but even though they may not get violent they do mock and scoff at views that challenge their fundamental belief in the physical only.

              Anyway, I’m not really trying to make scientists out to be worse than others in their beliefs. I just used it as a good example of how one’s own beliefs seem like the real truth – to oneself.

              “The point here is to iron out any insensitivity that prompts a person to resort to fair game, batshitness or violence.”

              A good, civilizing point.

  3. All of you who comment here forget the most important thing: education. As educated people, I’m sure none of you will pull the trigger of a gun against someone who will offend your religion or beliefs. Your options will always be related with civilized world: suing in a civil court, writing a post on a forum or simply ignore that person. Problem is that most of the radicals all over the world barely have a minimum level of education. The less classes in school they have, the more violence they will spread.

  4. Great OP Geir! I mean that sincerely, as much as I go along with the right of others to HOLD those beliefs, if they choose. ( I say this with reservations.)

    That is to say:If I am unable, unwilling, or incapable of the simple act of “granting beingness” to that person/persons. then that, demonstrably, indicates my own shortcomings by way of intolerance, or bigotry.

    The marvel of the age of the internet, as you say, allows for the exposure of the very essence of your OP, and in so doing, allows us to expose also, the actual or potential for abuse or harm, caused thereby.

    Today,through so much exposure of previously concealed facts, I recognize that one of the most “deadly” mechanisms ever to to be employed by our “masters”, is that of MIND CONTROL (aka “beliefs”), and what that has done to cripple our capacity to actually observe how that affects us all..

    Fortunately, though, there are innumerable ‘tools’, in Scn, many of which are very accurate bullshit detectors, which do the job adequately, bro! 🙂

    With all his warts, conniving, own bigotry, and contradictory life, I still see the Ol’ man as having been a creative genius, and gifted beyond any words, at assembling and developing a toolbox, packed with an array of tools, capable of giving immense freedom and understanding to and for man and life, especially if used intelligently and with the purpose to ACTUALLY help!

    — Calvin 🙂

  5. Like Scientology. Ingrained in the subject is the belief
    that Scientology holds the Truth, the Whole Truth and Nothing But the
    Truth. And so Scientologists are encouraged to bully and crush all
    opposition. Tender as they are, they cannot stand having their beliefs
    countered. Whereas before it was dangerous to speak out against
    Scientology, today you can freely speak. You can counter it with
    scientific arguments, your own subjective hunches, satire or obscene .
    It ‘s all true in scn? Or is it all accepted as true? there is some
    inconsistency, you can correct it and improve it? For example in
    Factors. 1. Before the beginning was a Cause and The entire purpose of
    the Cause was the creation of effect. And ‘correct? We do a test ok?
    Read, and see what is out, disconnected. And ‘that word which remains
    fixed attention. A brief search in Diz. Tec, and other dictionaries
    leads to understanding . Kindly offered by Sri Paul Theta.

    1. Dear Sri Paul Theta, you ask for some inconsistency in factor # 1. Well I did a try some time ago in this blog and rephrased the sentence as follows: ” before the begining was a cause and a purpose of the cause was the creation of causes “. What do you think about it ?.

      1. Ok it was not my intention
        enter the data tech. but it is
        party post … damn compiuter
        or not? Also for not wasting
        time. Okay Marildi. Do Not
        wondering what’s missing.
        But what remains detached from
        rest of the sentence. If you read
        the first factor, a part flowing
        and leaves. One thing remains.
        I wanted to know if it happens
        others also. Or is my MU?
        Read. Everything goes away.
        But a word remains. Chek.
        Paul.

  6. Hello Geir. You’re right I did not specify the
    score. Another reason my google – English.
    I hooked two of your paragraphs on
    truth of scn. Not so much for freedom of speech.
    And I brought as the first point of the factors,
    as little understood. This is connected to the
    talk, or Comm. or to free speech
    No one understands? If we ex scn, we MU,
    discuss this nomenclature to ‘infinity.
    And do not rule out that I will have a nice
    great MU. It would be interesting for me …
    find the wrong point. Okay, it’s for me
    a little research on these factors …
    for fun … In scn or what Ron has
    written is all truth? Or Tech is all false?
    If one is ” stuck ” in terms of scn, that has MU,
    he shall go no. A good way I know is
    to understand them. Otherwise it will not be
    free to speak, even to other topics
    not scn. For this use the first factor
    as an example, often only accepted as
    true, why is Ron or source etc.
    I’m not a fanatic KSW or Tech.
    On the contrary …

    Hello Rafael thanks for the reply, you can
    explain how you arrived at your answer?
    But you did not answer the test. What did you
    had the test? Read the first factor.
    Make obnosis look what gets cut
    out of that understanding.
    What remains separated out. What holds
    look out. What remains suspended,
    detached from rest of understanding.
    The first factor, ‘sounds’ as a phrase of a
    song. But a little word no. I was curious to
    know if this happens to others, or
    is my MU, reads the first factor and
    which word is out, detached, cut off
    from the rest of the sentence.
    See if you find it ok?
    Paul.

    1. Paul,
      Rafael may not have seen your comment above if he didn’t read it or read the last paragraph, where you address him. If you want, you can go to his comment to you above and click on the “reply” button. Then he will see your reply. Here’s the link to his comment: https://isene.me/2015/01/24/defending-free-speech/#comment-89339

      I don’t see any missing words in this factor, but I would be interested in what you believe is missing in it:

      “1. Before the beginning was a Cause and the entire purpose of the cause was the creation of effect.”

  7. Ok it was not my intention
    enter the data tech. but it is
    party post … damn compiuter
    or not? Also for not wasting
    time. Okay Marildi. Do Not
    wondering what’s missing.
    But what remains detached from
    rest of the sentence. If you read
    the first factor, a part flowing
    and leaves. One thing remains.
    I wanted to know if it happens
    others also. Or is my MU?
    Read. Everything goes away.
    But a word remains. Chek.
    Paul.

  8. In the proposed test, there is a
    the tech. Missing in study tech.
    Are clarified words, symbols.
    All together to understand.
    It ‘a concept or thought, right?
    The test says: Look at all the
    concept. Note what remains
    hung out. And ‘the mu.
    You can find it and see immediately.
    In the study tech is after!
    You can do, paragraph by paragraph.
    O line by line.
    Could be developed and chek?
    This is why I was interested in
    phenomenon of the word that remains
    hanging out.
    While that is well understood
    flows, it goes away.

    1. Paul, I think I understand what you’re saying. (Google may be having a good day.)

      Tell me if this is right: Your proposed test for an MU is to consider (to “look at”) the concept. Then, if anything remains (while all else disappears) that would be the MU. This could be done by looking at a paragraph and considering its concept, etc., and continue on paragraph by paragraph. Or this could be done line by line.

      Interesting. It might even be possible that the MU is the writer’s, rather than the reader’s.

      Anyway, I’m still curious about which word remains for you when you read and consider the concept of Axiom 1.

  9. Traduttore
    Is exact. We are close. that One
    which is comprised leaves. failure
    understanding holds attention.
    The mass is out, in facsimile.
    The auditor’s question, does issue
    a radius of attention. the radius
    hits the facsimile and sees him.
    The test is done .
    Ok you say you did the test. is
    all ok. Thank You. It is a little
    what I said in the first post.
    He accepts. Will be for sure, or that
    is so true. It is considered so, and
    so it appears. It would take a
    command, negative. And ‘laborious.
    What word I understood?
    You get the mu, using A = A.
    As long as you look, what
    appears or is suspended.
    One trick.
    Ok that word is effect.
    Does not agree with the formula of
    communication. How does an object
    to duplicate and understand?
    Or how can you send a reply?
    Effect: ‘Point receiver, does not include
    that can respond. It ‘a point’ empty.
    Or missing. In and have a
    situation or condition …
    True that the Spirit gives to them, energy
    and then retracts to feel it.
    But the formula of comm. says it is
    only one receiving point. When the PC
    reverses the cycle and comm. is completed
    the formula. And if ‘is not a PC? If it is
    a brick? So receiving point does not include
    that can respond.
    In place of effect, we have: Effect that
    interacts, or that interchanges, which is in
    able to do so. Auditor – PC it is taken for granted.
    Then a terminal.
    ‘Cause it’s the point source. Or first postulate,
    to be, is the 2nd factor. We use: point source.
    Effect, the receiving point. If it’s your compiuter …
    as you reverse the cycle of comm?
    Also beware receive in common dictionaries.
    Is not included in the formula comm. If you look
    ‘Cause, in diz.tec. you what I said above.
    Paul .

    1. Paul, you may be using an unsuitable definition of the word “effect’ – or perhaps the English translation to your language was incorrect.

      First, in the Axioms, the word “communication” is defined as “the interchange of IDEAS across space”.

      Also in the Axioms, the formula of communication is “Cause, Distance, Effect, with Intention, Attention and Duplication WITH UNDERSTANDING.”

      In the context of “communication” as defined above, I believe the suitable definition for the word “effect” would be “a change that results when something is done or happens”.

      Thus, in accordance with all of the above, when a communication is sent from Cause-point across a distance to Receipt-point and the Receipt-point then duplicates and understands, a change has resulted.

      If you were thinking that in the first Factor, the word “effect” meant “effect-point”, I would say you either have an MU (an unsuitable definition) or the translator had an MU.

      The good news for you is that the above data seems to support your theory that an MU doesn’t flow (or “as-is”) and go away; instead, it remains. Maybe that phenomenon doesn’t occur for everybody, but I would say that you yourself have a workable way to spot your MU’s. Great!

  10. It is elusive. Receiving point is a
    effect. Not defined as a point effect.
    You look at the two cycles. auditor –
    comm. the pc. Then, PC comm to auditors.
    comm cycle. ok.
    But ‘attention: 1st factor; effect. effect is
    receiving point in the cycle comm. why
    the definition of cause, is the point source.
    About comm is a cause. while in the
    second definition of cause, is the first
    postulated to be. And ‘the 2nd factor.
    So we know that cause is the point
    source of the comm. It is not some
    other type of cause!
    Ok, We have the comm.ad one direction only.
    And the two-way comm. This is given as
    in the example above. At only one way:
    Example auditor”Solo ”.

    You understand? In the cycle comm.
    in both directions is taken for granted
    auditor pc. On the other hand, someone
    that duplicates, understands and responds.
    This is the receiving point

    In the cycle comm to a sense?
    The receiving point is a wall!
    No duplicates and understands.

    It ‘a deficiency that Ron has never
    correct.

    Once again. Effect, receipt-point, duplicates
    has understanding. So putting answers
    as a point ’cause

    Effect, receipt-point, to WALL, duplicates?
    has understanding? Can not answer!

    The receiving point is violated, incomplete.

    You understand? I only say that as a point
    receiver, does not even include the absence pc
    but a wall, a sitazione or condition.

    Is not included, all them.

    The only word that can be used to
    replace the word effect, is optimum
    randomity, definition 3.

    Or causality.

    Check thanks.

    1. @1sripaultheta, I appreciate your recent contributions to Geir’s blog. I would like to say that Scientology amplifies the concepts of cause and effect to an unhealthy degree. Grinding on and on about cause and effect is circular and introverting. When we feel an urge or compulsion to defend, to that degree it seems we are “losing our freedom” in the area we find ourselves defending. You probably already know what I am writing about. If not, the idea could take a little warming up to.

            1. It may seem to you that I “defend” more than others here “attack” but I don’t think so. Geir. 😉

            2. I think it seems so to quite a few here. Several have commented on it on different occasions. The latest being the astute observation by Dexter.

            3. “Quite a few here” are in attack mode. Methinks the fellas doth protest too much.

            4. I’m actually in discussion mode, as opposed to being in defense mode.

              Take this exchange I’m having with Paul. If you or anybody else thinks there is no substance to my argument, why not address that? Instead, the subject coincidentally turns to “the urge to defend”.

              Just as it may seem to some people that I automatically counter any disagreement voiced about some particular point in scientology, I could say in return that those people automatically counter any agreement with a particular point. The difference seems to be that I’m willing to discuss the point itself, rather than just make accusations about motives.

              Even if the accusations are true, on either side, the way to do something about it would be to carry out an actual discussion.

            5. ““Quite a few here” are in attack mode. Methinks the fellas doth protest too much.”

              Possibly. The game of “self-help” seems deterministic to me to a large degree. “Do this” results in “that.” For myself, and to myself, I seem very similar to my memory of the self that began Scientology. I only use Scientology as the example that I am familiar with. The whole of theism seems like an “application” a written set of instructions which layers control over whatever is there of a person’s freewill. Scientology teaches, conditions both a construct and right acting, right behavior for within that construct. In society, there is example of a beehive. Comparison’s show up similarities. Does the worker bee have freewill? To what degree? Can the soldier ant stop himself from biting? And should he? It is worth exploring.

            6. “Maybe a pre-req for the game of life?”

              You are knocking at the door of my suspicions about freewill vs determinism. What you are observing is what I am observing and it seems hardwired, not particularly under one’s own control. But if there is freewill, for me the observer, there is not a clear way for me to see the difference. Regardless, trying to argue for one or the other seems not to arrive at a clear distinction. Does the little automatic vacuum cleaner that criss-crosses the floor, turning when it bangs into the wall, operate using freewill or determinism? Oversimplification, I know. To what degree is there truly a “game of life?” I’m not trying to be negative, neither positive nor negative. Just asking.

            7. Chris: “But if there is free will, for me the observer, there is not a clear way for me to see the difference. Regardless, trying to argue for one or the other seems not to arrive at a clear distinction.”

              I understand what you’re saying, and I agree. But I don’t think there is any way to know about free will in terms of logic or the physical universe. That would be trying to understand something within the “mental walls” of that particular set – the physical universe set. Free will, by definition, is in a super set since the very meaning of “free” in some degree would imply some degree of freedom from MEST.

              I believe the only way to know about the super set that includes free will is just to KNOW. In other words, there has to be a willingness to simply know or understand. It’s kind of like a mother who just “knows” – at a distance, and without physical means of communication of any kind – that her child is in trouble.

              I could give many other examples of things that aren’t provable or even falsifiable/testable. But they are so numerous that I don’t think the answer is to simply call them “spooky effects” and solve the cognitive dissonance with “Some day science will be able to explain it”, as some people do. JMO

    2. Paul, I understand what you are saying, but since the word “effect” is in the Factors, we should look at that context:

      4. The second action of beingness is to extend from the viewpoint, points to view, which are dimension points.
      5. Thus there is space created, for the definition of space is: viewpoint of dimension. And
      the purpose of a dimension point is space and a point of view.
      6. The action of a dimension point is reaching and withdrawing.
      7. And from the viewpoint to the dimension points there are connection and interchange. Thus new dimension points are made. Thus there is communication.
      8. And thus there is light.

      From the above, we get that there is “interchange” even with the created dimension points of light. In other words “Cause” creates and then can perceive its creation.

      1. p.s. I’ll add that perception of light would be the return flow back to Cause and Cause then becomes Effect.

  11. Geir Thanks for giving space to
    this discussion. No I would not
    could redefine the 1st factor.
    And of course it is as I see it.
    Thank Marildi paer helping
    in this discussion. For me it is
    confirmation that creates theta.

    My opinion is that it is not
    including well point receiver,
    or is not well specified, in a
    comm line, to a single terminal.
    Example, say the glass ashtray
    Get up! Obvious that not
    duplicates or that understanding.
    (Apart from the fact that one
    not all ‘horsepower’ to do so)

    And it is obvious that single terminal
    he is simultaneously both a cause
    effect. This contradicts the line
    two-way comm .in classic auditor
    and PC. Or as I see it, is not well
    specified or included.

    Now explain in my next post,
    the redefinition of the 1st factor.
    I would love that the auditors
    I look very acuratamente.
    And let me know the out. Thank You.

  12. The randomity is the ratio of between 50 and 50
    cause and effect.
    E ‘in the 1st factor understood as: To have a game.
    To get a game, Theta has reduced its total power
    or would not have had a game where fun.
    So, the 50 and 50 is adapted to an arbitrary or
    1 factor.

    1 BEFORE THE BEGINNING WAS A CAUSE
    WITH -RANDOMITY.
    AND THE ENTIRE PURPOSE OF -CAUSA
    WAS TO CREATE.

    Note: It adheres to the word effect, because
    of the fact that almost nobody is or may be
    only -cause to-universe. To live you must
    be willing to be a little effect.
    So like it and you go in agreement and is
    accepted.

    Note: It ‘effect’ for the rest of the world, and it means
    another thing, a loss, a defeat.
    the word that unites the person and the side
    technical -CAUSALITY. It is the relationship that
    exists between cause and effect, or the relationship
    between them.

    Note: In any line of comm, does not exist
    the effect. Theta takes any impulse
    or particle, and uses it as a cause.
    Or it may decide not to use it, and
    various combinations.
    Theta or Spirit is always -causa.
    Paul.

    1. This rehash of Hubbard’s mental construct doesn’t result in satisfaction. If you are within the mental walls of Scientology, it can be made to make sense. But compared to the world at large, it flounders in inconsistency, in cognitive dissonance.

    2. Paul, your revised Factor 1 makes sense, but perhaps should not be the first Factor. It wouldn’t fit with “BEFORE the beginning” if there already existed randomity (optimum or otherwise), as that adds a quality to the Cause which does seem as basic as “ability to create and perceive”. I see that particular quality of optimum randomity as more like the “end goal” of the Cause. In other words, the goal of the whole game would be to finally achieve that quality. I think LRH said the same thing later on in The Factors. Check this:

      28. The resolution of any problem posed hereby is the establishment of viewpoints and dimension points, the betterment of condition and concourse amongst dimension points, and, thereby, viewpoints, and the remedy of abundance or scarcity in all things, pleasant or ugly, by the rehabilitation of the ability of the viewpoint to assume points of view and create and uncreate, neglect, start, change and stop dimension points of any kind at the determinism of the viewpoint. Certainty in all three universes must be regained, for certainty, not data, is knowledge.

      In any case, what you wrote about cause and effect is what LRH himself wrote in many places – i.e. that a theta is always cause.

      1. Oops, I left out a word. The second sentence should say “…as that adds a quality to the Cause which does NOT seem as basic as “ability to create and perceive”.

      2. Bravo! You found out. I put
        the randomity, as adjusted arbitrarily.
        Not finding a technical definition better.
        It should be like this: The only purpose of the cause
        was the creation to create (some) randomity.

        … was the creation of randomity to create.
        … was the creation- of -create randomity.
        (Short) … was the creation, to create.
        Create, is in agreement with effect, etc. in the comm.
        From a point of view causative. Is in effect
        people a defeat, loss etc.

        Let’s see how it can be practical.
        Try to simulate, a TWC with a person.
        Does not know anything about scn.
        As this data comm?
        Understand, a search for a practical use.

        1. Ah, okay. You want to avoid the negative connotations of the word “effect”.

          However, you got me thinking about the fact that Cause and Effect form a dichotomy, and that particular dichotomy seems to be the basis of the universe. What do you think?

          Also, thanks for the “Bravo!” But if you are Italian, it should be “brava”. 🙄 🙂

          1. I did not know. Brava! It is almost impossible
            tell a person to be effect – as a point
            receiver. This creates a non-comm.
            I choose the comm that is very, very important.
            I would say a person to be the cause, and so create.
            True, cause and effect, is a dichotomy.
            Becomes cause, to create. It makes sense for ” wog ”.
            And we can say that create, is the point receiver
            the comm, that when you reverse … etc.
            And wanting to be ironic, it can be said that when
            the comm has an inversion, and the pc comm
            auditor, puts it, to effect … ha, ha, ha.
            In reality is created. Pc, create mock up of its
            facsimiles. So one can see it, clean it and so on.
            I would say that the 1st factor has been well analyzed.
            This has created a couple of other technical aspects.
            The create, create, create, and create-counter-create.
            And ‘the postulate and then go against it.
            You can see them on diz.tec.
            Do you have any idea of how to use this?
            Paul.

            1. The way to use that datum was explained in *Dianetics 55!* in this paragraph:

              “To stop any creation it can be established that one once knew one was creating it—finding that thought and making it known again—OR ONE CAN SIMPLY CREATE NEWLY AND CONSCIOUSLY WHAT ONE IS ALREADY CREATING UNCONSCIOUSLY (unknowingly). In either case the creation stops. The WRONG WAY is to start a new creation to counter against the old creation; when one does this he gets confusion and chaos.”

            2. Good Marildi. He was to report
              possible other technical aspects.
              Some auditors may explain
              better. Let’S See.

            3. Oops, not *Dianetics 55!* – the quoted paragraph above is from *Fundamentals of Thought*.

  13. It ‘s just my point of view.
    -The Object it is to have a better
    understanding. I do not see a
    constructive contribution. I See
    cognitive dissonance.
    An evaluation of the walls
    mental scn? You try to
    get back into those walls?
    Or do you think that you’re out?
    There is only one way to be
    outside those walls: Understanding.
    Only then you can leave behind.
    It does not seem that you understand
    my posts. Watch the causality, has
    definitions of cause and effect,
    philosophical, natural and scientific.
    That is the reality in which we live.
    And maybe you missed, we speak
    just cause and effect.
    Yours is not a continuance.
    Many blogs speak only in negative
    or destructively. No value added.
    Not enough all the bad news?
    You have so thirsty and hungry
    negative things?
    maintain -Position is ok, but so
    creative, this call theta, positive
    good and so on.
    Understand the point?

      1. for me: my point of view, in order to understand, a
        assessing mental wall, there is only one way is to understand

        For you: I do not see a constructive contribution, you dissonance
        cognitive, you try to get back into the walls mental scn,
        or do you think you’re out,

  14. Well, I see that you begin to understand
    and interact. No, there is no other way.
    Any auditor of Cl. 0 knows this.
    Maybe you did just processing. But if you
    Cl.0 done and you drew the lines of comm,
    Arrivals to the certainty that every effect
    you are causing it. Each effect.
    You have the power of choice, and leave.
    Including this effect you’re using.
    If you are not -causa, you can not take it
    and then use. About yourself, about others, or
    hè on me, he, he.
    I know how far you’ve come, what are you
    doing and why. (Your post).
    And this is the first stage. now you are
    at first. ARE BEGINNING. And before
    beginning was the cause. Understand?
    Ok since you audited, in my posts I
    put a command. It is not standard tech,
    to be understood, to what extent are inside
    the walls of scn. Use it if you want.
    Now tell me how else you can
    say that you are always cause?

    Madonna we are in the shit. I put on my boots
    axillary. Ha, ha, haaa.

    1. What I am sure of is that your statements make sense to you and seem true to you, no matter your starting point. With this, I agree.

      By the time your truth reaches my bubble (set) of understanding is it still true? Maybe.

      1. ??? He … Got it, I can give you right. It was too
        strong and very solid. Since then the comm was
        of its opposite. Courage confronting! The clean up!
        Reply.
        Ohhh you problems in the family … use ethics.
        Reply.
        Like demo of how to use the data?
        Comm my, please. But before you answer

        Not if it makes sense, but if a tech, from any
        part is, it works or not. Reality.
        I will have the truth of your bubble? Ohh no!
        use the empirical method.

        Keep present that scn is also the effort of many
        people. All plagiarized from Ron? None of
        they have never found a good tech? No One?

      2. Oh Chris. There are three ants
        in the desert. The first turns around and says:
        Behind me there are two ants.
        The second says: I have an ant
        front and one behind. The third says:
        There are many ants.
        Why?

  15. Chris is easy. be negative
    is to add mass.
    Understand it as-is. and is
    end of addiction. and is
    free to be able to use at will.
    We are almost all in a bubble:
    body, planet, galaxy, universe.
    The negative gives energy, mass
    the bubbles.
    Understand what they are, exactly
    has -causa. and no effect.
    1st factor revised, is to create, instead
    effect. It becomes: create-create-create.
    Different is: create-counter -create.
    E ‘as a new job: create counter create,
    I do not like it, it’s ugly, it’s heavy … it is
    defeated, it fails. Easy.
    Why not start a discussion on tech
    who have helped you, improved.
    And you’ve seen this result in
    other? So as to take the best.
    As the book one helped you? In what?
    How did you help using the book one, for
    example. Or zero degree.
    What he said Buddha, Jesus, or Ron,
    not worth a damn, nothing.
    True understanding, and chek if it works,
    and what results you have.
    But if there is a purpose, other, that
    you should use, and never see or remember
    and is destructive, one begins the tech with it.
    Will have little or no result.
    You can find an example in a post I made.
    This is not a c / s. It ‘a way to do.
    Paul.

  16. Oh Chris. There are three ants
    in the desert. The first turns around and says:
    Behind me there are two ants.
    The second says: I have an ant
    front and one behind. The third says:
    There are many ants.
    Why?

  17. Wohhh no answer to my
    ant? Why the third ant says
    he sees, many, many other ants?
    He told a lie!

    1. There are three ants in the desert.
      The first turns around and says: “Behind me there are two ants”.
      The second says: “I have an ant in front and one behind.
      The third says: “There are two ants behind me.” (He does not lie.)
      Why?

  18. Ok, the 2nd factor. We decision.
    In Diz. tec. we do not have a definition
    decision. It is easy, but what is it?
    And because it uses ‘decision’ and not
    other terms? What is connected to the
    Decision?
    If someone wants to discuss and analyze
    we can see that too.

  19. Really, I’d like a
    discussion on what tech
    worked. Starting from one book.
    What can we throw away today?
    What we can keep as useful?
    Which theory is obsolete?
    What part of the theory is still valid?
    And what tech is useful, and so on.
    The veterans can avoid. but it would be
    helpful to new people.
    What do you think?

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