Attention!

“But daddy, you’re doing it all wrong! The engine is in front of the car, not on the roof!”. The son was looking at his dad fiddling with two pieces of Lego, slightly worried about his daddy driving him to soccer practice in a couple of hours. “I thought you knew something about cars?”, looking troubled at two eyes staring out into nothing.

“Eh, what?” The two eyes focused on the son correcting an undrivable Lego car. “Oh, sorry son. Just thought of something important”

“But what could be more important than building this Lego car with me?” The son looked puzzled at his bewildered dad.

“Oh, well, hmm, I guess…”

Stray thoughts, job matters, earlier trauma, worries and indecisions all capture a person’s attention leaving less attention to operate in the here and now. Less operative attention makes for a more troubled life, leads to more worries, captures more attention. Less operative attention leads to the person experiencing less of what is happening here and now. It leads to less Actual Living.

what captures attention

When a person is doing something that requires maximum attention, like skydiving, the person suddenly feels more alive. What about seeking to maximize the operative attention in daily life as well? What about engaging in more Actual Living.

I believe this to be one of the most common problems in life, and I am working to resolve this myself. If you have valuable input on how to recapture more operative attention, you are welcome to leave a comment.

Yes, we have Scientology auditing, we have the KHTK, we have Time Management and we have skydiving. But are there other ideas that could contribute to resolving this? It would be nice to build an even bigger toolbox for recapturing operative attention.

On the value of life

I have come to the conclusion that my view of people and of life have been seriously flawed.

During my first 25 years as a scientologist, I adopted the idea that “A being is only as valuable as he can serve others.” That a persons “Output” or “Statistics” or “Production” was the sole determinants for a person’s value as a being. I believed that if a person did not contribute actively to others, he or she is of low value. I have experienced some extreme examples of this view in other scientologists. And with this view, a whole range of human rights abuses can be fully justified.

I became “hardened” in my views despite the increased love for others achieved through my spiritual progress all those years. My passion for people increased manifold on my journey up the levels in Scientology all while the dramatization of hard policies molded my analytical views. A contrast I can now finally settle.

It started with accepting this quote from L. Ron Hubbard as true: “By my own creed, a being is only as valuable as he can serve others.” It was reinforced by Hubbard’s policies on production, exchange and statistics. It was further cemented by the command intention and push in the Church of Scientology that a person’s value is directly proportional to his time and money donated to Church projects.

I adamantly defended the idea. When someone would counter this by raising the objection of “what about someone with Down’s Syndrome”, I would handle the objection by either a) explaining it away, b) claiming the quote was taken out of context, c) that Hubbard didn’t mean it quite like that, or d) that people with Down’s Syndrome is clearly an exception to the rule… and no rule without an exception etc.

But with everything else he wrote, and especially when I was a Course Supervisor in the Church, I would state emphatically that Hubbard means what he says. Hubbard was a very capable author, and he didn’t throw around approximate statements or statements that he meant to be interpreted in the view of everything else he wrote. No, I have come to understand that Hubbard was a very precise philosopher and author. He was accurate, to-the-point and clear in his views.

I recently read through a whole blog discussion on this very quote, and can only say that the sentence says what it says: “A being is only as valuable as he can serve others.” Only… only as valuable as… Nothing else enters the equation. It is an y = ax type of expression. It is not y = ax +b. There is no other value involved (like the “b” in the last equation).

Perhaps flagging the exception of a person with Down’s Syndrome is a bit extreme, and maybe that is an exception etc. But what about a baby? We have all been one. Screaming and in diapers, completely reliant on our mom and dad, not helping much compared to any grown-up except of course for the smile and shining baby face. But if a baby’s value as a being is to be measured only by it’s ability to serve others, it would be very low compared to the captain on a ship. Still, children and women are put in the life boat first. Chivalry plays a part here. So does love, compassion and one’s affinity for life itself.

I want to make it known that I now believe that life has an intrinsic value all on its own. This is an obvious conclusion from my article “On Will”, but I wanted to share it also as a separate blog post.

I can hear the justifications and objections popping, so I will add this: Of course there are situations in life where people will and should be valued differently. Like in the business world. Just like I would have a low value as a surgeon or as an ice skater, my 2-year old would have a low value as a programmer. But a broad statement that a being is as valuable as he can serve others?

I believe you are valuable. Whoever you are. I believe you deserve compassion love and care whether you are a King or a beggar, a Wall Street executive, baby in diapers, a kid with Down’s Syndrome or a being in an old cancer-ridden body at its last breath. I will commit myself to support the value of You and to fight for life, for freedom, for compassion and for love.

Missing in Study Tech II

This is the second part of Missing in Study Tech.

Straight to the point:

There are several prerequisites to study:

  • A distraction-free body (enough food and sleep, no distracting body conditions)
  • A distraction-free environment
  • A subject to study with adequate material
  • A willingness to study (subject aligning with own goals and motivations and a belief that one could and should study the subject)

Then there is the first class of barriers to study – the teacher or material:

  • The teacher or material is wrong (the concepts cannot be demonstrated as it is incorrect)
  • The teacher or material is badly conveyed (overly complex, unnecessary stuff interjected or there are holes in the explanation such as missing raw data or case studies – a skipped gradient)
  • The teacher or material has a misunderstood (using a wrong word or symbol or using it the wrong way)

Then there is the second class of barriers to study, covered by LRH in the bulletin “Barriers to Study” as detailed in the previous blog post:

  • Lack of mass
  • Skipped gradient
  • The misunderstood word

Beyond all this there is the ability to evaluate and use the data. That is a skill that can be fostered by the Data Series as well as other bodies of knowledge (like studying logical fallacies).

The second class of barriers to study is part of Scientology Standard Technology. The first class and the prerequisites are not. Some of those points are however covered in Hubbard’s lectures and articles and have found their place in various courses such as the Basic Study Manual. I have never seen Hubbard touching on the third point of the first class of study barriers (misunderstoods in the materials themselves).

You can see how the three barriers that LRH describes have one for one a counterpart in the first class of study barriers. What can be wrong in a student’s study can of course also be wrong with the material.

If a student disregards the first class of barriers as even more primary than the second class, he could find himself thinking he himself have lack of mass, a skipped gradient or a misunderstood, when all along the materials or teacher were at fault. A teacher could even go so far as insisting the student has a misunderstood because he was in disagreement with erroneous material.

A student should be taught Study Technology in the sequence outlined above: First we need the prerequisites taken care of, then we need the first class of barriers out of the way, then we tackle the second class of study barriers.

One should of course be very alert to a student claiming that prerequisites are out simply because he has run into any of the three barriers of the second class. He could claim he was hungry because he has lack of mass, just to get out of the classroom. Or he could claim that the author has a misunderstood when the student is the one using the wrong definition for a word.

But, one should always be aware the prerequisites and always be open for errors in the materials or in the teacher, even when that teacher is a guru one looks up to.

And finally, there are always shades of gray and nuances in the colors. Materials could be more or less wrong – maybe they are right but could be even more right. Very, very little material in human history has not been rightfully improved upon by later generations.

My current research

In between daily life I am currently engaged in extending the work published in my article “On Will“. I plan to expand the theory therein to a more comprehensive “Subjective Reality theory“.

To let you in on my current research:

  1. If our physical reality is a co-created consensus reality, and its persistence is dependent on it not being seen for what it is (a Matrix type illusion), then the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle may be the preservation mechanism as it disallows exact certainty. At the same time, there exists evidence that exact perception of one’s own created reality is possible (not what is accepted by others or entered into the broad consensus – the physical universe). The exact relation between the Uncertainty Principle and Consensus should be further researched.
  2. The Wave Function may be seen as an individual’s creative freedom within the consensus reality. Further research should reveal the accumulated freedom in the consensus reality given by the Wave Function.
  3. The Collapse of the Wave Function may be the mechanism of a created reality being accepted by another. The relationship between communication and Wave Function Collapse should be determined.
  4. The basic actions seem to be Consideration (creation of realities) and Communication (co-creation of consensus realities). The exact relation between Consideration and Communication and the mechanism from there to the co-creation of consensus reality needs to be mapped.

This and other related points will be published sometime in the future.

Is Julian Assange a Good Guy? Does it matter?

Beside the Hiroshima bomb and perhaps 9/11, nothing in modern history has had a more disruptive global effect in such a short time as Wikileaks.

It matters not whether Julian Assange is a good, bad, crazy, nice or in-the-middle-guy. Whatever, yawn. Transparency in this case is Good.

And the world have forever changed.

If Wikileaks is somehow stopped, the world is forever changed, as that means the end to free press and the start of a more controlled society, something China seems to have some limited success in.

If Wikileaks is not stopped, the world is forever changed, as now people have found a new avenue for anonymously disclosing the dirty secrets of people doing the bidding of others than those who elected them to power.

But the mayonnaise cannot be put back into the tube – if Wikileaks gets shut down, another 50 sites will take its place.

Welcome to the new world of transparency. A world where crimes will be disclosed because secrets cannot be kept. This is changing the planet whole-scale, something Scientology has not even been close in doing.

Funny that. Here we have a wonderful philosophy and technology (Scientology) to handle and heal the world, and like a high-speed train comes tech like Internet, Wikipedia and Wikileaks that changes the world to a more communicative, open, knowledge-sharing, transparent and ethical place like nothing before.

And Wikipedia and Wikileaks are ideas that got traction without much investment – it’s a snowball effect because one has lowered the threshold to people’s participation. It is the Ant Hill in practice.

One can resist this or enjoy this. The results in the world will be the same. The difference lies only with oneself – resisting it will make one annoyed, while enjoying it will make even this fun.

Enjoy πŸ™‚

Wikileaks: Transparency vs. Privacy

One needs to answer to those one is appointed to serve.

By this, a politician and government official serving The People need to answer and be transparent to The People.

A business needs to answer and be transparent to its shareholders, employees and clients.

A family member needs to answer to the other family members. A family transparent to itself is a Good Thing.

I need to answer to me. Me being self-transparent is a matter of personal integrity.

This gives the gradients of transparency and privacy.

And of course, a politician is only a politician when he does politics.
When he is in the bathroom, he is private (and answers to himself).

On the control of information

Jeff’s latest blog post serves as a landmark. A quote from that post is relevant as an opening to mine: “Information control isn’t a sign of strength, it’s a confession of weakness“. It’s profound. It reaches well beyond the small world of Scientology. It captures all venues of human interrelations, politics, Wikileaks. It is also relevant to The Scientology Forum – the forum I erected a year ago and since some months has been run by Claire.

Lighthouse

One of the premises when I put up the forum was to make it a place where Scientologist could feel safe when discussing Scientology – safe from exposure to Scientology’s confidential upper level material. Although there is plenty of evidence that exposure to such material is not dangerous, the belief that it may harm you could serve as a self-fulfilling prophecy, a reverse placebo. In any case, the forum was set up so that posts be moderated before they appeared. Very, very few posts have been deleted, but some have been modified to keep within the Rules of Conduct.

At times the forum has been an interesting place for real debates and where new ideas have emerged, giving birth even to a whole now branch of philosophy, the KHTK. But the control of information by what Hubbard calls “inspection before the fact”, i.e. screening has strangled the flow of information to a mere trickle. The moderation introduces a lag in the communication and that in itself is detrimental to lively exchange of ideas.

I asked the forum if it is time to reconsider the moderation policy.

Although I would want to see a civilized forum for discussion of Scientology (I see no reason to change the ROCs), the moderation takes the life out of a forum like that – and there are other examples that points to the same.

The current affairs with WikiLeaks has highlighted the need for openness even better. Because WikiLeaks is good – for transparency, for democracy. Just like Wikipedia is good and the Internet itself is good. Sure, both the Internet and Wikipedia had gotten its share of criticisms, but hell anything that is disruptive of the establishment, of the status quo will earn criticism. Because Man’s deepest fear is of the unknown – and because one thing that any change is bound to bring is a dose of the unknown.

I believe in open communication and the free flow of ideas. That is why I support the Internet, Wikipedia, free software, free culture, Transparency International, Amnesty International, the EFF and WikiLeaks. And this is why I oppose patents and Copyrights as control mechanisms.

Instead of shielding people from ideas and communication, one should seek to help people handle ideas and communication better. Ideas and communication are inherently difficult to control, and all to often abuse follow in the wake of such attempts.

Information control isn’t a sign of strength, it’s a confession of weakness“. Intentions to strengthen oneself on behalf of others underlies such weakness. In a truly free society, there is no space for government secrecy, information manipulation or hiding of truths.

Light itself is a great corrective. A thousand wrongs and abuses that are grown in darkness disappear, like owls and bats, before the light of day“. β€”James A. Garfield.

The war is over!

When I first encountered free software in 1999, I was amazed by it’s creative power. The power of collaboration coupled with the power of a truly free marked seemed the future to me.

Back then when Linux was a geek’s OS and rarely taken seriously except as web servers, and Wikipedia was nowhere, “proprietary” seemed to trump “free” in most any arena. The push for marked dominance by secrecy, copyrights and patents was mounting with companies like Microsoft and Oracle carrying the torch of Mammon. Gordon Gekko’s legendary words, “Greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right. Greed works.” carried the American dream powered by egoism forward. But could something work even better? Free Software sparked a belief in me that collaboration, sharing and caring could indeed turn the tables.

My sentiment is well captured by Dan Pink in his TED talk. The endless possibilities of the Ant Hill Innovation captured my heart, my motivation. I decided to pitch in.

I got into the Free Software business in 2000. In 2004, my wife and I started FreeCode Norway (English link) and FreeCode International to help in the fight for freedom and the fight against vendor lock-ins. Being an idealist, I wanted to help make the dent in history by forwarding the ideals of freedom, creativity and human potential through collaboration.

For ten years I have been at the forefront of a battle for freedom. I went from a protector of “intellectual property” to a “copyright abolitionist“. I even rebelled against my own religion. The Church of Scientology had long since positioned itself as the main copyright terrorist on the Internet with it’s harassment tactics against anyone daring to challenge its monopoly on freedom.

I followed my heart, did countless of talks, speeches, seminars and media appearances in an effort to forward the ideology of a culture based on sharing. We helped African countries to see the light and set up FreeCode in Tanzania and Kenya, had meetings with governmental officials and got the media’s attention in Africa as well as in Russia, Ukraine and Norway.

The ideological war was fought in the area of software and it’s success gave birth to phenomenas like Wikipedia and Wikileaks. The marks of freedom was left on many parts of our society. Hell, even Microsoft started to embrace free software. Free software conquered the Internet infrastructure, started moving up the stack and is now practically everywhere.

New vistas

The conflict loving media used to cherish the David against Goliath battle of Geeks against the Establishment. But as David won out, not by vanquishing the proprietary but by its ideology slowly being absorbed by the enemy, the media interest kept sliding.

To the point where I now feel that The War Is Over.

It’s kind of sad really, as I love to have something to truly fight for. Freedom, justice and the common good. I’m not motivated by the next buck. I am motivated by making a dent in history for the common good. Oh, well. Got to find another Hill to conquer.

While the war I engaged in a decade ago may be over, there is always another Hill, and FreeCode, me and the ideology of sharing and caring will morph into a new identity to make a jab at Mammon from another angle. Because there is no rest until… Well, forget “until” – as any goal toward a common good will do – as the pleasure lies not in attaining the goal but in the journey itself. One only needs to remember to enjoy the game. Immensely.

On enjoying the game. Immensely.

Most religions teach salvation. From sin, from pain, from entrapment, from the game called “life”. Christianity has Heaven, Buddhism has Nirvana. Scientology has “Total Freedom”.

There seem to be a longing after escaping. Life.

In Scientology, we are taught that we are living on a “prison planet”. In Eastern religions one seeks to end the seemingly endless cycle of life and death. The mantra most religions “sell” is this “escape”.

And much of the focus is on “sin”, “transgressions”, “overts” and the rules of conduct to purify oneself.

What happened to the all too simple “enjoying life”?

Rather than the focus on “escape”, I would like to see the selling of “embrace” – of enjoying life to the fullest, enjoying the game. Immensely.

Maybe one can only reach Nirvana by fully embracing and love what is. But to do that, one must truly see what is. And maybe one can most easily reach happiness by being happy. What do you think?

Beauty

PS: If you wonder what I’ve been occupied with the last couple of weeks, I’ve been hanging out here πŸ™‚

Formalizing a description of existence

Continuing my quest for a description of existence, I have taken a look at the very basics and attempted to formalize some conclusions – as usual in the form of a WOIM list:

Potential
Realization
[1,x] Existence
   Cause
   Consideration
   Effect
   Influence
      #Existence
Common reality = Intersection of existences
Consensus reality = Co-considered effect
   [2,n] Cause
   Consideration
   Co-considered effect
   Influence
      #'Consensus reality'

In even plainer English, this means: There is a potential which realized becomes existence. Existence is comprised of Cause which through consideration creates an effect which in turn influences the Existence. From this we get the fractal nature of the universe.

Common reality is simply two existences overlapping (intersecting), while a Consensus reality is an agreed-upon existence, or more precisely “co-considered” effect, again with the fractal nature of the effect influencing back at the Consensus reality.

This WOIM list condenses the essence of my article “On Will“. It is very far from a formalized description of the basics of existence, but it may serve as a starting point.

I would appreciate feedback (but please read the above referenced article first); Is the list correct, and what are the next steps in making it more complete?