Had a meeting today with an interesting person. We talked business, life and philosophy. He presented an angle to “Fuck it” that changed my view on letting go – a view that is more direct, active and productive. Play is more positive. While “Fuck it” has great merit, Play is easier to adopt.

You can tell a person to “let go” of the negative emotions he creates. He can perhaps do that. Or perhaps he will struggle to figure out how. You can guide him, coach him, train him to just “give a fuck” and “chillax”. But it may take a while with some serious guidance.

Telling him to play more in life is easier to grasp, easier to do. Play is doing fun stuff that is unserious and not demand results or consequences. Ask the person what “play” is to him. Then encourage him to do more of that in his life. Voilá.


99 thoughts on “Play

  1. Great. Just great, Geir.

    If one was made suddenly aware, that one only another 24 hours to live, there is pretty broad consensus that one SHOULD try to enjoy that remaining time to the max!!

    The very ANTI thesis to seriousness!! No more war! No more hate!! No more regret!

    The easiest method to achieve that? — A change of mind!

    The easiest method to accomplish a change of mind? — PLAY! 🙂

    Life without fun and laughter, (spirit of play), ain’t no joke! — (may as well ‘croak’) 🙂

      1. “Ahso. Confusiacious concur. — Better than doormat.” (bows, gracefully….) 🙂

  2. Agree – the way out of compulsive game play is through voluntary game play. Then at the end of the day you can pass the ball to your erstwhile opponents (if you choose) and walk away without a backward glance.

      1. Whaaaaat??? An ackkk??? (for a hack?) Now you got me discombobulatin’ for a change in resident sombulatin’. Gotta git me some o’ dat Marildi-istic rat-a-tat! 🙂

        1. Hey Cal, no need to discombolate or sombulate – I love you too! 😛

          Besides, you are so funny. I think you should get a job writing for cartoons – some of your stuff reminds me of Popeye – and he made it to the big time. 😀

  3. Wow – this is a “one-word tech”! It may be the closest anybody ever came to a one-shot Clear. 🙂

    Seriously, I can’t imagine a better single word – or direction to point in – to more quickly and easily cut through the barriers to a better existence. As you say, it is direct, active, productive, positive, and easier to adopt – so easy to see, now that you say it.

    And Geir, I have to admire your ability to have blithely “let go” of your own long-standing creation when you came across something you found to be better. Respect!

    1. I think what it shows is that genuinely mindful people can easily and at will modify and amend ideas in a constructive way, without being limited to previously inculcated ideas. I was lucky enough be at the aforementioned meeting with two – in my view – giants of adaptive spiritual philosophy, Geir being one obviously; the other an advanced student of the Vedas. A meeting that positively fizzed with electricity and energy. (Thanks for coming Geir).

      1. In fact I’m sure the other party wouldn’t mind me quoting him directly on this subject. (He was never a Scientologist, but is a thoroughly disciplined scholar of spiritual matters, particularly Krishna consciousness and the Vedas)

        ” The philosophy/ontology behind “play” is that play is purposeful action without attachment.

        Attachment is the root of our suffering.

        Some say that “desire” is the cause of suffering.

        This is not correct. We are “desire” beings and we can no more eliminate desire than a tree can stand without branches.

        The key is to gradually “purify” or redirect the desire and displace our desires for that which is temporary to that which is eternal.

        Then we can be happy.

        Going deeper, therefore, this entire world is “real” but it is a game and thus we are all “playing” all the time whether we know it or not.

        We are all special eternal souls. A soul is made from spirit not matter.
        Thus, a soul has no real place here. We can only “experience” this place as a result of the soul choosing to identify (notice not become) with the false ego.

        The false ego thinks “I am this body” and “I am Jonty” and “I am Geir”.

        It is the attachment of the false ego to temporary phenomena that causes our unhappiness.

        Thus “play”, which eschews this is a great way to develop our intelligence and, paradoxically, achieve greater results.

        Those gurus you were referring to during our meeting all imbibed this mood and had mastered it in their being”.

      2. Is “genuinely mindful people” the same as people whose TR 0 is in on their thoughts and feelings? (That’s a genuine question. 🙂 )

        1. Possibly Miraldi, but I prefer the expression of it as simply being aware of the here and now, and reconnecting with our bodies and the sensations they experience. It is so well established now as vital to our mental and physical well-being that even the stodgy and conservative UK NHS (National Health Service) has recognized its value – see for example. Now THAT’s progress!

          1. I would have to agree with that, Martin. In fact, I’ve been calling Scientology a “stepping stone” for quite a while. Actually, I think LRH himself said something to the effect that we would have to “run out” Scientology eventually.

            There’s a man named Tony Parsons – a countryman of yours if you’re British, so you may know of him. What he has to say I would call the ultimate in non-dualism – and truly paradoxical. He says that the very act of seeking – i.e. any sort of path at all – will only reinforce the duality that keeps us, paradoxically, from wholeness. Any religion or practice will just lead away from enlightenment/liberation – because, fundamentally, these paths focus on duality, whereas liberation is simply a Oneness.

            People consider liberation to be “somewhere else,” so they continue to seek. But Parsons says it’s actually right “here” in “whatever is happening” – and always has been right here. He says that in reality, there is no “me” that is separate – and that we do have this sense of separateness and yearn for something “bigger.” For wholeness. We then strive to attain it – the very thing we shouldn’t do. All there is, he says, is Being – not individual being, just Being. And everything – good and bad, ugly and beautiful – is just “Aliveness” in action. The only way the “perception” of this Aliveness comes about is not through seeking but when the sense of “self” disappears. That’s the requirement for liberation. Pretty interesting!

            Btw, Ron too said “There is beingness, but Man believes there is only becomingness.” (The Factors)

            1. “The issue is that this brings about no excitement. And I want excitement.”

              I guess you’ve just confessed that the apparent “self” known as Geir is intact. 🙂

              Tony Parsons claims that the self is a construct and that upon liberation a collapse or “explosion” occurs and it no longer exists. He may mean that literally, because I get the idea from him that the self is a type of bank, made of energy – actually, everything is energy, he says. The self would seem to be an energy manifestation – a construct of actual energy. It begins to be created in very early childhood, and gets built onto from there. The explosion that occurs upon liberation is perhaps the person blowing by inspection! Like you say – he looks at it and sees it for what it is, and it explodes. Or it collapses.

              Btw, Tony calls all this “The Open Secret” and he wrote a book by that title. In an article on his website, he says:

              “The Open Secret is not new . . . and also it is. Its fundamental essence and content is to be found in the apparent history of seeking originating in Advaita Vedanta, Non-dualism, a particular Zen Buddhism and Christian mysticism…This message also embraces recent discoveries of QUANTUM PHYSICISTS, NEUROSCIENTISTS AND BIOLOGISTS [my caps].”

            2. Yes. But as I said, after going that route for years now, I am realizing it dulls life – it is the route to boredom. It sounds all harmonic and heaven-like and watering plants while playing the trumpet in heaven… I want adventure.

            3. Okay, I don’t doubt that the Tony Parsons view of existence wouldn’t appeal to everybody, and I’m not sure it appeals to me yet either. But some of his ideas are intriguing – and may be useful, IMO. I do think it’s useful to consider the idea that the “self”, the “me” – whether that means the ego or the soul/thetan – is literally an energy manifestation. This makes a lot of sense when you consider that a young child does not have a “sense of self” as that sense hasn’t yet been grooved in and developed. Apparently animals don’t have a sense of self either, which is supposedly why they connect enough with other life forms to be telepathic, for one thing.

              As I said in another post, Parson’s description of the self seems to me to be a type of “bank.” Hubbard described the reactive bank as a “machine of some magnitude.” (tech dictionary). I would say the “bank of self” would be of even greater magnitude, considering that a person is virtually always in it! That is, until enlightenment/liberation.

              I can even see the “self bank” as the basis of the whole ser fac case, because being separate from “the whole,” from Oneness, would seems to be the basic, underlying condition of “me vs. them.”

              Just knowing that one’s own conception of self is something that has been created is, to a surprising degree, liberating. Hence, my interest. 🙂

            4. Here’s the last part of the Tony Parsons article “The Open Secret” (emphasis in caps is mine):

              “… the self is the separate seeker that pursues everything that it thinks it can know and do, excepting the absence of itself. That absence is the emptiness which is unknowable, but paradoxically is also the very fullness, the wholeness (paradise) that is longed for.

              “Should the apparent seeker meet with a perception which reveals in great depth the real nature of separation and also exposes, without compromise, the sublime futility of seeking, THERE CAN BE A COLLAPSE OF THE CONSTRUCT OF THE SEPARATE SELF. That totally impersonal message carries with it a boundless energy into which the seemingly CONTRACTED energy of self unfolds. A resonance can arise which is beyond self awareness . . . something ineffable can be sensed . . . a fragrance and an opening to the wonder of unknowing can emerge.

              “Suddenly, there seems to be a shift and an impersonal realisation that this is already wholeness. The boundless, naked, innocent, free-floating and wonderful simplicity of beingness is already all there is . . . it is extraordinary in its ordinariness and yet it cannot be described.”


            5. Well, hmmm …

              For me, this blog has been a lot about finding a soul that doesn’t fail.

              What he is saying in this video to me regarding the ego is similar to the point of a famous zen story: “No gaining. No knowing. The mountain doesn’t concern itself with the clouds.”

              The ego HAS no certainty it can count on. So he tells us to accept it as illusory.

              … okay …


              The thing the ego wants and craves is certainty and continued certainty. It desperately wants the power of knowing and permanent existence and gain. The question is, can that be obtained by a practice nobody has thought of yet? Because thus far, all efforts fail.

              My guess is “yes.”

              Here it goes with yet another of Katageek’s metaphors.

              You are certain that you put your keys on the table. But later you found them in your coat pocket and then remembered that you put them there. Even though you were wrong, you felt certain.

              Later that week, you are certain you put your car keys on your dresser. You go upstairs and lo and behold, there are your car keys on the dresser!

              You were certain about them on the table and wrong.
              You were certain about them on your dresser and right.


              The feeling of certainty is the SAME regardless of the value of wrong or right.

              You can BE certain about wrong things AND right things.

              So, can the reality of gaining an eternally permanent certainty be experienced regardless of it being right or wrong?

              Can you FEEL CERTAIN with no object or notion to be certain about? A detached certainty. A certainty that has NO anchor? And enlightened certainty.

              And what, I ask is that enlightened certainty?

              If we ARE a soul, that is it.

              So, try this. Just be certain with no attachment to right, wrong, noun, verb, ego, whatever. Feel exactly like you felt both times you needed your keys.

              And in some way, you do have to drop the self to to this.

            6. Katageek: “For me, this blog has been a lot about finding a soul that doesn’t fail. What he is saying in this video to me regarding the ego is similar to the point of a famous zen story: “No gaining. No knowing. The mountain doesn’t concern itself with the clouds.”

              Agreed. We’ve been about “finding a soul that doesn’t fail”

              And yes – zen is one source of the “essence and content” of Parsons’ message – f“a particular zen Buddhism.” Here’s the quote once again (emphasis in caps is mine):

              “The Open Secret is NOT NEW . . . AND ALSO IT IS. Its fundamental essence and content is to be found in the apparent history of seeking originating in Advaita Vedanta, Non-dualism, A PARTICULAR ZEN BUDDHISM and Christian mysticism…This message also embraces recent discoveries of QUANTUM PHYSICISTS, NEUROSCIENTISTS AND BIOLOGISTS.”


              And that was an imaginative metaphor, as usual. 🙂

          2. Martin, I know what you’re saying about mindfulness – that and meditation have really caught on. And this is a good thing.

          3. The hard part, me heart, is to just get past that ever present ‘need’, to be ‘right’, to be ‘safe’, to be ‘secure’, ‘assured’, etc, etc. Once one decides to ‘let go’ of all the defensiveness, one then begins to relax, thanks to a growing realization of freedom, to just BE & DO, (the challenging stuff) for the sake of fun, enjoyment, excitement and adventure.

            Again, as Geir has suggested, “letting go”, “fuck it”, etc. You gotta start SOMEWHERE, with that, right? You might, for example, decide to just let go of your ‘anonymity’. for a massive leap of faith!!!!! As terrifying as that might seem to you now, I can assure you, that you will experience an ENORMOUS sense of relief, as a result.

            You happen to be an immortal, indestructible “awareness unit”, you know?

            So then, what the hell! — just go for it!! 🙂

            I’m anticipating your big win on this ( which will surely follow!)

            You see, my pretty, — It just WORKS that way — as sure as night follows day ! 🙂

            1. Or, M, (me heart), if this continues be ‘too steep’, for you, merely decline and continue ‘to play’ and that’s really okay! — No pressure implied or imposed, either way! 🙂 🙂

            2. “You might, for example, decide to just let go of your ‘anonymity’. for a massive leap of faith!!!!! As terrifying as that might seem to you now, I can assure you, that you will experience an ENORMOUS sense of relief, as a result.”

              Terrifying? That has nothing to do with anything. Sorry to say, but it’s an evaluation that makes you look presumptuous and self-righteous. I’m sure your intentions are good, but it’s folly to assume you can advise someone on something you have no data about except your own preconceived ideas, or the preconceived ideas of someone else that you’ve bought into. Okay, me heart?

            3. Patronized! Patronized? Not my intent at all, dear Marildi. But It appears I have only succeeded in offending you! (for which I unreservedly apologize!) (knuckle konks self on head!) LOL

              Lighten up doll 🙂 – ALL that was suggested to you, was the intent of and means to, achieving an ’emancipated’ freedom to PLAY.

              Abandoning ‘anonymity’, is entirely a matter of choice. I myself have used it and been chastised for it, then abandoned “it’, for the encumbrance it was (for me!) I have thereafter gone on to successfully coaxing others to do the same, with liberating results too!! (Btw, I have found this only becomes possible, WHEN one has decided to do so)

              You always have the inalienable right to maintain your ‘privacy’ as you see fit — No questions, if’s, but’s or defenses necessary, Tessessery! 🙂

              There…… do we let THIS go, Flo? 🙂

            4. “There…… do we let THIS go, Flo? 🙂 “

              It depends, Schmo. 😀

              You started out with a very nice apology but immediately added “Lighten up…” I guess you don’t DUPLICATE (ouch! 🙂 ) that it’s not a matter of me being “light” or not – it’s that you not only made an evaluation but a MIS-evaluation and did so in a way that expressed your superiority. 😛

              I have NO doubt that your intentions were good, but you should have put yourself in my shoes. How would you have felt if I had said the same things to you when you told me you had decided to quit posting on Mike’s blog? I’ll quote below exactly what you said to me. Imagine if I had been of the opinion that you shouldn’t do what you think best and then I directed these words to you on that subject:

              “The hard part, me heart, is to just get past that ever present ‘need’, to be ‘right’, to be ‘safe’, to be ‘secure’, ‘assured’, etc, etc. Once one decides to ‘let go’ of all the defensiveness, one then begins to relax, thanks to a growing realization of freedom, to just BE & DO, (the challenging stuff) for the sake of fun, enjoyment, excitement and adventure.

              “Again, as Geir has suggested, ‘letting go’, ‘fuck it’, etc. You gotta start SOMEWHERE, with that, right? You might, for example, decide to just let go of your ‘anonymity’ [in your case, desire to quit] for a massive leap of faith!!!!! As terrifying as that might seem to you now, I can assure you, that you will experience an ENORMOUS sense of relief, as a result.

              “You happen to be an immortal, indestructible “awareness unit”, you know?

              “So then, what the hell! — just go for it!! 🙂

              “I’m anticipating your big win on this (which will surely follow!)

              “You see, my pretty [my handsome], — It just WORKS that way — as sure as night follows day ! 🙂

              “Or, M [Or, C], (me heart), if this continues be ‘too steep’, for you, merely decline and continue ‘to play’ and that’s really okay! — No pressure implied or imposed, either way! 🙂 🙂

              Would you have appreciated even that last part about “continues to be ‘too steep’ for you”? As I say, picture these things being said to you in the context of a decision you’ve made that you feel is right for you.

              Anyway, I KNOW you meant well but I hope you put yourself in my place next time. Okay, me heart? ❤

            5. Well, dear Geir, if I’m being touchy it isn’t because of my so-called “anonymity” (which has been made into something it isn’t several times); it’s because of the feeling I got about being talked down to and my wanting to nip that in the bud.

              Anyway, note that I said – IF I’m being touchy. Which I wasn’t!! I’m NOT touchy!!! Don’t call me TOUCHY!!!!!!


            6. Marildi. We really don’t have any beef here, but you are free to sound off to your heart’s content! It’s good for the soul.. I genuinely just move on, i like to establish where/when I’m welcome, and either stay/move accordingly. Why sweat the small stuff, sweetheart?

              Yo’ luvin’ bro’, Schmo. XXXOO 🙂

            7. “I genuinely just move on, i like to establish where/when I’m welcome, and either stay/move accordingly.”

              My lovin’ bro Schmo 🙂

              I understood your point of view when you first told me about your decision regarding Mike’s blog – and I admired your personal integrity. Actually, I did a similar thing myself on a blog where I didn’t like how I was being treated – but it took me a lot longer than you to come to that decision!

              My last reply to you was on a different point, though. I just wanted you to consider how it would have felt if I had replied to your comment about Mike’s blog by saying “…just get past that ever present ‘need’, to be ‘right’, to be ‘safe’, to be ‘secure’, ‘assured’…” Etc.

              Maybe I took it personally when I shouldn’t have. In any case, I really love how you have responded to my sounding off! You are one cool dude! XXOOXX

            8. Kinda touchy-ish 🙂 Somehow (duh) I get that there has been insufficient ack given/accepted here. Will try again though — So here goes: Dear Marildi, i have evidently offended you deeply …. please accept my sincerest apology… from the heart.
              … You are free to reject this gesture, without another word.

              There…. can this be considered “over” now?

              Sorry — Gotta dash back to the “war zone” where the heat really IS nasty! 🙂 🙂 🙂

              luv to all.

            9. No-no! You haven’t offended me “deeply.” And whatever offense there may have been you made up for and more.

              Of course it’s over! Luv back. 🙂

          4. It’s a strange notion. Just BEING certain and creating the EXPERIENCE of a permanent, detached certainty.

            Step 1: Remember how it feels to be certain.

            Step 2: Create that feeling sans any attachment for the certainty to hang on, JUST the experience of certainty.

        2. Incidentally, I realised something with absolute clarity recently, which is that a Scientologist cannot in any sense achieve what Scientology promises until one leaves Scientology. Quite the paradox isn’t it.

          1. It sure is, Martin. 🙂 Amazing too, that the ‘mystery’ that held one so sold on the ‘exclusivity’ of the answer/s, was that there ‘were no OTHER answers’. 🙂

            Ahhh.. the freedom to look, and actually see for one’s self, hey? 🙂

      1. Yeah, but you recognized it – and even decided it was better than your own construct.

        Btw, what is play to you? Too long a list? 🙂

        1. A long list, yes… But here are some of it :
          Playing with my children (whatever they think is play)
          AMAR RPG
          Programming HP calculators
          Making digital artwork
          Making music
          Writing poetry
          Reading books
          Observing through my telescopes
          Web design
          Programming Ruby or Raven
          Playing Chess, Wesnoth, etc.

          1. Nice list. I especially like the item “Playing with my children.” I still remember the photo you posted of you and your older boy when you were in New York. The expression on your faces said so much! That picture was truly worth a thousand words. 🙂

            1. Have a great time!

              Maybe you can go to one of Tony Parson’s London events. I copied this schedule from his website, which says there’s an event on October 7 – but the date doesn’t match the day. I’m sure you could get info about it, though. They say some people achieve enlightenment at these meetings! 😉

              Open Discussions

              The Friends Meeting House,
              120 Heath Street, Hampstead, London NW3

              Saturday 3 October 2015
              Saturday 7 November 2015
              Saturday 5 December 2015
              Saturday 2 January 2016
              Saturday 6 February 2016
              Saturday 5 March 2016
              from 2pm to 5pm

              The cost is £10.00. Please pay at the door.


        2. Also; Thanks for the ack, Marildi.

          One thing I realized is that just “letting go” is too steep for many. It parallels a technique taught at OT7 where, after a while on the level, you are able to simply “blow by inspection”. You see some charge and it goes – pretty much like “letting go” or “fuck it”. But here there is also a more noticeable difference in that Play is doing something positive, while Letting Go is removing something negative. I have noticed this in my own life the past two years that simply Letting Go of negative emotions is the recepie

          1. “I have noticed this in my own life the past two years that simply Letting Go of negative emotions is the recipe.”

            I believe it. With all the discussions we’ve had on your blog, I hope you read through my long reply to Martin and watch at least the first 10 minutes of that 15-minute video. After I heard this guy Tony Parsons speak, and read some of the articles on his website, I started looking at things differently – and it’s amazing how much it lightened things up for me, even though they weren’t that heavy to begin with. Of course, Tony would say there’s no such thing as “me,” but I’m not convinced that there is no “thetan” – or “subtle body,” as some other practices call it, or whatever it’s called. It still seems to me to be part of Being, part of “what’s happening” (using Tony’s phrase). Like everybody else, Tony no doubt has his “filters.” It’s part of being human.

            As regards “letting go,” I too felt it was too steep a gradient for most people, and that you were thinking with your own level of filters. 😉

            1. Geir & Marildi. Blow by inspection. This is sooooo DO-able.

              Just a laser like focus and poof!


              1) duplicate
              2) understand
              3) as-is!

              No effort, no emotion, no thought, no filters, no persistence, nothin’

              get it — got it — gone !!

              (Axiom 28) LOL! 🙂

            2. If you can do that, then you are pretty much self sufficient when it comes to your spiritual path. This is perhaps the main gain I got from OT 7.

            3. Calvin, see what you think of my reply to Geir regarding as-ising the only “bank” – self – that supposedly keeps us from being fully liberated!

            4. Well Geir, to be honest, i didn’t need to get anywhere near OT anything. When you have had as many narrow escapes from the guy with the Scythe, as I have, you tend to just cut to the chase with any situation presenting itself. Sort of just look through it. Just get the essence in an instant, No comm lag allowed! Great training ground! (Aka living in a ‘war zone’) There again, living for an adrenaline rush, probably helps too 🙂

            5. Hey, Marildi. Here’s what I think. Lot’s of wordy stuff fills tomes all over the place Trying to explain “NOTHING!”

              Yep, Adyashanti probably got the most succinct about it, (all) by saying that “There is something more primary, behind the “me” … then “only there really is no-thing there” ……”just an awareness” — “everything else, is simply added on” — “then you have “me”

              —- “Nothing” — It caves people in, when they try to conceive that (discussed at length by the Ol’ man in his lectures) (have to keep topping up their havingness, etc.)

              —“Awareness” — How’s that grab “you” Baby?? 🙂

          2. Just tinkering around in the toolbox, Geiru! You caught me mid-tinkering. Got you though! — Hey, so I’m not letting YOU drive on our Africa safari, okay, hombre? 🙂

          3. Geir, this is actually a great perspective to have. It also serves as a good reminder of those ‘layers of barriers’, that one would (ordinarily) have to work through, in undergoing auditing, of ‘buried’ case.

            ie Firstly, strip away, readily available ‘Effort’, in order to view the now exposed ‘Emotion’, which, when worked through, then reveals the ‘Thought’ in an incident.
            — (The approach used in “Thought, Emotion, Effort processing in unburdening a case)

            That one DOES, necessarily have to “work through” (or process, audit) one’s “case” (un-inspected residual hang-ups, negative influences, aberrations), to ultimately arrive at some semblance of “clear” (balance, sanity, ‘pan-determinism’) at some point of one’s existence, there can be little doubt. ….as in duh??

            Having ‘arrived’ at a point of elevated view, does permit one, to then dispense with a lot of unnecessary baggage, formerly regarded as ‘essential’

            The big trick is to communicate all that, in a succinct manner, that belies all the effort it took to getting to that eventual ‘state’ for the one relating the experience.

            — “PLAY,” may serve as the very best vehicle, for getting us “there.” 🙂

  4. The researcher in this video says that.even up against a predatory animal, power can be overridden by a process in nature that’s within all of us – play.

    At about 2 minutes into the vid is some brief footage of a polar bear and a husky dog playing. They’ve gone into what the research scientist, Dr. Stuart Brown, says is actually an altered state – a state of play.

  5. I love this notion Geir, but it allows a circle of domination and submission that needs addressing.

    One “Plays”

    One’s play is ruined by another’s action. EXAMPLE: One is making sand castles and a bully kicked them down and drags the kid off the sand pile and uses force to keep him away.

    One may then use “So what?” to play again with something else.

    So … “Play!” … “So what?/Fuck it/Let it go!” … “Play” … “So What?/Fuck It!/Let it go!”

    It’s the Stoic notion of only working about what one directly controls in a joyful spirit of virtue. But sadly, I find that Epictetus used the B.I.T.E. model in his Enchiridion. Wah.

    Oh well, So what? PLAY!

    1. KG, can you believe that we would be talking about the possibility that there is no permanent self or no soul? I bet you never thought you would see the day. 😀

      I hope Vinnie doesn’t drop in and see us talking about the unknowable too! LOL

      1. LOL!

        Well Marildi, that’s the magic of this e-community.

        Here is what I got from it:

        1. If I exist as a spiritual being, there is no way to influence this universe as a spirit that can be verified by science. If I actually can heal a leper with my mojo, it WILL FAIL under clinical trial even if I have a chorus of healed lepers singing my praises.

        2. If there is ANY chance of me having a soul in the geometry that contains this universe, then I do have one because anything that can exist is mandatory.

        3. Since my permanent soul may NOT exist in another particular geometry of a universe, then I also DON’T have a permanent soul, and instead, there appears a temporary version of my soul that experiences the delusion that it is real. (It’s like Pinocchio believing he’s a boy but with wooden hands.)

        4. Both soul versions of “me” may manifest in different Universes but feel exactly the same depending on the choices of the permanent, paradoxical soul OR the conditions that created the temporary, delusional soul.

        5. So how do both versions of me win since neither knows the certainty of its existence or non-existence? My take is to make a created experience of permanent certainty that is detached from all value. I choose to feel certain and that is all. Eternal certainty for eternal certainty’s sake.


        “There is no meaning to life. Life is meaningless. Which is wonderful news because it’s up to me to create the meaning in my life. I can’t think of anything more exciting.” – Werner Erhard

        1. “There is no meaning to life. Life is meaningless. Which is wonderful news because it’s up to me to create the meaning in my life. I can’t think of anything more exciting.” – Werner Erhard

          Tony Parsons and the ancients would say there’s no such thing as “influence” in this universe – no choice and no free will. This sounds like determinism in a way, except that it includes the idea that it’s the apparent dual reality is actually Oneness – playing a game with itself. I get the idea that a field of energy was set in motion, and whatever happens, just happens – and Oneness can have the experience of it. Wild, eh?

          1. Wild is, as wild does, dear M! And why not.? We’re free to join the Geiru in being “explorers of free will.” After all what’s the friggn’ use of just having ‘potential’, — unless you find out what it can DO??? — KABOOM! LOL!

          2. There is the movie/DVD metaphor.

            1. You go to a movie.
            2. The movie feels like it is unveiling in real time. It’s not. It’s a digital file on a DVD.
            3. Your RESPONSE to the movie is a mix of choice and conditioned responses.
            4. If you hold the DVD in your hand, you are essentially exterior to the DVD.
            5. Parsons, IMHO is identifying the false self that is the observer watching the movie getting lost in the story. Both him and Buddha are right. That watcher doesn’t exist or have agency regarding the story of the movie.
            6. So IF one chooses to enjoy the film and “let go” then one, if one’s “nothingness” is a geometric soul point, can make geometric and sequential choices outside the story of the film and still enjoy the film.
            7. So the person at the level of a character IN the film itself, not an observer of it, has no idea of the theater at all. And to that person, Parson’s notions make perfect sense.

            So does a movie goer have free will? NOT if he Identifies his agency with the story of the movie. Or if his notion of an independent existence is an illusion.

            1. So that’s back to the point. We cannot know with certainty IF we are souls or not.

              BUT certainty itself CAN be separated from criteria. It is just an emotion. One that can be released by mere choice and increased with practice.

              And if we have a soul – THAT is it expressing itself.
              If we don’t – at least it FEELS like it is expressing itself.

            2. Personally, I don’t see the importance of certainty, per se – I just want to look at all the evidence, including both scientific and experiential, and see which theory fits and explains the evidence and experience.

              But yes, it does FEEL like there is truth to expressing “oneself,” whether it’s a soul – a “unit” of consciousness – or the one and only consciousness, Oneness. I’m happy to be either!

            3. And IMHO, this is what that certainty IS in the zen story.

              “The MOUNTAIN (detached ultimate certainty) does not concern itself with the wandering clouds.”

            4. That’s one of those zen quotes that expresses so much. I can see from the quote why Tony Parsons says his message comes from a particular Zen Buddhist sect.

              Even before I listened to Parsons and read a couple of his articles, I was looking at the idea that non-living things like mountains and clouds are indeed part of the Oneness – part of Consciousness – but that they just do not have the sense organs, etc. to perceive and express themselves, like life forms do in varying degrees.

            5. “6. So IF one chooses to enjoy the film and ‘let go’ then one, if one’s ‘nothingness’ is a geometric soul point, can make geometric and sequential choices outside the story of the film and still enjoy the film.”

              Well put, KG. I get that same idea from both Tony Parsons and Eckhart Tolle (except for the “geometric soul point” part, which I hope you’ll explain). Both men say their responses in life – what they do and say – come from nothingness. Both of them have even said that they themselves don’t know what they are going to say to a given question in the audience (for example) until they’re saying it. Eckhart says it is coming from “Presence” and that we simply have to learn to take a moment of Presence. I think this would be a true TR0 – being there – and I think LRH would say it’s coming from having “looked.”

              Another person’s theory that I’ve been aligning with Parsons’ ideas is Tom Campbell. I have some “faith” in what he has to say because of his having researched paranormal experiences for over three decades as a scientist (physicist). He claims to have visited other realities too, some of them physical (like our physical universe) and some non-physical – as well as the reality of “between lives.” From his experience in all these realities, his view of souls is that each is actually a part of all “consciousness,” which he calls “Big C,” and “small c” is equivalent to a soul. His description of small c is that it’s like a suit of clothes or a one lifetime costume – which Big C can use again. This would account for all the evidence of reincarnation.

              I would say that using Campbell’s description of reincarnation (as above), the soul can be conceived of as “permanent,” and I can see why LRH would describe a thetan as eternal. But I can also understand why Parsons would say there is no soul, only Oneness – in other words, there’s only Big C, or only theta. It all depends on how you want to look at it.

              Teal Swan also comes to mind on this subject. In this video she describes what a “ghost”l actually is. In Campbels’s words, Teal is talking about the remaining suit/costume.

            6. A point, according to Greek geometry and probably the Pythagoreans, is a nothing and a something that defines space with it as a center.

              Every point in infinite geometric space is the center of geometric space.

              IMO it is the geometric equivalent of Zero.

              Everything non-zero surrounds it. Since it doesn’t exist yet defines space, it is the only place left in reason and geometry where the soul can reside. A point contains every point and every impossible thing.

              The soul is impossible. A point is impossible. Therefore a soul is s point.

            7. KG: “IMO it is the geometric equivalent of Zero…The soul is impossible. A point is impossible. Therefore a soul is s point.”

              Okay, thanks. That makes sense because, in terms of physical reality, the soul is “nothing.”

              But I like what Teal Swan has to say in that video about the different MANIFESTATIONS related to souls. LRH too said that a thetan is in a “very, very small amount of mass.”

            8. I think the mythology of Scientology is missing exactly WHAT operating a thetan means and HOW one does it. What would be akin to an OT flexing her muscle?

              To answer this, I got creative.

              We all know that nobody has yet to make a glass of water rise off a table with our mind in front of James Randi.

              … but …

              Here is how I think an impossible soul would operate if the impossible soul and souls are truly the maker(s) of the possible.

              Through allegory you could connect to many versions of yourself across the universes and multiverses, taking as a model what Godel says “The higher beings communicate by allegory not by composition.”

              Here it is step by step. It’s a cool daydream.

              1. Center on yourself here and now.
              2. Imagine another you in a completely different place or universe THINKING of you sitting there now.
              3. Do that a lot. Get Queen Marildi involved; homeless Marildi; butch Marildi; super model Marildi; housewife Marildi;
              4. Get them ALL imagining each other in a quiet space in detail, and all of them manifesting from the impossible Marildi.
              5. Once you sense you are all connected and there is an innumerable number of you. Choose a gesture that ANY version of you can do in any circumstance and imagine and feel ALL of your you’s doing that gesture together across time and space in rhythm – each aware of the other and in sync in YOUR PERCEIVED FLOW OF time not the multiverse’s actual time flow.

              So the Marildi in a fast space ship snapping her fingers will take ten years while the Earth Marildi does it in a second. BUT focus on the experience of both being the same tick-tock.

              Then, focus all your community of Marildi into one loud clap, yell, gesture or what not.

            9. “Godel says ‘The higher beings communicate by allegory, not by composition.'”

              I was intrigued by the idea that Godel said that, so I googled it and, sure enough, it was Kurt himself. I also found out the word he used was actually “analogy” rather than “allegory.” But an allegory is a type of analogy anyway, so it works.

              Your fun “daydream” was also intriguing, because it fit right into my understanding of the Akashic – records of everything that has ever occurred in the vast multiverse – and I believe all those imagined marildi’s could in fact be contacted.

              I actually think this is what Hubbard was doing when he devised OT III – he contacted incidents of a certain type – which he was only able to fathom and articulate when he perceived it as an analogy/allegory. And since all beings are connected through the Akashic records (the universal mind), what Hubbard perceived resonates with pc’s on OT III and they are able to free themselves from the effects of those subconscious memories.

              This was the second time on this thread that your post made me think you had a mind like Hubbard’s. 🙂

            10. Well, thanks I guess.

              Godel’s point is interesting even if the world is materialistic (which he didn’t believe since he was a mathematical realist).

              IF two versions of you (or two entirely different beings) think of each other and imagine each other’s actual reality then a connection is CREATED out of non-existence – even if merely mythological.

              I read of a missionary couple that once had to separate to do their missionary work. They agreed to daily read a chapter out of the Book of Proverbs to align with the day of the month.

              They agreed to do it as the same time each day (adjusted for time zone) and “be” with each other through that reading while looking at each other’s picture. If it was the eighth day, they would both read the eighth chapter of Proverbs simultaneously.

              This is IMHO a created connection that transcends the materialist and spiritualist paradox. It is a decision to transcend anyway.

              Who the fuck cares if it was real or not for them? It is their own created agreement.

              Was there an entanglement CREATED? Even if absolutely “no” then … so what?


            11. “Was there an entanglement CREATED?”

              KG, have you seen all the research that has been done on “entangled minds”? There’s a book by that title written by Dean Radin, Chief scientist at the Institute of Noetic Sciences (IONS). This video is about the shortest I could find on the subject – 2-1/2 minutes – I wanted to be sure you watched it. Right at the end it gives the extreme odds for the results being just a matter of chance.

            12. Thanks for the video Marildi. I see why you like it as it promises a strong link to science.

              I tend to find that the claims made in “What The Bleep” and other movies never seem to come up with the “hard evidence” they are talking about.

              It’s always seems that it’s “just about to be published” or gets one on a paper chase that ends up nowhere.

              In “The Quantum Activist” they made a HUGE claim about mind over matter that was supposedly done in Mexico. After the movie, I searched like a madman and sent plenty of emails.

              Nothing. No backing data at all.

            13. KG, I don’t exactly what you have in mind regarding “backing data,” but I found an article that included a description of the mind-over-matter experiments done in Mexico that The Quantum Activist was referring to. Here’s that part of the article

              “In the film, Amit quotes four experiments, the first of which was conducted in the University of Mexico in Mexico City by Greenberg. This experiment consists of two people who meditate together for 20 minutes with the intention of having a non-local communication, which means without exchanging any signals. After 20 minutes they are separated and put in individual Faraday chambers, which are electromagnetically impervious chambers but they still maintain the meditative state and the intention to communicate. They are both connected to individual EEG (electroencephalogram) machines to monitor their brain activity. Then one person is shown a series of light flashes and the resulting brain activity is recorded on the EEG machine. The other person is not shown any light flashes and just continues to meditate. But the EEG machine of the second person also shows a reading that is comparable in its strength and phase as that of the first person who received the stimulus. The conclusion of this result is that the two subjects are using quantum consciousness. Amit says the two brains have become correlated through intention and are communicating non-locally. The other experiments were carried out by other people at different times and reproduced the results of the first experiment.”


              As for “hard evidence” with charts and graphs and all specifics documented, you should watch this video with Dean Rain where he describes his experiments. Start at about 10:30 (unless you want to see the long 10-minute introduction) and watch at least 30 minutes of it.

            14. What I’m looking for is an experiment that supposedly occurred that cannot be verified. The experiment in the Quantum Activist is compelling IF it actually can be done.

              I saw the movie years ago and asked about that experiment and emailed the starring physicist asking details and protocols to replicate the findings.


              I keep getting straw and no needles.

              Now, I linked to the video and there was a presentation over an hour long. So I don’t spend a large part of time looking for experimental science that isn’t there, where is it in the video?

              Is it the RESULTS of the experiment or the details of it? Results can be made up easily, like L. Ron’s thousands of researchers.

              Who else is doing it?

              Are they getting the same result?

              What exactly is the methodology? Can I do it myself? How do I fund my own version? What equipment do I need?

              This is what I mean by hard evidence.

            15. Okay, Kat, I understand better what you’re looking for now. Lucky for you I happen to be a pretty good Google researcher. For starters, I found an article by Amit Goswami that I myself found interesting. It includes mention of this Mexico experiment, and a brief description of Dean Radin’s work too. Here are some excerpts:


              “…Grinberg and collaborators wrote the first paper proclaiming a modern scientific verification of the idea of oneness of consciousness.

              “The Good News Experiment: We Are One?

              “Since then, four separate experiments have shown that quantum consciousness, the author of downward causation, is nonlocal, and unitive. […]

              “Grinberg’s experiment also demonstrates the power of our intention, which parapsychologist Dean Radin has also studied. One of Radin’s experiments took place during the O. J. Simpson trial, when many people were watching the trial on TV. Radin correctly hypothesized that the intentions of the viewing audience would widely fluctuate depending on whether the courtroom drama was intense or ho-hum. This activity, he theorized, might influence random number generators. Radin asked a group of psychologists to plot and note down in real time the intensity of the courtroom drama. Meanwhile, in the laboratory, Radin measured the deviations of random number generators. He found that the random number generators maximally deviated from randomness precisely when the courtroom drama was high. What does this mean? The philosopher Gregory Bateson said, ‘the opposite of randomness is choice.’ So the correlation proves the creative power of intention.

              “In another series of experiments, Radin found that random number generators deviate from randomness in meditation halls when people meditate together (showing high intention), but not at a corporate board meeting!”



              But if you want a scholarly article that specifies exactly what was done in one of the replication studies, here’s the link to an article titled “Correlations between the EEGs of two spatially separated subjects − a replication study.”

              As for the details for the original experiment in Mexico, Dean Radin mentioned it on his blog, and I am guessing you could get more info from him:

            16. Thanks Marildi. I will check them out. If the experiment in “The Quantum Activist”has been replicated by authoritative sources, then it is truly time to put on my tin foil hat, grab a towel and hold my thumb up to the Universe chanting 42 over and over.

              I honestly doubt they will pan out. Pleae prove me wrong. There are a lot of small studies that show psychic phenomenon, but James Randi showed how bias has affected such research.

              He once sent in trained magicians into a psychic study and they completely fooled the researchers. Randi, being honorable, tried desperately to coach the researchers to spot fakes and gave them advice that would have exposed his plants, but they ignored his warnings and his plants just kept fooling them.

              So, yeah, I would like to do that experiment myself if I can get the protocols and equipment.

              So … anyway, the rock bottom reality of life may be akin to Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle or Godel’s incompleteness.

              You can’t have the ultimate question and the ultimate answer BOTH exist in the same space and time.


            17. The problem with mind entanglement is the very same that happens with spirit exteriorization. I mean, it exist, but it happens unexpectedly. It seems that such ” matter ” and phenomena don’t follow the scientific laws and so these can’t be verified by science, imo.

            18. Yeah. If spirit exists, then it is a problem of a sub-system trying to prove the system is is made from. And that won’t work.

              This is why I don’t the the experiment can be validated. But I’ll read the paper.

  6. Perhaps the biggest practical joke(r) we will ever find — is the embodiment of (no-thing) — “self”

    “self” never tires of mystery, intrigue, investigation, hypotheses, figure-figure, extrapolation, intrapolation? conflambamulation, black holes, quasimodos and quantum-google-splooges and such, to satisfy a thirst for Knowca – Cola.

    And all simply because one gets frightfully bored of just being “nothing.”

    One does, you know, even-n-n-n-tually get the urge to at least be SOMETHING!

    Then one can forget one is Nothing!…. at least for a while (again). LOL! 🙂

    Not bad for an entity that is never seen, measured, weighed, or located, but insists on having fun with a mocked up ego puppet called ‘self’.

    Without further ado then, please let me introduce you to the ACTUAL greatest illusionist, magician, conjurer, script writer, inventor, escape artist, creative genius and most unheralded practical joker of ALL time — ” (no-thing)” aka YOU! 🙂 🙂 🙂

    1. Years ago I was arguing the hell out of that no-thing thetan-thing. Then finally gave it up, not because I didn’t have a thing to stand on, but rather because all phenomena that interested me could be explained using physics and physiology. And those anecdotal assertions? Remote viewing? Exteriorizations? . . . I just give Man credit for his wild imaginings.

      I do tend to believe in the spirit, mind, imagination, etc., . . . but as a part of things which can eventually be understood. My belief system has condensed down to a belief in the hope that factual understanding can be acquired eventually. There is simply no such thing as nothing except as relative to something. And then once you relate it? Why then it’s not nothing no more.

      I stopped riding on that merry-go-round, I just had to let it go.

      1. Good job, Chris. Of course you’re quite right — what’s the point of arguing that age old conundrum — “something vs. nothing”

        The ‘metaphysical’ however, does permit one to perceive and explore, beyond the physical limitations. “Awareness”, “Oneness”, “Animal sixth sense”, “telepathic communication” (provable) “Past life recall” (those replete with cast iron hard facts, NOT fantasy)

        Inability to quantify, reduce or ‘explain’ (in physiological terms) does NOT disprove the existence of the invisible, un-measurable, time-less “perceiver.”

        Acceptance, (of such existence), CAN put the human compulsions to argue, prove, or disprove, into the class of ‘the human foibles’, they are and permit one to transcend, ‘The only one’ limitations of perception.

        Perhaps, (duh) we can then begin to actually ‘tune-in’ to what nearly all other life species (homo the sap, being the exception LOL), merely DOES ‘accept’, without question. — a blueprint for survival. — that is in concert with and support of, the entire panorama of wondrous life on our one and only shared habitat, Earth!

        The ‘Dominant Species’?? — More like ‘The Dumb And Dumber Species’ 🙂

  7. Funny! Agree with your points Racing. The reason that I’ve changed my mind has to do with the enormous physics of existence waiting for our exploration. Also the fractal sizing of that existence. We do not have to go further than our armchairs to find infinite, infinitely interesting things to learn and to learn about. I readily admit to the possibility of many great metaphysical assertions. I just think these are eventually understandable and a part of a physical way. That is my belief.

Have your say

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

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s