Coaching. Refined

I am continually simplifying and refining how I coach people.


Here’s a HyperList that sums up my current approach:

0. Be direct in the coaching. Speak your mind. Always
1. Ensure the person realizes that he is creating all his thoughts and emotions
      This will enable him to take full responsibility for what goes on in his mind
      It will help him to not blame others for what he himself is responsible for
2. Ensure the person is able to be fully mentally present
      Get the person to read “Mental training – The core
      Train the person to be “here & now”
3. Establish the person’s “Two lengths of the pool” (2LP)
      Assess his strengths and weaknesses in accomplishing his 2LP
4. Do what it takes to help the person accomplish his 2LP
      There are several tools that can help, such as:
            Unburdening stress and exercize liking everything
            Failing and learning more
            Stop it!

Or the short form:

Realizing he is creating all his thoughts and emotions
Exercize mental presence
Establish his 2LP
Accomplish the 2LP

41 thoughts on “Coaching. Refined

  1. “1. Ensure the person realizes that he is creating all his thoughts and emotions.
    This will enable him to take full responsibility for what goes on in his mind.
    It will help him to not blame others for what he himself is responsible for.

    Wow, is this real? I mean, can people do it or even believe it? Sounds like the EP of Clear.

    I like the 2LP principle.

    1. Point #1 is much broader and deeper than the Clear Cog. With the Clear Cog, the person is first coerced into accepting a mental construct called the Reactive Mind that is supposedly the source of all his mental ills – and then he is to realize that he is the one creating this construct and it is supposed to vanish. Except it wasn’t really the cause of all his ills… beacuase he has thousands of demons in, on and around him that is another source of thoughts and emotions. And he is to accept that he is not creating those thoughts and emotions and that he isn’t all that responsible as he was led to believe. Scientology is a trap precisely because of such double-think/cognitive dissonances.

      What I am requiring in point #1 is that the person realizes that he is creating ALL his thoughts and emotions. That he is in fact FULLY responsible for HIMSELF (and not everything that happens to him which is another of those Scientology belief traps). And yes, people can bypass hundreds of hours of Scientology auditing and realize point #1 in a few minutes and we can get going on with #2 and so on 🙂

      1. Geir: “What I am requiring in point #1 is that the person realizes that he is creating ALL his thoughts and emotions.”

        My experience on different flows tells me that restimulation does take place at times without the person’s own volition or even awareness. So I’m thinking it might be a wrong indication to people or misleading to word it that way. BUT, I would agree that a person can still be cause over it – which is the significant point. I think it’s a great principle to coach people on! And I don’t know if there are many life coaches who do. Viktor Frankl, psychiatrist and famous concentration camp survivor and author, might be an exception. He wrote:

        “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.”

        Believe it or not, Hubbard said essentially the same thing in the early days. The following is from *Advanced Procedure and Axioms*, published in 1951:

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


        “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.”

        Kudos to you in seeing the truth of this principle and getting results.

        1. Adding; A person is normally unaware of a vast range of emotions any thoughts that he is creating subconsciously. Making him realize that he is creating them all is the first step to handle this.

          1. Again, I don’t see that a person is creating most of these in present time. I like how the nondualists put it when they say one’s identity and emotions are conditioned and that this is habitual thinking and reacting.

            1. Simply, the realization is the key to rapid results in coaching. So unless you would realize #1, I would commence coaching one who would.

            2. Okay. If you have found that point of view to be more workable, more power to you.

            3. Yes, it is quite remarkable. Interestingly it follows from my article “On will” and thus serves as but one confirmation of the subjective collapse theory. Didn’t think of that before I stumbled upon point #1 in my practical coaching.

  2. I would add one detail regarding the creation of one’s thoughts and emotions.

    We DON’T create them ourselves naturally. But we can create them UNNATURALLY.

    Just like how a baby doesn’t change its own diaper naturally, we don’t create the personality that we experience NATURALLY. But like the bicycle a parent gives the child as it grows older, we CAN choose to own it and CREATE a journey with it.

    Our thought patterns and emotional patterns are gifts from others.

    … AND …

    If a Batshit, Irrational Soul actually exists outside this universe, IT CAN CHOOSE to be responsible for the gift of it’s thoughts and emotions regardless the quality of their “bike” (or lack of bike) that a parent or village provided them.

    Existence. It can fucking face anything.

    1. From “Thus Spake Zarathustra” Chapter 42 (The Secret to Lift the Universe and Everything?):

      All “It was” is a fragment, a riddle, a fearful chance–until the creating Will saith thereto: “But thus would I have it.”–

      Until the creating Will saith thereto: “But thus do I will it! Thus shall I will it!”

      But did it ever speak thus? And when doth this take place? Hath the Will been unharnessed from its own folly?

      Hath the Will become its own deliverer and joy-bringer? Hath it unlearned the spirit of revenge and all teeth-gnashing?

      And who hath taught it reconciliation with time, and something higher than all reconciliation?

      Something higher than all reconciliation must the Will will which is the Will to Power–: but how doth that take place? Who hath taught it also to will backwards?

      –But at this point in his discourse it chanced that Zarathustra suddenly paused, and looked like a person in the greatest alarm. With terror in his eyes did he gaze on his disciples; his glances pierced as with arrows their thoughts and arrear-thoughts. But after a brief space he again laughed, and said soothedly:

      “It is difficult to live amongst men, because silence is so difficult– especially for a babbler.”–

      1. Free will isn’t natural. It’s something we have to take.

        It’s something we have to create. I don’t think we naturally have it. It must be unnaturally manifested.

        And how do we do this Mr. Zarathustra?

        The only way I can think of is if variant forms of our selves think and connect to each “other” across a multiverse and decide to fucking exist anyway.

        Me on earth imagining a me on another planet imagining me on earth. Both of us separated by completely different time streams in two different space/time bubbles. Each realizing that I can make a decision to exist as an impossible being creating possible things.

        And maybe. Just maybe …

    2. Kat: “Our thought patterns and emotional patterns are gifts from others.”

      This is basically the nondualist point of view – that our identity/personality/ego is a product of conditioning. But nondualism also includes the idea that by being totally present – which requires not identifying with one’s conditioned “self” – then one will connect with the natural will of spirit/consciousness. This universal will operates on inherent values, such as truth, love and feeedom.

  3. Mari, check this out. I think you may like this philosopher and this series itself is amazing.

    Go to 5:20 and watch your beloved Factors and dynamics emerge in the 1700’s…

    1. Kat, you must be more of a youtube fan than even I am. You have posted so many great videos, This one brought me back to my philosophy classes in college. Right now I don’t have too much extra time, but I plan to watch the whole series of 16.

      Actually, all the branches of philosophy are taken up in Scientology, However, if I remember right, Ron said somewhere that Scientology is basically an epistemology. In the vid, this branch is described as “knowing about knowing. Similarly, one definition of Scientology is “knowing HOW to know.”

      I’m looking forward to reviewing the subject of philosophy in a new unit of time, from the perspective of Scientology and other things I’ve studied. Thanks for posting this.

      Btw, how was your Zen retreat?

      1. Yeah, I plan to watch them all too. They are brilliant and de-verbose-ify the subject amazingly well.

        I didn’t go. Family drama.

      2. Oh wow. That isn’t the video I wanted to post.

        Sorry. Here, I’ll try again.

        I checked the link in another browser. If for some reason it still doesn’t post correctly, it’s “Crash Course Philosophy #6”


          1. Strange, it continues to go to the FIRST video in the series even when I double checked it.

            That. Sucks.

            Anyway, go to the 6th one on “Locke, Berkeley & Empiricism Crash Course Philosophy #6”

            1. That has happened to me too when I’ve tried to post something from a series, It usually works to google the title of the one you want and then use that link. I’ll try it now on your #6:

            2. There we go. I watched this one too. Scientology seems to have aspects of rationalism and the use of reason, as well as empiricism and the importance of perception and experience. However, higher than either of these is direct knowing by pervading the object – whether a physical object or an area of thought.

              Also – sorry to hear about the family drama, Happens to the best of us,

            3. Well, the Factors and the 8 Dynamics are in lock step with Berkeley’s view. Berkeley feels there really is no matter and the only thing that keeps reality persistent is God. Without God, everything would disappear and we would be disembodied minds.

              Now, “God” may be a bearded guy, Zeus, a Flying Spaghetti Monster or whatever, WE DON’T KNOW.

              … But …

              The notion that ONE CENTRAL NOTION holds it all together aligns with notion of a “God Dynamic.”

              So, anyway, Berkeley’s notions are almost exactly what Scientology teaches.

            4. I’m not sure what you’re referring to in The Factors or in the concept of the dynamics, but you might have picked up some verbal data (the VD of Scientology 🙂 ). There isn’t anything in those references or others that I know of that says “there really is no matter.” Here’s a quote from *The Creation of Human Ability*:

              “Reality is, here on Earth, agreement as to what is. This does not prevent barriers, or time from being formidably real. It does not mean either that space, energy or time are illusions. It is as one knows it is. For one makes, by a process of continuous automatic duplication, all that one perceives.”

              The part in the above about “continuous automatic creation” has to do with the principle in the Axioms that for anything to persist, it must be continuously re-created.

              As regards the dynamics, all of them are urges/drives and the Eighth is described as simply “the urge toward existence as infinity.This is also identified as the Supreme Being.”

              The above definition is from *Scientology: The Fundamentals of Thought*, which also states:

              “The basic characteristic of the individual includes his ability to so expand into the other dynamics, but when the Seventh Dynamic [the urge toward existence as or of spirits] is reached in its entirety one will only then discover the true Eighth Dynamic.”

              “…the general Authorship of the physical universe is only speculated upon, since Scientology does not invade the Eighth Dynamic.”

              I don’t see how any of the above aligns with the idea you got that “The notion that ONE CENTRAL NOTION holds it all together aligns with notion of a ‘God Dynamic.'” That idea might fit other concepts of God, however.

            5. According to LRH, there is nothing to reality beyond what is postulated into existence and agreed upon. So Kat, you are right.

            6. “…nothing to reality beyond what is postulated into existence and agreed upon.”

              Yes, postulated INTO EXISTENCE – meaning that reality does EXIST and is “formidably real” (quoting LRH again). And, per my understanding, the fact that it is agreed upon relates to the idea that all beings who are in – that is, able to perceive – this universe are continuously creating/postulating it into existence, and at an agreed-upon rate. The fundamental here is that beings are capable of creating energy, as well as space and time. From The Factors:

              20. And the many viewpoints, interacting, become dependent upon one another’s forms and do not choose to distinguish completely the ownership of dimension points and so comes about a dependency upon the dimension points and upon the other viewpoints.

              21. From this comes a consistency of viewpoint of the interaction of dimension points and this, regulated, is TIME.

              I’d say LRH had a better creation theory than the “scientific” (mystical) belief that the big bang apparently came out of nowhere. Wouldn’t you, Geir?

            7. p.s. Where I said “That idea might fit other concepts of God, however,” I meant in other philosophies, not in Scientology,

            8. Taking a second look, it doesn’t align lock step AT ALL. I figured that out after I posted it and there are no take-backs in blog land.

              Here is the main notion shared between Berkeley and the Factors.

              We are supposedly spirits sharing a universe together, and that matter exists solely because it is held to exist by the decisions, perceptions and will of others and ourselves.

              So, yeah, what I wrote above was bullshit.

              And who knows what LRH was trying to blow away with Pfauth’s customized e-meter of doom?

            9. “Here is the main notion shared between Berkeley and the Factors. We are supposedly spirits sharing a universe together, and that matter exists solely because it is held to exist by the decisions, perceptions and will of others and ourselves.”

              Basically, yes. Except for one major difference: in Scientology the perceptions you mentioned aren’t just in our minds. What we perceive has been postulated into existence and is real. According to The Factors, the viewpoints (beings) extend or “outthrust points [dimension points] to view.” The dimension points are the particles of physics and are what make up matter.

              “And who knows what LRH was trying to blow away with Pfauth’s customized e-meter of doom?”

              Supposedly, he was trying to get rid of a being, a BT, in his space.

            10. Yes yes, I know it is unrelated and completely off topic ( just like katageeks comment on shobogenzo is a slog ) but it is better than prizing ad infinitum the achievements of LRH.

              And by the way, there are better creation theories than those of LRH.

          2. thanks for that crash course on Philosophy. I listened to the whole series. Quite good.

            1. It is very well written and produced IMHO. I think a slow watch of them all may be quite beneficial for me.

  4. Rafael, my comment on “Shobogenzo Was a Slog” was a backhanded complement as Geir’s book does about the same thing in a short and useful way.

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