Scientology is Hubbard’s attempt to kill science

Quoting Richard Feynman from the book, titled “What Do You Care What Other People Think?“:

“The scientist has a lot of experience with ignorance and doubt and uncertainty, and this experience is of very great importance, I think. When a scientist doesn’t know the answer to a problem, he is ignorant. When he has a hunch as to what the result is, he is uncertain. And when he is pretty darn sure of what the result is going to be, he is still in some doubt. We have found it of paramount importance that in order to progress we must recognize our ignorance and leave room for doubt. Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty — some most unsure, some nearly sure, but none absolutely certain.”

An essential value in science is that of never settle with certainty. No theory is final. No stone should be left unturned. There is always higher ground – always room for improvement, for challenging the staus quo. No theory or practice should be exempt from improvement.

What Hubbard tried to sell with Scientology was not simply a final answer to mental traumas, social troubles, to war or all kinds of insanities, drug abuse or criminality, organization of tasks, people or nations. He was selling all of this as well as the final answer on how to become God.

Hubbard sealed Scientology with his policy letter “Keeping Scientology working” where he forbids anyone to ever change or improve his works. Although he claims Scientology to be a “workable technology”, he still kills any notion of science in the sphere of human improvement by claiming that he has indeed found the final solutions for mankind and that it shall remain unchanged until… forever.

Thanks to Brian Cox for citing Feynman’s book and thus inspiring this little blog post. Brendan, Margrete, Anette and myself went to his awesome show tonight. I highly recommend it.

Photo by Anette

Photo by Anette

91 thoughts on “Scientology is Hubbard’s attempt to kill science

  1. Very astute remark on Hubbard. It is true that with ksw the philosophy of Scientology locks it self up in a dogma.

  2. Geir: “Although he [Hubbard] claims Scientology to be a “workable technology”, he still kills any notion of science in the sphere of human improvement by claiming that he has indeed found the final solutions for mankind and that it shall remain unchanged until… forever.”

    That is a stretch, Geir – and as such, it’s an unscientific observation. 🙂

    Seriously, Hubbard never said he had achieved “the final solutions for mankind” or that “it shall remain unchanged… forever.” He did say that he would not accept suggestions by “the group” – but he himself continued to improve on the tech all through the years after KSW1 was issued in 1965, as well as after each of the times it was re-issued, in 1970 and 1980. New bulletins kept being issued until at least 1984 (that I know of) – that is,
    almost until his death.

    Also: “Hubbard sealed Scientology with his policy letter ‘Keeping Scientology working’ where he forbids anyone to ever change or improve his works.”

    KSW only “sealed” Scientology for those in the CoS. Others are free to do with it as they choose – unless, like the fish in Lake Tanganyika, they are afraid of shadows. 😉

    1. Not so. Please read the other policy letters in the KSW series, especially the one on Tech degrades. Couple that with the list of suppressive acts and high crimes and also his many rants on squirreling and how to treat them and other enemies of Scientology. Then you get the whole picture. As I summarize in this blog post.

    2. “Hubbard never said he had achieved ‘the final solutions for mankind'”.
      He did. On several occasions. He claimed to have reached his goals for Scientology and for making full OTs, he claimed to have a complete bridge to Total Freedom, something you now know to be a lie. Hubbard had a bridge to sell. And it stopped midway across a river.

      1. “He claimed to have reached his goals for Scientology and for making full OTs, he claimed to have a complete bridge to Total Freedom…”

        In the above it seems you are using “final” in a different sense than you did in the OP. Here “final” apparently applies to finally achieving a goal, or the claim to doing so. In the OP, I got that you used it with the idea of not continuing to seek improvements, and you pointed out that this is the method of science – to keep improving on what has been achieved.

        You said Hubbard claimed to have “found the final solutions for mankind and that it shall remain unchanged” and that this was not using the scientific approach. My response to THAT idea of “final” was to say he did in fact continue to make improvements. It had nothing to do with whether or not he actually achieved his goal or even whether or not he claimed to achieve it – two separate topics from improving upon the achievement, the latter of which he did try to do. So, it doesn’t follow that he “attempted to kill science.” We could debate a lot of things about Hubbard (and we have!) but I don’t think this is one of them.

        1. Marildi, he forbid anyone else to change our improve upon his work, labelling anyone who attempted to use science in his field suppressives – including squirrels who wanted to improve upon what he did or psychology of psychiatry with their own scientific research. Yes, he tried to kill science and elevate himself above all others as “Source” (with a capital S)

          1. Regardless of the ulterior motives Hubbard may have had in trying to prevent people from using Scientology outside the church, I don’t think he had in mind that they were attempting to apply science to it, at least not for the most part. What he stated was that they would misrepresent it and give it a bad name – and there may have been truth to that. In any case, I think he simply did not want to lose his control over it – whether for personal or altruistic reasons, or both. But even the worst possible scenario of that wouldn’t be the same as “attempting to kill science.” At the most, he may have inadvertently succeeded in preventing a specific application of science, i.e. its application to Scientology.

            1. That’s why I propose, as the more healthy condition to be applied over scientology is:

              To publish all their information and technical materials so as to make it an honest and bona fide religion and not an hypocritical corporative business, seeking more profit stealing the society the taxes it ought to pay and ultimately, to forbid the copyright of religious materials. ( after all, it is a matter of spiritual salvation, isn’t it ?. ).

  3. Marildi: “Regardless of the ulterior motives Hubbard may have had in trying to prevent people from using Scientology outside the church, I don’t think he had in mind that they were attempting to apply science to it, at least not for the most part.”

    Go to the basics GRRL!

    FUNDAMENTALS OF THOUGHT CHAPTER: “Scientology: Questions and Answers”

    “Scientology is a NEW but very basic Psychology in the most exact meaning of the word.” (EMPHASIS HUBBARDS)

    “The Scientology Religion is precise and exact, designed for an age of exact Sciences.”

    “It is interesting that people only need to study Scientology to have some small rise in their own intelligence behavior and competence. The study itself is therapeutic by actual testing.”

    That phrase “by actual testing” appears several times. You can even supposedly change the mass of a human body on a scale’s meter with mental image pictures “by actual testing.”

    1. Hey Kat, just to be sure you understood what I meant, in the comment of mine that you quoted, I was saying that Hubbard’s attempts to prevent people outside the church from using Scientology had nothing to do with him trying to stop them from applying science to it. I say that because I don’t think the “squirrels” back then wanted to do scientific research on it, as I never came across any data indicating that, and I don’t think Hubbard thought so either. What I got was that he wanted to maintain control over the delivery of the tech, either to ensure it was done standardly (as he claimed) or because he wanted to have a monopoly on it for personal purposes – or for both reasons.

      And yes, Hubbard did “actual testing,” according to the reports of many auditors, which I’ve read online. That’s not to say that he fully followed the scientific method, of course. Personally, I think he probably got knowledge largely by other methods, such as revelation or intuition – like Einstein did. 😉

      As for this point about increasing and decreasing mass in a human body, I’ve heard of pc’s who came out of session and found that their clothes fit them so loosely that they went and weighed themselves and found that indeed they had lost weight.

      Btw, did you actually read *Fundamentals of thought*?? 🙂

      1. Like Einstein did?? Seriously, Marildi. Are you comparing Hubbard’s methods of research to Einstein’s?

        As for his treatment of those who dared change or improve upon his works, here is Hubbard:
        “suppressive act: Unauthorized use of the materials of Dianetics and Scientology.
        Developing and/or using squirrel processes and checksheets.”

        This kills science in this field.

            1. Well, I knew it was a typo and you meant “dared.”

              All I’m saying is that it would be an assumption for us to say that Hubbard’s purpose for the policies you cited was to stop others from improving on his work – let alone to say he meant to stop their use of valid scientific research on it in order to improve it. The data I know only indicates that he tried to be in control of its use – including any attempts to simply use it standardly.

              Furthermore, even if it was the case that he didn’t want others to improve upon his work – whether by means of science or otherwise – that still wouldn’t indicate he was against ALL scientific research. That is what your broad statement about “Hubbard’s attempt to KILL SCIENCE” seems to be saying. Or is that not what you meant?

            2. Scientology encompasses all of life. He tried to gain a monopoly in that field. And he labeled any scientific development in that field Suppressive. I’d call that an attempt to kill science.

            3. “…I’d call that an attempt to kill science.”

              I’d say you’re slipping further down the Slippery Slope. 😀

      2. Yes, I’ve read it more than once actually. I am VERY familiar with it. It’s the most important book in your faith IMHO as it is the summary and entry point for the beginner.

        As such, the prioritizing ideals are set forth for beginners and such ideals are given the highest value as to what the religion is supposed to do, stand for and deliver.

        The values of the book however do not match Hubbard’s future coursework if applied standardly IMO.

        For example. “What’s true for you is true for you if you have observed it personally.”

        Marildi, you are advanced in this practice. What would happen to you if you used ACTUAL TESTING to see the increase in a scale’s reading while standing still and only increasing or decreasing the value with your mental mass? And then see what is true for YOU regarding Hubbard’s claim BY ACTUAL TESTING?

        Cuz stories are nice. Actual testing nicer.

        🙂

        And THEN AFTERWARD ask yourself “What is Hubbard really teaching you based on the result of actual testing?”

        Perhaps (if it’s true for you that you can’t increase your mass physically though mental mass) it’s to see he is lying to you.

        And IF he is lying to you and he is indeed your friend, WHY IS HE DOING THAT?

        What would he be teaching you through lies?

        There once was a father who took his son out and tied him to a tree. Then he would lightly hit him with a switch. The boy cowered at first. But when the boy moved out of the way the father stopped and untied him.

        This happened every day.

        As the days went on, the attacks increased and the switch got thicker and thicker. The boy, learned to take the pain and fight for himself became quite skilled at dealing with his father’s stick.

        Eventually, he could escape and make his father cower. Eventually, his father got old but the boy, now a man, kept the cruel bastard under his thumb because not only did his father beat him, he was a cruel family man and a cheat.

        Regardless, he was still the boy’s father. And in some case, LRH is your spiritual father?

        “What effect can you have on Father?”

        1. “Cuz stories are nice. Actual testing nicer.”

          Kat, I have nothing whatsoever against testing or any of the other applications of scientific research to Scientology – in fact, I’m all for it. I’d very much like to see testing done, because science definitely has its value – especially in our Western culture.

          Nevertheless, I don’t consider that science is the ONLY means of determining truth for oneself. There are other ways to observe – and even if those ways are “merely” subjective, why would a person accept scientific evidence, or lack of it, over their own subjective knowledge and experience (rhetorical question). So yes, I do believe in the validity of the statement “What is true for you is true for you if you have observed it yourself.”

          But Scientology isn’t my “faith,” as you put it, and it hasn’t been for quite a while now. However, I do still use it and benefit from it on a regular basis – and it was a very good stepping stone for me on the spiritual path. So, in spite of the fact that Hubbard himself contradicted his earlier writings and the church eventually turned into a cult, the basic materials haven’t been invalidated – which is why I continue to say so.

          To answer your question – no, LRH is not my “spiritual father.” I’m actually pretty free where LRH is considered – more so than many of his critics, IMO, who seem to be too sensitive on the subject. Kind of like I used be (lol), but on the other side of the fence. But for me it is now pretty much just a subject of comparison and discussion, one that I happen to have some knowledge and experience with. And like most beings, I strive for truth across the dynamics.

          As for whether or not I “believe” what LRH stated about mental image pictures changing the mass of the body, I do know – from my own observation – that the e-meter shows body mass does increase and decrease during auditing. And bear in mind that the meter is a physical universe instrument – which means it is capable of pretty good scientific evidence. If you’re interested, here’s a link to the book *Understanding the E-meter*, which has lots of drawings to demonstrate the various principles. Go to the section titled “How the E-meter Really Works”: http://e-meter-star.com/books.files/Understanding_the_E_Meter.pdf

          1. Thanks Marildi for clarifying your viewpoint.

            Like I always said, there are REALLY GOOD ideas in the subject that should be considered and updated. I don’t think Hubbard was an Einstein, but where he was wrong pointed to the BEST QUESTIONS. Like what would a tone scale really look like based on modern science?

            MY PERSONAL TAKE ON THAT QUESTION:
            My personal scale is like a musical scale and like a dodecahedron it also has 12 values. This ties into sacred geometry as many of its followers believe space is shaped in a dodecahedron.

            Indifference/Insouciance
            Happiness (Observable Micro Emotion)
            Interest-Love
            Surprise (Observable Micro Emotion)
            Contempt (Observable Micro Emotion)
            Anger (Observable Micro Emotion
            Dissmell (From Affect Theory’s Scale)
            Disgust (Observable Micro Emotion)
            Distress (From Affect Theory)
            Sadness (Observable Micro Emotion)
            Fear (Observable Micro Emotion)
            Shame

            All these tones have DIRECT facial expressions that demonstrate them. The ones that are “micro emotions” appear against the feeler’s will to a trained eye.

            You can download a phone ap to learn how to spot them.

            ARC = Understanding

            I remodeled this to be an ARCU tetrahedron rather than a triangle. Therefore Affinity is improved by increasing Reality, Communication AND Understanding.

            Reality is improved by increasing Affinity, Communication and Understanding.

            Understanding by increasing ARC.

            Etc.

            This is a tautology, but a very practical one as the best tautologies go.

            So, Scientology leave me hungry for more.

            “NOT THIS! YIKES? BUT IF NOT THIS WHAT?”

            1. Wow, Kat, I’m always impressed with how much information you’ve gathered – such as now about “tones” – and then you worked out your own scale. You wrote: “All these tones have DIRECT facial expressions that demonstrate them. The ones that are ‘micro emotions’ appear against the feeler’s will to a trained eye.”

              You inspired me (in this busy time of year!) to skim over portions of the Wikipedia article titled “Microexpression,” and I see what you mean about the latest scientific findings about emotions and how this info can enhance what LRH discovered. At the same time, to give LRH due credit, bear in mind that he not only described facial expressions and other body language of a person at the different tone levels – but also described behavior as it relates to many different situations. This is all detailed in *Science of Survival* and its Chart of Human Evaluation at the back of the book. If you’re interaested, here’s a link to a PDF copy of the book (which can also be downloaded): http://www.stss.nl/stss-materials/English%20Books/EN_BO_Science_of_Survival_SOS.pdf
              .

              One thing I took note of in the WKP article was that according to studies of motion picture film, micro-emotions last as little as 1/25 of a second. Coincidentally – or not – that is the rate at which mental image pictures are recorded, per LRH. Here’s part of the definition of “time track” in the tech dictionary:

              “If motion picture film were 3D, had fifty-two perceptions and could fully react upon the observer, the time track could be called a motion picture film…with a scene about every 1/25 of a second. (HCOB 15 May 63)”

              According to the “Microexpression” article, the facial expressions for the various emotions are universally the same. My Scientologically educated guess is that people have mental image pictures of all the various emotions – and those pictures, which are contained in the memory banks, get restimulated. The fact that restimulation is a stimulus-response reaction explains why the micro-emotion facial expressions are not under the person’s control.

              One might wonder how LRH knew (as per the definition of “time track” quoted above) that mental pictures change every 1/25 of a second. It was probably not through scientific research that he discovered this but through some other source of data – just as he knew that each emotion has a specific frequency, an idea that many scientists have now also put forth. LRH may some day be recognized as an Einstein in his own right. Just sayin’ 🙂

            2. That has to do with the rate the eye can register input, rather than the rate memories are recorded.

            3. I am not so sure about that. Which of the 60 FPS is then recorded as memory? And – where is the research showing that this is the same rate for every sense – and is it sync’ed across all senses?

            4. I’ve only read that long-term memory takes more time for the brain to record and retain than short-term memory. In any case, that’s the brain – and we are not just a brain. But that’s outside the field of scientific research, at least so far. It might be in that field someday – if LRH was right that thoughts are physical energy too, but of a finer wavelength than what is now considered physical.

            5. I agree with Sylvia that Scientology is a “gradient” (I’ve called it a stepping stone) and that it is “to be abandoned as soon as you are comfortable enough in the chair to be able to direct your attention and energy fully into looking for the exit door.” (By “exit door,” she means awakening out of the illusion.)

              Recently, I read a book about the Hawaiian spiritual practice of Ho’oponopono (see the short video I posted). The book is titled *Zero Limits* by Joe Vitale. He lays out three stages to awakening and calls it “a map of life’s spiritual journey.” Scientology can take people from the first stage up to and through the second stage, ready for the third – that is, ready to “look for the exit door,” as Sylvia put it. Scientology can get a person to that third stage more quickly than any other system I know of. Here are the three stages Joe lays – and they are “true for me,” because I have observed them 😉 :

              “1. You’re a victim.
              We are virtually all born feeling we are powerless. Most of us stay that way.We think the world is out to get us: the government, the neighbors, the society, the bad guys in whatever form they seem to take.We don’t feel we have any influence.We’re the effect of the rest of the world’s cause. We gripe, complain, protest, and gather in groups to fight those in charge of us. Except for a party now and then, life, in general, sucks.

              “2. You’re in control.
              At some point you see a life-changing movie, like The Secret, or you read a book, such as The Attractor Factor or The Magic of Believing, and you wake up to your own power. You realize the power of setting intentions.You realize the power you have to visualize what you want, take action, and achieve it. You begin to experience some magic. You start to experience some cool results. Life, in general, begins to look pretty good.

              “3. You’re awakening.
              At some point after stage two, you begin to realize your intentions are limitations. You begin to see that with all your newfound power, you’re still not able to control everything. You begin to realize that when you surrender to a greater power, miracles tend to happen. You begin to let go, and trust. You begin to practice, moment by moment, awareness of your connection with the Divine. You learn to recognize inspiration when it comes to you, and you act on it. You realize you have choice but not control of your life. You realize the greatest thing you can do is agree to each moment. In this stage, miracles happen, and they constantly astonish you as they do. You live, in general, in a constant state of amazement, wonder, and gratitude.”

              http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781118258118.epil/pdf

            6. They forgot one step:

              4. Transcendence Beyond Awakening Via Batshit.

              You begin to see that you don’t actually exist. BUT if you don’t exist, then your fantasies are just as real as YOU! So … you DECIDE to be master of your reality and fantasies anyway. You reach out to the infinitude of manifestations of yourself you created in your imagination all across the multiverse and visit their worlds and enjoy them in your imagination which is just as real as you.

              You run RPGs to create scenes from these places to enjoy and learn from.

              You realize THIS world with all its limitations ARE A FREE WILL CHOICE OF YOUR BATSHIT SELF that you made outside of the universe. The miracle isn’t picking up the ash tray with your mind, it is creating a universe with an ash tray in it.

              You then create/find versions of yourself to inspire you. One of you is a prisoner broken beyond repair. Another is a Buddha on a mountain. Another is a burger flipper at McDonalds with autism. One has god like powers.

              All of them have limits they imposed outside the universe they are in. And like a DVD has ALL of a movie in a static state that unravels as played, so YOU are just watching a movie you already decided upon.

              And with said delusion, you enjoy your popcorn …

              Cuz that “Power of Now” shit is for pansies. Bring on the crazy yo!

            7. So anyway, here is a question to consider which gives away too much of my point of view of the soul …

              WHAT if the “base self” or “truest self” is actually BATSHIT? And Sanity (the stuff we experience here on earth and this blog *LOL* ) is just a subset of Batshit?

              The rational being a subset of the irrational?

              If so, the rational will NEVER prove the irrational as true as it is a superior set and outside its boundaries.

              Then, could one learn to be present even as the most crazy batshit being in the universe?

              Remember what makes the F-16 so effective is that the plane CAN’T FLY. Its balance is held by computers making micro adjustments in real time. Relax some of those adjustments and … zoom … it turns REALLY fast.

              So, presuming this crazy notion is true. As one “lost bank” they would become more crazy …

              … Hmmmmm …

              Bottom line. Love youself more than God ever could. He may not like it, but he will respect you for your guts.

            8. “As one ‘lost bank’ they would become more crazy …”

              Was that an intentional pun? (Get it? Think Scientology… 😀 )

              What you’re talking about is not the true self but a “self” that spiritual teachers have called the ego and/or the mind. It’s an energy manifestation created by…the soul. And since it is composed of energy, it is real – but not an absolute, eternal reality/actuality. I don’t think a person discovers the soul only through logic and reasoning. That keeps you in the subset of the physical world.

              Nevertheless, you are definitely creative in your reasoning! Which tells me that there is some of “the eternal” mixed in there too. 😛

              Anyway, gotta run – ’tis the season! 🙂

            9. Yes, it was intentional. LRH, Captain Bill, Rick Fowler, John McMaster all became nuts the longer they practiced Scientology and got closer to their “base selves.”

              So *IF* they were actually getting closer to their base selves. Does this mean their base selves are actually bonkers?

              A SOUL MYTHOLOGY-TAUTOLOGY

              1. THE SOUL (STATIC) IS INSANE IN IT’S REHABBED STATE. It is insane because it is by nature paradoxical. It is the insanity of the soul that gives it the ability to create infinitudes of existence. TRYING TO REHAB THE SOUL BACK INTO ITS BASE STATE IS STEPPING DIRECTLY TOWARD BATSHIT.

              2. SANITY IS THE SUBSET OF INSANITY. The insane, rehabbed soul can believe 1 + 1 = 2 AND 1 + 1 =3. The sane soul can focus only on (1 + 1 = 2) as a REAL PART of the the insane soul’s world just like how a sane self is a subset of a batshit self.

              3. Suffering comes from the SANE versions of self trying to dominate and subjugate and define as a subset the INSANE base self that is the master set that is creating the sane sub set self. It cannot do this and it thinks it can think or manipulate itself out of suffering and it can’t.

              Obviously. This. Sucks.

              4. Liberation is a acting decision to be free ANYWAY and love and face the batshit, unburdened self AS IS in joy.

              5. TORTURE AND OVERWHELM ATTACK THE SANE SUBSET SELF AND OPEN THE PERSON TO BECOMING MORE LIKE THEIR BASE, BATSHIT, NATURAL SELF WHICH IS BONKERS.

              BATSHIT CONCLUSION: Sanity comes not by auditing. It is purely a creative act and coupled with the willingness to face anything empowers a person to unfuck themselves.

              *IF* some “souls” work this way. This model is probably WRONG. *IF* souls exist, then each one may have a different way of being that requires its own unique path to self liberation.

              Or …

              … we’re just dreaming meat.

              Knowing that with certainty is impossible. Choosing it with certainty IS possible.

              And a little … wait for it …

              … wait …

              batshit.

            10. Thanks for that creative and entertaining mythology of the soul. 🙂

              My approach to the subject is that, rather than letting the imagination run wild (which is great for entertainment, though), I like the idea of comparing different schools of thought, from all different parts of the planet and in all different periods of time. What has been found is that certain experiences and insights are common to all of them, even though they might at first seem different because of differences in culture. Ken Wilbur did this kind of comparison – of all the major spiritual traditions as well as the main modern-day psychology developments – and he discovered many common insights and methods.

              I also heard a story about the wise King Salomon (also spelled “Solomon”), who gathered together medicine men (or shamans) from all over the then-world, in order to pool their wisdom. They all worked together for 40 years(!) and modified the findings so that anything that didn’t fit with all cultures was either made to do so or else eliminated – and they came up with what is now called Universal Kabbalah. It’s not the Jewish or Christian or Muslim Kabbalah and has no religious dogma – and it continues to evolve as mankind gains new knowledge and makes new discoveries. If this interests you at all, watch that video I posted of the Modern Mystery School.

              Otherwise, if you’re happy with what you’re doing, more power to you! I believe in doing whatever path is working for you. 😉

            11. The one thing all these philosophies all have in common IMHO is that they see reason senior to madness.

              And Solomon at the end of his life wrote a book titles “Ecclesiastes” which says as it’s mantra “All is vanity.”

              Gee. That’s a party.

              And the Buddhists say “No gaining. No knowing.”

              More fun!

              Because they are ALL trying to master madness with reason and it doesn’t fucking work. So they all to a one teach “Let go” as the way to “get there.”

              And they are still pretty much fucked. But at least they are zen about it.

              I’m not joking with this tautology. If we are NOT just dreaming meat then I honestly think that the base soul. The base cause of the universe (not necessarily the sames things because we cannot know for sure), the CREATIVE BASE is … fucking batshit.

              Reason is batshit lensing on itself, bringing sentient patterns to its creative chaos.

              And then the sentient patterns want to rule the batshit.

              Good luck with that yo.

              My take? BE the batshit you want to see in the world.

            12. It does parallel Geir, but I’m positing that batshit is different than chaos. Chaos still aligns with the possible (sane/rational).

              “Work today was chaos.”
              “The particles were chaotic.”

              Batshit deals with the impossible (insane/irrational). As such, it CHOOSES to not rely on logic to manifest its intentions.

              AND THAT IS WHY THIS JOKE IS ACTUALLY A KOAN.

              BEING: “What’s the answer to the question of Life, the Universe and everything?”
              ANSWER: “42”
              BEING: “DOH! Wrong question. Wait a minnut…”

              ((PAUSE))

              BEING: “Why is 42 the answer to the question of Life, the Universe and Everything?”
              ANSWER: “Because the Batshit Douglas Adams declared it to be so.”

              So, emerging are two views of the Universe.

              1. Chaotic: Universe emerging from chaos with no intention.
              2. Batshit: Universe emerging from Batshit WITH intention.

            13. This is interesting. And it is novel.

              While I have your attention; Over at the Amar site: The katageek User Page is solely for information about you, about katageek. The page where you write the text about the mar rules is on the Amar Rules 101 page. Please move the text from your user-page to the Amar Rules 01-page 🙂

            14. KG: “And Solomon at the end of his life wrote a book titled “Ecclesiastes” which says as it’s mantra ‘All is vanity.’ ”

              I think you’re missing data, Kat. Here’s a description of Ecclesiastes:

              “Solomon initially opens with three bleak observations: nothing is really changed, nothing is really new, and nothing is understood. After experimenting and investigating ‘life under the sun,’ he initially concluded, ‘No, life is not worth living!’ And he gave four arguments to support his conclusion: the monotony of life, the vanity of wisdom, the futility of wealth, and the certainty of death.

              “But being a wise man, Solomon, in Chapters 3 to 10, reviewed his arguments and this time brought God into the picture. What a difference it made! By reexamining each of these impressions more carefully he realized that life was not monotonous but filled with challenging situations from God, each in its own time and each for its own purpose.:

              http://www.khouse.org/articles/2003/447/
              .

              Then you wrote:

              “Because they are ALL trying to master madness with reason and it doesn’t fucking work. So they all to a one teach ‘Let go’ as the way to ‘get there.’ ”

              Reason is obviously needed – but not in a vacuum. It has to be aligned with experience and the observable data – as much as possible. Otherwise, it is just “figure-figure” (as Ron put it) or imagination running wild (as I put it) – which is where the batshit would arise. The creative base of the universe can’t be batshit or it wouldn’t have evolved. According to physicists, the universe has just the right balance to evolve and maintain its existence. Thus, I see reason as being a built-in factor.

              Are you sure you’re not trying too hard to “prove” – through “reason” – that there is no such thing as spirit/soul? I still think that what makes the most sense is to look into the universal threads of experience, such as how Ken Wilbur and King Solomon did it.

              Nevertheless, you had some funny lines regarding the idea that “All is vanity”:

              “Gee. That’s a party

              “And the Buddhists say ‘No gaining. No knowing.’

              “More fun!”

              And a funny paraphrase of Gandhi:

              “My take? BE the batshit you want to see in the world.”

              LOL

            15. Okay. You don’t agree with my view that the base, real soul (IF it exists) is utterly and totally batshit, and that reason/sanity is a subset of Batshit.

            16. Anyway, my idea will never be popular.

              MY IDEA: “All soul(s) are raging batshit when they attain spiritual perfection.”

              Yup. I’m claiming that enlightenment is nucking futs.

              And if so …

              Can enlightened batshit choose? …

              Have you ever known a person who was certified batshit that you really liked and who helped your world? A Willy Wonka? A Winston Churchill? A Robin Williams? A Carrie Fisher?

              Columbia has some great advice at 1:20 in this song about a young psychotic man who still had good in him. But, alas, he too would not get what she was saying.

              “Hey listen to me stay sane inside insanity, but he locked the door and threw away the key!”

              Can insanity … CHOOSE sanity AND STAY sane inside insanity as Columbia suggests?

              Is enlightenment merely the decision of sanity to confront, be and love the batshit that made itself possible?

              The Rocky Horror Picture Show is not as shallow as people think …

            17. ‘Can insanity … CHOOSE sanity AND STAY sane inside insanity as Columbia suggests?”

              Sorta.

              Here’s how Victor Frankl put it in his book *Man’s Search for Meaning*:

              “Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom.”

              And there’s an LRH statement that is amazingly similar to the above. The following is from *Advanced Procedure and Axioms*:

              “Here is a mechanism interposed in the cycle of stimulus-response restimulation which demonstrates that:

              “WHEREAS SURFACE OBSERVATION SAYS THAT RESTIMULATION CAN OCCUR, DEEPER STUDY SHOWS THAT AN INTERIM STEP OF SELF-DETERMINISM IS NECESSARY FOR ANY RESTIMULATION TO TAKE PLACE.

              “Man is so aberrated at this date that it took considerable processing to discover this interim factor. And to discover that the interim factor is far more important than the mechanism of restimulation and that restimulation ceases by picking up the inner postulate between a source of restimulation and being restimulated.”

              “The extent of free choice is remarkable. The amount a case can be improved by self-determinism processing is even more remarkable.”

            18. “Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom.”

              These wonderful advices given to us by great thinkers like Viktor Frankl are mental constructs which give context. When a person aligns himself with a context whether or not by free-choice, and that person’s responses are consistent with his alignment, he experiences a harmony with his environment which he abstracts as freedom, also a metaphor for “lack of friction.” In this way, a person can “choose” to cut off another person’s head and feel exalted if that response is consistent with his context. Both freedom and growth can be seen to be abstracts which mean consistent within context. When we “buck the system” we feel friction.

              I’ve thought a few times about Geir’s comments about responsibility and accountability being illusory in a deterministic world. His points are well taken but I will split hairs between illusion and abstraction and say that in a deterministic world that responsibility and accountability are abstractions rather than illusions.

            19. I would add “dodging the bullet” to “splitting hairs” 😉
              It’s an interesting construct to help cope with cognitive dissonance.

            20. “…I will split hairs between illusion and abstraction and say that in a deterministic world that responsibility and accountability are abstractions rather than illusions.

              Your view was very well stated, Chris, and nicely succinct too! I actually follow what you’re saying, and it seems honest and rational to me except for one question: What is it exactly that a moral abstract (as with any abstract) is abstracted FROM?

              The way I see it is that abstracts in general are based on observation. And the abstraction by individuals to follow a given moral code is based on their observation of what does and doesn’t produce survival. Furthermore, if the impulse towards survival didn’t exist, they could just as easily go in the direction of non-survival choices – as the laws of probability would dictate. But that isn’t generally the case, and this tells us that a choice is being made – and choice infers free will.

              In other words, moral behavior is based on something more “concrete” than arbitrarily relative mental constructs – i.e. it’s based on observation and on the WILL to survive. And even if an abstract were arbitrary, that itself would indicate the existence of creativity/origination – which, by definition, is another way of describing choice/free will.

              Do you see any holes in my reasoning?

            21. “What is it exactly that a moral abstract (as with any abstract) is abstracted FROM? . . . Do you see any holes in my reasoning?”

              Hey Marildi, I suppose it comes from the mind, but I only vaguely know what I mean by mind. As for holes, no. Your reasoning is normally very good and really, better than ever. Sometimes it contains foundational premises which may not be the only premises possible. Specifically ideas about a specifically centralized self. Something KG does that I admire is loosen himself from “everybody knows” type of thinking and is able to see things from both orthodox and unorthodox points of view without getting lost in the ensuing storm of random thoughts. This is a strength that I think is good to cultivate. I do understand your points about self and the where do abstracts come from questions, but I am trying to explore other possibilities.

              When you thought that KG was trying to disprove the soul, what I got from his exploration was “Is a soul really necessary to explain our life’s experience?” He can correct me if I’ve missed his mark.

              When you explained Ecclesiastes, I got a different take from my study. The punch line for the entire book is stated simply in Chapter 2, verse 10, “. . . My heart took delight in all my labor, and this was the reward for all my toil.” I know the “Preacher” goes on quite the rant both before and after this punch line, but for my whole life, this is what I took away from my reading of this scripture. To me it simply means that we should do what we love and love what we do because this emotional reward is the only thing we truly own. Having said that, jaded as I am, I suspect a political manipulation. If not from the Preacher directly, then from the BIBLE as a whole. Too many ideas in one post, sorry.

            22. Thanks for the nice ack about my reasoning, but I think the direction I went in was probably incorrect. I looked again at what you first proposed: “…that in a deterministic world responsibility and accountability are abstractions rather than illusions.”

              What I see now is that, to start with, in a deterministic world even thinking and abstractions would not be determined by the person – i.e. not self-determined. And thus, responsibility and accountability would in fact be illusions. A person in such a world might be able to “compute,” but like a computer, he would only be able to come up with the pre-programmed answers – which obviously does not then add up to responsibility.

              “Sometimes it [referring to my reasoning] contains foundational premises which may not be the only premises possible. Specifically ideas about a specifically centralized self.”

              I’m going by my perception and the corroboration of others’ perception/observation. I resonate with the view by many that there are three bodies – physical, subtle, and causal. The subtle body (the soul) is not permanent but the causal body (the spirit) is. And all three bodies are composed of energy – as is the whole universe – of different densities. What’s your premise?

              “When you thought that KG was trying to disprove the soul, what I got from his exploration was ‘Is a soul really necessary to explain our life’s experience?’ He can correct me if I’ve missed his mark.”

              I got that too, actually. But I get that he’s trying to make the question of a soul irrelevant , and my question (if that’s true) is – why? Is there some bias or fixed idea that causes him to reject it – such as with Vinnie, who has admitted that he intends to prove with science that the Buddha was right about the soul and other things (which, of course, isn’t the way a true scientist should set out, with his mind already made up). Or am I wrong in my guess that you guys haven’t very seriously reviewed the known data? There’s definitely lots of it.

              Tom Campbell, you might remember from my comments about him and the youtube vids of his that I’ve posted, is one example of a trained scientist (physicist) who has researched out-of-body experiences, consciousness and the soul – always using scientific protocol. Dean Radin is another scientist who has presented extremely solid evidence of non-physical-body communication and other experiences that go beyond the physical.

              As for Ecclesiastes, I know little about it. I was just quoting a website that is supposed to be about the serious study of the Bible. http://www.khouse.org/pages/mcat/about_us/

              Btw, speaking of Vinnie, I wish Geir would give him an amnesty – maybe in honor of the Christmas spirit. Would you second the motion? 🙂

            23. “And all three bodies are composed of energy – as is the whole universe – of different densities. What’s your premise?”

              If this has become your current view, then it is consistent with my own and it is a change from our former scientology opinions. My current premise is that ALL IS CONSCIOUSNESS, and that the Self is somewhat like a pimple on the skin of that consciousness. Without trying to sound overly negative or crass let me flog one more simile and say that our postulates are like the puss that issues when we pop one of these pimples. That postulate matters to the pimple, yes, but is not overly important in the scope of say a star system, which is not overly important in the scope of say a galaxy, which is not overly important in the scope of say a super cluster of galaxies, which is yet small in the scheme of the Universe.

              Though busy with holiday and end of the year wraps, I am still trying to follow along the blog and always enjoy the many and varied ideas.

              This past year I’ve especially enjoyed your posts Marildi as you bring your considerable knowledge and research capabilities to bear on these fun topics.

            24. “If this has become your current view, then it is consistent with my own and it is a change from our former scientology opinions.”

              We should add that besides the idea of the universe being composed of energy vibrations, there also exists the sheer potential of vibrations. That would go along with quantum physics, with regard to the discovery of particles arising in a vacuum, for example.

              “My current premise is that ALL IS CONSCIOUSNESS…”

              How funny you should come up with that – it seems likely to me too! I started putting this and that together and one day it dawned on me that – Oh, wow, I’m thinking like a pantheist! So I looked it up in Wikipedia and was amazed at how many philosophers from all over the planet and all ages have arrived at the worldview of pantheism.

              That Wkp article also went on to differentiate between pantheism and animism – and the latter seems plausible to me too. So now I’m back to looking at the experiential evidence of each these two isms. I’ve been reading about the ancient Hawaiian system of Ho’oponopono, for one thing, and now I’m studying some of the teachings of the Modern Mystery School. Things like Shamanism used to seem so primitive and superstitious to me, but they do get results – and uniformly so in differing cultures, each with its own metaphors and myths to describe what is happening.

              “…the Self is somewhat like a pimple on the skin of that consciousness. Without trying to sound overly negative or crass, let me flog one more simile and say that our postulates are like the puss that issues when we pop one of these pimples.”

              Ewww…try another metaphor. 😀

              I think of postulates as the ability to collapse the wavefunction – which is called “observation.” Another poster here recently came up with that idea too. I first thought about it a few years ago – somewhere along the line of the physics discussions here on Geir’s and then with a friend.

              “That postulate matters to the pimple, yes, but is not overly important in the scope of say a star system, which is not overly important in the scope of say a galaxy, which is not overly important in the scope of say a super cluster of galaxies, which is yet small in the scheme of the Universe.”

              This takes me back to our idea that “all is energy.” When a group of people pray for a certain outcome, for example, essentially they are all making a postulate – and, statistically speaking, their aligned postulates get results. This has been studied scientifically, notably by Dean Radin, and the evidence of its effect is clear.

              “Though busy with holiday and end of the year wraps, I am still trying to follow along the blog and always enjoy the many and varied ideas.”

              +1

              And thanks very much for validating my posts. I really enjoy reading yours too. 🙂

            25. “My take? BE the batshit you want to see in the world.”

              Great post, KG. I love your out-of-box ability to think and write. Your rich examples expose for me the degree to which fantasy role playing can be invented and made plausible and self-consistent on the fly.

            26. As regards what you wrote about the ARC triangle and Understanding, a tech-trained, former Scientologist by the name of Robert Worstell came up with the same idea! I just recently read about it on one of his websites. Here’s an excerpt:

              “…an interrelated triangle of Affinity, Reality and Communication (CSI). When one point of the triangle is increased, the other two increase as well. This triangle is then said to equate to Understanding (See Wikipedia entry ‘ARC Triangle’ on this.). Some recent works down this line showed that understanding itself could be increased directly, making increases in the other three points. This gave a four-sided figure which was philosophically stable and predictable. “http://gothunkyourselfagain.blogspot.com/2006/08/four-way-thunk.html

              So you are in good company with someone who was Scientology tech-trained. 😉

            27. Also for Geir, here’s another excerpt from the same Robert Worstell article (which is all about his book, *Go Thunk Yourself*). This part relates to Geir’s article “Processes, Automation and Human Potential” –

              “My leap was to consider that the tetrahedron (or other polyhedral models) could be used as a base for philosophic models. This then immediately led to another hypothesis: if there is one such philosophic-tetrahedral object (ARC=U above), then there might be more.

              “Review of the counseling material I had covered didn’t produce any similar philosophic figures directly; however, review of my later studies into this wider field of improving Ability showed that Responsibility, Confront, Understanding and Purpose did interrelate directly to form such a tetrahedral philosophic model (four-way). Each of these principal points was required to achieve a stable improvement in personal ability.

              “I’ve included several essays which go down this line and expand on my use of this ‘Ability Formula’. By working on these four points, several advances in counseling can be achieved. Simple self-analysis texts can be designed along these points so that a person could examine his/her own beliefs and work them around to achieve an improved world-view.

              “While I initially called these ‘tetrads’, this is a bit professorially elite, so let’s call them a ‘Four-Way Thunk’, which is easier to remember and use (one purpose of marketing). I’ll use ‘Four-Way’ for short and specific.

              “I had found one four-way, so looked around to see if these were still all that rare.

              “Through my college studies, I found that the various specialist courses tended to answer the problems found in other fields. Algebra started answering questions in Humanities. Geography and Economics both studied the problems of human culture, not just maps and number theories. Public Speaking started explaining Business English. I saw that while Academia had carefully separated these various areas into specialist studies, the ‘well-rounded’ effect was being missed by most students, since they were not trying to find a whole system, but just trying to suffer through getting a degree. These different courses contributed in their cross-connection to finding these additional four-ways.

              “In studying Economics, cross-connecting this with Computer Courses as well as Modern Literature, in both fields I found that Service and Information were key elements to explaining how the Economics in general, and the Open Source software economic model specifically, worked. While these two points were initially thought to replace Supply and Demand in this Information Age, I later saw this wasn’t correct, but that these two new points actually tended to complement the original two points. So a four-way was formed of Supply, Demand, Service and Information. This formulation gave simpler explanations for many phenomenons which occurred in working out economic theories and basics. The original dichotomy wasn’t as efficient or effective in explaining new economic operating modes.

              “I now had a second four-way in a completely unrelated field to personal counseling.”

              http://gothunkyourselfagain.blogspot.com/2006/08/four-way-thunk.html

            28. Well, I like his title “Go Thunk Yourself.” Obviously, he has taken his path seriously.

              Thanks M. Lots of contributions and notions.

              For accuracy, here is my emotion list fully, and honestly sourced. It is DANG hard to find a reliable list of emotions that are factually based and can be tied to photos of human emotions. All of these have direct facial expressions that align with them.

              I didn’t “discover it.” I didn’t “research it.” I COBBLED it together with no actual testing to fit the 12 notes and FORCED it into a 12 note structure cuz I like sacred geometry.

              It’s biased.

              Indifference/Insouciance/Serenity (Buddhism, Stoicism, Personal Experience)
              Happiness (Observable Micro Emotion) (Affect Theory’s Affect List)
              Interest-Love (Affect Theory’s Affect List)
              Surprise (Observable Micro Emotion) (Affect Theory’s Affect List)
              Contempt (Observable Micro Emotion)
              Anger (Observable Micro Emotion) (Affect Theory’s Affect List)
              Dissmell (Affect Theory’s Affect List)
              Disgust (Observable Micro Emotion) (Affect Theory’s Affect List)
              Distress (From Affect Theory)(Affect Theory’s Affect List)
              Sadness (Observable Micro Emotion)
              Fear (Observable Micro Emotion) (Affect Theory’s Affect List)
              Shame (Affect Theory’s Affect List)

              In Affect Theory Shame is the most damaging emotion. When shamed we either …

              1. Try to avoid it (run away from it)
              2. Attack oneself (blame and attack oneself)
              3. Attack another (blame someone else)
              4. Block it with a distraction (booze, games, movies)

              The trick with shame is to face it AS shame, honestly with compassion and indifference.

              That’s my take anyway.

          2. You are absolutely right that science is not the only way to achieve higher understandings and truth. And subjective observations and experience is valid for the subjekt.

            1. Glad that you concur on that. 🙂

              Are you familiar with the ancient Hawaiian spiritual tradition called Ho’oponopono? It’s a far cry from science, and yet it has been know to heal physical and mental illness – and issues of all kinds, including relationships and finances. Even marketing and business issues, Geir. 🙂 Watch this amazing demonstration by Dr. Hew Len of how it works. Btw, one of the basic “commands” is…”Let go.”

          3. Outstanding contribution, Marildi me ❤ What a great series of graphics included too! Yep, all reminiscent of the 'earlier days', when studying the subject, was relatively devoid of all the 'party poopers', and a place where you would look forward to exciting chapters of new revelations AND very definitely, have FUN while doing so. Thank YOU! 😀

            1. And thank YOU, Cal, me ❤ .

              Just for that I'm going to share with you a video that is currently my all-time favorite – and that says a lot! It's an interview of Gudni Gudnason, the head of the Modern Mystery School, which is the only ancient mystery school on the planet that is open to the public. The others can be attended by selection only, and you generally have to become a monk or a nun. At the Modern Mystery School, the teaching is that life is meant to be joyous (yay!) – and at the same time, you can learn the wisdom that has been passed down from Hermes, 6,000 years ago, up through the lineage of King Salomon (also spelled "Solomon") of the Bible. The data is truly enlightening – including their take on reincarnation/past lives, which Gudni explains in this video.

            2. Gee, thanks, M, me <3. Okay, then, here we go: We just aren't see-ing no Adyashanti here. Sorry, but Gudni lost me along the way. I could simply not pick up any real discernible 'lightness' emanating from him, at all!!

              Poor Gudni. All that I was feeling, was the MASS, the poor sod carries around! 😦

              Nothing that a real Top-Notcher, replete with his/her trusty Mark VI couldn't handle doncha' think?? 😀

            3. Really, Calvin?? I didn’t think he was massy – rather light, in fact. Including the way he handled the interviewer’s questions at times, with good TR 4 as needed. The other TRs were very good too. Teachers vary in their beingness and not everyone is like Adyashanti. Even the Dalai Lama has a very different beingness from Adya’s. Btw, did you watch enough of the vid to hear Gudni’s anecdote about the discussion he had with the Dalai Lama? Amazing data on the subject of his so-called reincarnation.

              Anyway, I got the idea that since you said nothing about the content of the interview itself, you gave up on it because of your (ahem) personality prejudice. 😉 Seriously, me ❤ , this Modern Mystery School is amazing when you consider that ancient wisdom, secretly passed down to a chosen few for over 6,000 thousand years, is now open to the public. There's a center near where I live and I've done a couple of their services – to my complete satisfaction. In the video below, at about 11:00, Adya talks about "seeds" being dropped into consciousness by spiritual teachings, which eventually take root. I think the wisdom of the ancient mystery schools sow a lot of seeds. (And I heard that they even have schools in South Africa. :D)

              Incidentally, on the subject of Asyashanti, where is Marianne? Do you know what's happening with her?

            4. Well thanks again, me <3. Point blank then, yes, I was just being sarcastic, no doubt due to my personal prejudice. The 'poor guy' just didn't fire me up sufficiently enough, to hold my attention, (I'm a bit short on that commodity these days! 😀 )

              Still, thanks for the look-in on your own travails into the subject, which you managed to elucidate quite adequately.So VWD. and btw, getting real value from a subject, of course, depends upon satisfying one's field of interest/s, not so?
              Yours happen to be far more wide ranging, than I could ever manage to muster! 🙂

              Just as personal observation, I have seen an enormous change in your willingness to embrace broader views, with a widening sense of acceptance, away from the previous inclinations to be almost entirely and exclusively, defensive of your views.

              THAT, to me, is an amazing shift in personal freedom., you know? Take a big, big win on that, Marildi. My own observation in this shift, (for what it's worth) is that it is made possible, only when one has decided (on a primary level), to quit taking things so 'seriously'

              Of course, the Ol' man had a term for the ability to make such shifts, didn't he? — POSTULATE! 😀

              Oh, regarding our 'Sister', Marianne? Haven't been in touch… need to try check in with her! She is one truly beautiful being. Miss her! 🙂

              But, anyhooo lassie, ay. canna' hooold yooo up any moooore, furrr a' is th' seeeasn' t' be jolly 'n bayin' pressents furrr y' luvd ones, noooo asnnn't it, thann???

              Nooo offf with ya, lassie!! And pleeease spoil y' self whaayl yr' abooot i' willl yoooo?

            5. “…THAT, to me, is an amazing shift in personal freedom, you know? Take a big, big win on that, Marildi.”

              Gee, Cal, you should take a win yourself. I thought for sure you’d react badly to what I wrote – but you’ve grown! To be honest, your evaluations are so much better now than they used to be. I didn’t think ya had it in ya! Between you and me, I can tell your psychotherapy has really helped you.” 😀

              LOL – that was a demo of what they call “complisults” – compliments and insults at the same time. Can you see the resemblance in the above to what you wrote here:

              “I have seen an enormous change in your willingness to embrace broader views, with a widening sense of acceptance, away from the previous inclinations to be almost entirely and exclusively, defensive of your views.”

              Wow – that deserves a place in Wikipedia as a classic example of a complisult! Or maybe you just missed school the day they taught tactfulness? 😛

              But sincere thanks for the other true compliments! And not to worry, I know your ❤ is in the right place and that you and I both will keep improving on our exchanges. 🙂

              Besides all that, I actually still hold my position if I disagree with what is being stated – as you can see from this very thread! Including the exchanges between you and me. 😉 xxoo

            6. Long time absence, but always reading here. The fact is I find no “science” embraced by LRH. Any “wins” or “successes” are dependent upon the agreement to the provided paradigm. Marildi (have read, and enjoyed/understood) hundreds of your inputs) you can (not just will) find LRH did not allow any type scientific study of his opinions, of which he stated at FACT. Find a single instance where he invited true/or allowed true scientific studies of his statements of (what he considered “truth” or “fact.”) Start with studies at the University of Chicago on “engrams” and move on from there. I truly wished Marianne was still here – always enjoyed her comments. She, at least for now, has found something to occupy her time.

              Having done the full bridge and also a fully trained “science” person – still do not find all answers anywhere. Why close any options. When it comes to subjective thoughts and interpretations there will never be any external “proof.”

              No, the following video does not represent the final viewpoint I have. But it does give the idea that I find underlies most of what we spend endless time discussing, dissecting, and “attempting” to make meaning of.

              The fact is we exist. Why – only opinion or belief for an answer. How – again, much opinion or belief. This does not change the existing scene. We ARE here. The rest is just part of our entertainment, understanding, or salvation. Only the future will answer this. I choose to enjoy the present and create actions to enlarge this upon my future. When this body ends then I will just look forward to whatever is there. If something is there I am ready for it as best I can be. If nothing, then of course it won’t matter. But for now I fully enjoy living in the moment, the comments, ideas, subjects, art and activities.

              I still continue to follow this site. Please remember that “science” does not make a truth. It was basically a scientific truth that the earth was flat until is was “proven” that the earth was round. Facts didn’t change at that time. Only our agreement and personal interpretation of “reality” was changed.

              Me, I just live the moment, keep the willingness to see new viewpoints as best I can and look forward to waking tomorrow with another experience. Enjoy you all.

            7. Very nice post, Still Awakening. It may take you by surprise but you and I have a pretty similar worldview. 🙂

              The videos you posted below were really beautiful too. I wanted to find out a bit more about the narrator, Kosi, so I watched another short YT vid of hers, where she said something about mantras that struck me. She said (paraphrased) it’s the vibrations of a mantra that change a person’s beingness.

              That idea about vibrations is real to me because a while back I did a type of energy clearing at the Modern Mystery School center in my area. I had no idea how their energy healing worked, but I happened to have crossed paths with the head of the center and liked her beingness, so I decided to do it. After the session, I was amazed at how I felt – very keyed out and happy. And the gain has lasted – my “happiness volume” is greater and it’s pretty consistent!

              But the point I’m getting at is that I honestly did not expect the result I got – and furthermore, I would never have imagined that someone’s chanting could affect my state of being the way it did. That was intriguing, because it told me there must be wisdom – and truth – to the ancient mystery schools if such an effect can be created on strictly flow 2. The action did not engage my mind, only the energy fields in some way – like any good shaman might do, or a “gifted” healer who had been trained in the ancient mysteries.

              This is why it isn’t necessarily true that answers can’t really be found or that “Any ‘wins’ or ‘successes’ are dependent upon the agreement to the provided paradigm.” Actually, I’ve seen a similar thing occur with “raw” Book One pcs who had no idea what to expect and had never heard of engrams – but found themselves running one. 😉

              Thanks for your thought-provoking comments and videos! Hope to see you posting more often. 🙂

  4. Yes, Geir. Succinct look from a scientist’s angle. 🙂

    Perhaps another angle, is to view the THE subject, as much like any other heuristic endeavor under the sun, moon and stars.— “CONTROL.”

    — That is to say: MIND (thought) CONTROL.

    The big difference with Scientology, imo, is it is an attempt to exercise this “control” on ALL FOUR FLOWS!. This has largely led to it being correctly labelled as brainwashing! In retrospect, I now find this to be true.

    However, lest we latterly ‘enlightened’ ones, fall prey to yet another / other well meaning attempts to ‘correct’ our thinking, I steadfastly refuse to fall into the current vogue of wholesale trashing of the subject of Scientology. (Though, KSW just has to be the biggest blunder, in this regard. Along with ‘disconnection’, SP’s, and the entire (twisted) ethics tech, which is sinking the Scien’Titaninc’ religion!)

    On the contrary, those very definitely “workable” tools, I regularly ‘think’ with, have not, (to my knowledge) been surpassed yet.( Auditing tech, Axioms, Q’s Logics, Scales, Tone Scale, etc, etc.)

    To sum up then, Geir….. I believe Ron Hubbard pretty much epitomized the trail blazing, swash-buckling, opportunistic entrepreneurs of his time. But he certainly had some amazing insights and capabilities when it came to understanding the human mind, with an astonishingly simplified methodology, to make it understandable to the man in the street, too!

    Isn’t it just amazing, (in these times of explosive growth of knowledge) how quickly we tend to forget the intrinsic value of SOLID core values, in any given human relationship?

    One of those core values, imho, is to recognize and assign the indispensable importance of HELP! Wherever you may find it, one just can’t live without it! :D.

    1. Racing, I think he ALSO created the most stable cultish mindset the planet has ever seen. For me, understanding Hubbard’s trap is a great key to self liberation.

      Understand Scientology and any other mind control system is easy peasy!

      He was the greatest enslaver ever, and he did it with people’s best intentions.

      Now THAT is a subject worth deconstructing!

      1. Absolutely, Kat! All I was saying, actually , me bro, fellow liberator and geek of amazing gifts in logic and creativity …. was this:

        For all the shit he directly caused and was responsible for, he had yet unlocked an amazing array of workable tools, which STILL work, if applied, the way intended. 🙂

        Training up to audit, simply means that one is then simply ENABLED with a method to actually HELP another, to then recover their ‘beingness’ in order to then function better, sans any former mental baggage and ABERRATION to hold them back!

        What you have apparently missed altogether, Kat, was WHO it was, that first said that Scientology is an immensely powerful tool, that CAN indeed be used to create slaves, if used for EVIL purposes and not not with the intention to HELP.

        The WHO ? — L. Ron Hubbard himself!( when he warned of what would happen, should the subject fall into the wrong hands!!! )

        Guns, just like cars, (in the wrong hands), kill too, Kat! Doesn’t make ’em inherently bad, do you agree? Though all three (guns, cars, Scientology) definitely, due to their POWER, remain intrinsically dangerous.

        Tools, bro. TOOLS, used for the purpose of HELP. Now there’s something ELSE worth deconstructing too, hey? 😀

  5. Left out the video. Take what you find. Leave what you discard. Either way – enjoy the journey, the experience of living life.

    Just some of my viewpoint. Not dogmas but a stimulus for your own thoughts. Is that not the only thing we originally sought, answers to our personal questions, our personal mysteries and our personal journey.

    Wishing a wonderful holiday season for all of you. We are all part of the total of our life forms. We should seek only fun, truth, facts and allow for individual viewpoints, thoughts and decisions. That is the game of life in my opinion. Smile and enjoy the moment. It will never occur again.

    1. Still Awakening. What an enjoyably fresh breeze you manage to bring to this forum. I’m an artist, from birth. Work mainly with feelings and innate intuition. “Right brain” thinker, with it’s quirks and limitations. But never cold or switched off to the bigger picture of, and how vastly different a view, many seem to hold of ‘life’.

      Much of what you have conveyed here, resonates with me. Your ‘gentleness’ of demeanor , unmistakable. 🙂

      Thank YOU for your kind wishes and may you thoroughly enjoy the season, with all the pleasure ‘moments’ sure to come your way.

      — Calvin. (racing) 🙂

      1. +1 — Calvin eloquently spoke my thoughts too.

        Happy holidays to both of you! And to Geir and everybody else. 🙂

            1. Marildi and RIB – Thank you for your comments. I have been here for over many years. I only wish for all to have success in their moving forward in the journey, we refer to as “life” and to enjoy this journey. The “journey” is the key and not just the “destination.” True understanding is the equal to all enlightenment. Is that not the outcome desired? Whether it matches anothers’ “truth” is not much different than does it match “dogma?” Truth is completely different than dogma. That is why I continue to follow this blog. Thank you and good wishes to Geir and family for this changing of the seasons. I truly love the Scandinavian’s and their essence of life!

            2. What an awesome motto:

              “True understanding is the equal to all enlightenment. Is that not the outcome desired? Whether it matches another’s ‘truth’ is not much different than does it match ‘dogma?’ ” –by Still Awakening

            3. Geir & family, and following friends, marildi, etc. I am happy to be able to view and read all of your inputs. I continue to move through life as all of us do. This video I have always looked at as inspiration. I also see it as an acknowledgement; of what I believe has brought us together. Thank you all. And to Geir, if I have the possibility I will meet you and spend time in your cabin. Solitude and living the moment in the lands of the Sami has always been one of my life’s dreams (at least since I knew of it.)

              No remorse in viewing the past. It happened! The future is new and exciting and that is where I put my attention. What brought me to this site is the past, more specifically our shared past. What keeps me here is the present and future even when not related to the past. Enjoy the rest of this year! A new year, new adventure, new experiences and new thoughts awaits all of us.

              To the spark that keeps us moving forward – this artistic output is so moving (in my opinion.) I hope, and expect most here will enjoy and feel intrinsically.

            4. “What brought me to this site is the past, more specifically our shared past. What keeps me here is the present and future even when not related to the past.”

              Well said. +1

              “To the spark that keeps us moving forward – this artistic output is so moving (in my opinion.) I hope, and expect most here will enjoy and feel intrinsically.”

              Yes, the video is beautiful. Thanks for posting it. ❤

  6. His contradictions and inconsistences were interesting:

    *He wrote that everything that is not changing will get worse. Then he wrote that the tools he figured out cannot be changed.

    *He wrote that everybody could and should find out his own truth. Then he wrote that he has discovered ultimate truths.

    *He wrote that every person should have his own opinion. Then he wrote many materials that he tried enforce as the absolute truth which must be believed without any doubts.

    *He wrote that the absolutes are unobtainable. Than he has the idea of ”the bridge to absolute freedom”

    *He wrote that the communication is an universal solver and can solve every problem. Then he wrote the disconnection policies.

    *He wrote that love is maybe the highest secret of the universe. Then he was writing many, many sentences which were full of anger and hate.

    *He wrote that everybody is a total cause over his own experiences. Then he blamed many, many fields of study and organizations for many thinkable reasons.

    *He wrote that understanding is literally the most important attribute of life. Then he rejected to study psychology, mathematics or other scientific field.

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