Aristotelian and Newtonian two-valued, space-time logic philosophy and science are demonstrated to be essentially of a mind construct basis by developments in quantum mechanics and the related fledgling field of science of consciousness. Those historical three-dimensional views were popular for a couple thousand years because they proved so workable in taming the wild, creating material comforts, and suppressing and killing competitors for those comforts (fundamental motives driving the evolution of civilization). Aristotle and Newton were not only worshipped by scientists for centuries, their theories were ruthlessly enforced on society by the predominant Western church as it considered their theories ‘proved’ that an anthropomorphic God was at the center of the universe who set the whole frenzied cosmos in motion. Having monopolized the communication channels to God, a tremendous continually increasing fortune was at stake in promoting those views. That binary thinking remains a mainstay of social darwinists today who preach ‘survival of the fittest’ or as Hubbard’s mentor Aleister Crowly put it ‘Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law’ to justify their rapacity and greed.
This is not to say Aristotle and Newton were not pillars in humankind’s evolution toward greater understanding. In fact, few compare to their contributions. It is to say, however, wisdom and understanding like life itself continually evolve. And that mental and spiritual philosophies grounded in limited logic are to some degree obsolete. Just as many of Newton’s and Aristotle’s principles are defied and transcended by nuclear and quantum physics (whose breakthroughs at least 70% of our economy is based upon), so are those of the mental and spiritual philosophies based upon their systems of thought.
In the traditional Cartesian (strict mind vs. matter view, as validated and supported by Aristotelian and Newtonian thought) construct, in the beginning there was a cause and the entire purpose of the cause was the creation of an effect; and we are all more or less the effect of the resultant infinity of cause-effect sequences. Therapies that promise to wed one or return one to the native, original cause in all this set themselves up for lifetime income from clients/adherents. Their ‘why traps’ are outfitted with an infinity of divining in the never-ending cause-effect sequences. It is akin to charging a squirrel for running in a wheel for eternity when modern science has demonstrated that ‘cause’ isn’t any more important than ‘effect’ and that in ultimate reality (read beyond the traditional five animal senses) does not even necessarily precede it.
If this sounds intuitively similar to the ideas you may have experienced in studying Buddhism or the words of Lao Tzu, others have too. Many have written about that correlation. The most easy to follow and enjoyable to read for me has been Fritjof Capra’s The Tao of Physics. Any mind yet somewhat intact after years of adhering to scientology sci-fi mythology as cold, hard reality, still has the potential for seeing through the self-limiting constructs it has been persuaded to abide. The greatest difficultly with that is getting the person to give ‘the highest purpose in the universe is the creation of an effect’ a rest for a moment. That is followed by the next greatest difficulty which is getting the person to spend a little time learning of the evolution of thought on planet earth. The Tao of Physics, again, is a great – relatively easy to follow – place to start on that score. There is not a single generic phenomenon (unpatentable) that Hubbard attempted to monopolize by complicating and masquerading with his inimitable, sci-fi fanasty universe view that is not explained in simple, scientifically-supported terms by Capra.
One last word of advice. Should absorbing intellect not crippled by compliance to two-value logic prove impossible for the binary thinking scientologist, a primer may be in order. The End of Suffering by Russell Targ and J.J. Hurtak gives a wonderful introduction to four-valued logic, the real thing Hubbard began to introduce – but ultimately eschewed in scientology – under the heading of ‘infinity logic’.
This blog becomes increasingly interesting. I’ll pick up those books.
What initially attracted me to Scientology was a promised adventure into the mystery of the nature of the cosmos and the human condition. In the long run it led into the box canyon of KSW and I had to part ways with that group, but your recent posts are rekindling that spirit of adventure. Thank you, Marty.
Marty
Your thoughts and points are a bit hard for me to follow in this post.
Maybe it’s me. My writings are usually pointed in one direction, but I enjoy and usually understand many directions of thought. I’ll go over it a couple more times.
Granny and Uncle Jed made sure I graduated the sixth grade, so I shouldn’t be having trouble. I’ll have a mess a greens and hog jowls and think it over.
Mark
Scientology treats the sequence of cause-effect as linear. But it is not so. Cause-effect or more like a multi-dimensional matrix of points in cause-effect relationship.
A simple cause-effect relationship may be looked upon as a single event with first part transforming into the second part.
The complex cause-effect matrix may be looked upon as a sphere with the surface of the sphere being points of initiation of activity and the effects propagating inwards.
>
Well Mark you fell into the same trap as millions of TV
viewers did….they became enamored and secretly guided into believing
that the enforced theories of hillbilly millionaires were gospel and
the only true path to wealth and happiness.
Jethro and Elly Mae spent their time trying to dispel this enforcement
by not living as millionaires and transcending the strict constructs of
hillbillyism set forth by Granny and Jed. They saw beyond the horizon
and saw there was much more to life and that they could create effects
on their own terms not necessarily in any order and could be very happy
and content. Now the banker, Mr. Drysdale did not like this because this
point of view threatened the time honored (forced) one way tradition of
the handling (bilking) of large amounts of money in the hands of binary thinking hillbillys from Tennessee where, of course, ignorance abounds.
no,no my dear ..you run a wrong concept of being .. you are able to ignore cause and effect .. but how to do it ..
Integrally informed context.
😊
One’s trajectory into and out of Scientology is relative to one’s perception of cause and effect, warp and woof, fabric . . .
As Eileen noted above, the blog just becomes more interesting. As Aeolus noted, this is rekindling purposeful, free inquiry and adventure. And I very much like (and intuitively agree with) Vinaire’s description of a complex cause-effect matrix.
I’ve been thinking about Scientology’s definition of truth — from memory, something like the exact time, place, form, and event. In this universe, time and place are relative. Form is an illusion — a mental construct in many ways. Maya or samsara. And event? Any event cannot be fully understood without taking into account meaning and context, and on that note Scientology is entirely lacking. Say a PC was abused as a child. Will “running” the incident repetitively and asking the PC to remember (or even mock up) earlier similar incidents resolve the damage? Probably not, whereas “wog” therapy would apply what we know about family dynamics, relative power, domination, developmental stages, child rights, and much more — knowledge that Scientology shuts itself off from. The result? In some cases, the revictimization of someone who now believes they were responsible for their own abuse by somehow “pulling it in” and the justification of child abuse by adult Scientologists who believe that children are just ancient thetans in young bodies.
Scientology has excluded hard won knowledge about human relationships, has adopted a definition of truth that is unviable in terms of physics and psychology, has failed to understand cause and effect and the role of perception and interpretation of meaning, and has thus set loose the ancient dogs of totalitarian belief in a new “religion.”
Thank you for your blog and all its insights and provoking topics.
Thanks for the insightful comment.
”Aristotelian and Newtonian two-valued, space-time logic philosophy and science are demonstrated to be essentially of a mind construct basis by developments in quantum mechanics and the related fledgling field of science of consciousness…”
.
Marty, I shall like to point out that Newton came up with Calculus, which is an accurate method to sum up the infinite gradients of a variable. It does not fit under “binary logic.”
Newton did consider Space and Time to be independently absolute as was traditionally thought of. Einstein’s Theory of Relativity corrected that. Space and Time are relative, and not absolute or independent of each other.
On the same basis, I should add that Spirituality and Physicality have been traditionally considered to be absolute independently. A “spiritual Einstein” is overdue in coming to clearly demonstrate that Spirituality and Physicality are relative and not absolute or independent of each other. Lot of ideas about God, soul, beingness, etc., will drastically change as a result.
An anthropomorphic God exists because of “human-centric” thinking, which also believed in an “earth-centric” universe. Fortunately, the latter has been corrected with better observations, but it was opposed by the Church tooth and nail.
But such biases are hard to let go of. The Theory of Relativity still suffers from a “matter-centric” frame of reference bias. And the Quantum Theory suffers from an “awareness-centric” bias.
I do agree that Science and Religions have catered to “human-centric” survival to the detriment of the health of this planet. This aspect of Science and Religions has not been so drastic in the East. But there we have the problem of ignorance too. The uncontrolled increase in population is a threat to the planet’s health as well.
I agree that binary thinking has to go.
.
FOTF2012: ”I’ve been thinking about Scientology’s definition of truth — from memory, something like the exact time, place, form, and event. In this universe, time and place are relative. Form is an illusion — a mental construct in many ways. Maya or samsara. And event? Any event cannot be fully understood without taking into account meaning and context, and on that note Scientology is entirely lacking…”
Very well said; and a nice example too.
.
Linear cause and effect thinking like:
Cause A —->Effect B
is an overly simplistic way of seeing the world and how things happen.
There is no way to get to “Real Whys” with this type of thinking because the world just does not work that way.
I was introduced to a much better way of seeing cause and effect in my studies of Buddhism, beginning with the concept of Dependent Arising. A Dependent Arising is a phenomenon which relies on many causes and conditions for it to exist.
For instance, a plant.
For a plant to exist, there is not just one cause —–> plant.
There are many causes and conditions which have to be just right, or you don’t get a plant.
The causes and conditions necessary for a plant to “arise” are:
soil
water
sunlight
carbon dioxide
temperature above freezing and below boiling
minerals and nutrients in the soil
a seed that is buried to the correct depth
etc etc etc.
All these causes and conditions, when they are in their correct ranges, and combined in just the right arrangement, produce the phenomenon of a plant.
This way of seeing cause and effect is far superior to Hubbard’s “The Why” view of understanding phenomena and why they exist.
The simplest and most concise explanation of this Buddhist view of cause and effect is written in “How To Practice” by the Dalai Lama and translated by Jeffrey Hopkins.
But here is a really good description, too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependent_arising#Overview
This way of seeing cause and effect truly is Movin On Up a Little High-ah.
Great Point, Mart-ay!
Alanzo
Bravo Mark.
To which I’ll add “back-up” by quoting my current favorite buddhist thinker … Shantideva “The Way of the Bodhisattva” … “a single cause of anything there has never been …”
Windhorse
Wow.
Good thing I didn’t mention Beaver Cleaver.
Mark
Sp’s are more Powerfull that OT’s because the OT looses his Gains when connected to a SP.
badabing!
Most of this stuff is abstruse to me, but this article has a couple of lines with some truly metaphysical implications, about the apparent fact that initially, the universe expanded much faster than light travels, and that therefore the speed of light is a limiting factor WITHIN spacetime, but that spacetime itself can, or could in the past, change faster.
Interesting! Russel Targ was a Stanford researcher and old OT 7 who, I am told, conducted experiments in the 1970s of creating and as-ising matter. It was fairly common knowledge in the Bay Area Scn community back in the day. Hal Puthoff was another OT who worked with Targ. In fact, Puthoff gave a talk at my father’s weekly Rotary Club luncheon about Scientolgy back in the day when, even though its PR had an odor then, it was nothing like the rotting corpse smell it has today. Imagine trying to get an Scn lecutre in a Rotary Club today.
I think you are mistaken about Targ. He was involved in the Stanford Research Institute project, sponsored by CIA, conducting remote viewing; but was never a scientologist. The other then-scientologist involved was one of the psychics, Ingo Swan. The research made a spiritualist of Targ, to then a hard core materialist physicist. I think he bypassed scientology altogether consistent with Puthoff and Swann effectively graduating from it during the era.
I guess I didn’t include the link:
http://time.com/24894/gravity-waves-expanding-universe/
he he Scientologists of course wouldn’t read this, because it was published by TIME….
Four valued logic, as opposed to 2 value logic, is:
1. True
2. False
3. Both True and False
4. Neither True nor False
Here is a concise summary of Nagarjuna’s ideas:
Alanzo
Sorry – I forgot to give the source for the summary of Nagarjuna’s ideas. I did not write that.
It’s here:
http://www.acmuller.net/yogacara/thinkers/nagarjuna-bio-asc.htm
Alanzo
Again, I would recommend ‘The End of Suffering’ for a very good history and explanation of the tetra lama. Targ and Hurtak do a bit of a practical asking the reader to experiment with it a bit. Mind expanding stuff.
You are a good man, Al
I will read it.
Thanks.
Alanzo
I just orderd this, and I noticed Targhas some pretty interesting titles, including one about “non-localized consciousness”, which rings a bell with me.
Maybe someone can explain to me the difference between “cause and effect” and karma.
I am not impressed by your oversimplifications, Marty. The cause of it I don’t know but I guess we will soon find out.
If anyone cares to listen to what Ron has to say in full about cause and effect and the two types of postulates (the homo sapiens, to which obviously Marty refers and the theta postulate) then listen to PDC-07 A THETAN CREATES BY POSTULATES – Q2.
Thank you to Alanzo for posting Nagarjuna’s words which seemed to then prompt Marty (Mark) into reiterating about Targ and “End of Suffering”
I just got the kindle edition after reading the fascinating intros etc …
Sometimes I feel as if I’m 4 years old running to catch up to my (self appointed) big brother. (Marty) — he’s always at least 10 feet ahead of me.
I had mentioned recently studying Shantideva (800 CE) but Nagarjuna predates him (180 CE) and Shantideva does commentary about Nagarjuna – and I could never quite “get” Nagarjuna
Windhorse
I counter that with the sublimation of what Scientology stands for in one sentence:
“Certainty, not data, is knowledge.”
―L. Ron Hubbard
I entered Scientology with a good background in science. I evaluated Scientological data against my background science knowledge at every step of the way. I was staggered at times by the correlations that would occur between that background knowledge and what LRH wrote, and what I experienced firsthand as cognitions, abilities gained and paranormal phenomena. While that list is extensive, the phenomena closest to the Effect/Cause line of the OP was the experience of increased space.
To be aware through a volume that encompassed my body, a large room and an adjoining large room was a singular experience that was interpretable not through the science of physicality but more so through the materials of Scientology. This event I mentioned was singular in that I had an almost tactile awareness of the contents of the space. This was different from pre-Scientology exteriorizations where I had had visual but not tactile perception. (It was those earlier exteriorizations that had caused me to initially see Dn as a means of discovery of what was going on.)
The conclusion of importance here is that space is directly associated with a being.
The significance of this spacation phenomena is that it fits not with classical physics and the concept of space as a nothingness, but certainly with quantum mechanics where the idea exists of consciousness being responsible for certain observable states of “matter”.
In the quantum case, consciousness ( which I’ll call an awareness volume or space) – is seen to cause the collapse of “the wave function”, forever forcing an observed electron to behave as a particle when in an unobserved state it would behave in a wavelike manner.
This entire behavior of particle-wave duality is the ultimate head scratcher for physicists but does, in fact, resolve if one considers the universe to be an engineered construct in which the fundamental building block is the same space that is created by an awareness unit.
That is a tall claim and one I am willing to defend, albeit it may take a book to describe adequately. The notion is, though, something which should not be too inconceivable to anyone who has sufficiently exteriorized to be aware that they are an aware volume.
How this all relates to the OP is that it points to the origin of this universe as a created, caused universe rather than being a universe of ambiguous or unknown origin.
How can all this hinge on so singular a medium as space? Well, consider a baseball – a static thing when sitting on the shelf but when hurled by a pitcher who knows all the tricks and mechanics of putting various spins on the ball it becomes practically like a living object changing its path seemingly at will as it traverses distance and time. Similarly, by instilling spin into space that space is given a unique characteristic that then allows it to interact, or not, with other spaces having similar or different spins.
Spin is an easy and already scientifically accepted concept to get across in how space can be manipulated, but an even more important aspect is geometry. Consider the baseball: if it’s round it behaves as a baseball (a sphere, 3 dimensions); if it’s flattened it might behave as a really thin frisbee (a disc, 2 dimensions); if it’s squished into a cylinder it might behave as an arrow (a line, 1 dimension). Thus the same component, when altered in geometry, behaves differently and will interact differently with other things: the “arrow” (line) might always pierce the sphere-baseball but may only pierce the disc if there is an optimum orientation.
Add to spin and geometry the property of vibration – which in the case of space is a phenomenon of expansion and contraction – and you have just about all you need to make energy and then matter.
While this may be more than a consideration of how thought has evolved on this planet, I think it is equally important to keep an eye on what thought can evolve to. We may be emerging from an era of suppressed thought and just getting to a point of “normal” may be an adequate goal. For those who still wish to stretch their wings, the consideration of innate ability to cause is still a valid consideration.
Very good!
Here’s your Huckleberry (Theo) sending you back full circle, right where you like to be: I am not impressed by your oversimplifications, Marty. The cause of it I don’t know but I guess we will soon find out. If anyone cares to listen to what Ron has to say in full about cause and effect and the two types of postulates (the homo sapiens, to which obviously Marty refers and the theta postulate) then listen to PDC-07 A THETAN CREATES BY POSTULATES – Q2.
Marty’s Blog is fast becoming an Internet Sangha.
In actuality, Radical official Scientology take the position of CAUSE
ensuring every step of the way YOU are the EFFECT.
And if you don’t wake up and obey Scientology Inc causation, and agree to be the meek EFFECT, why there is Fair Game, revelations of your confessional data, and the weight of RICO conspiracies at OSA INT plotting to “destroy utterly..”…
Valkov, you are really changing for the better. What did you eat today?
Well, I started reading the book, the Tao of Physics. I was particularly impacted by the author’s own cognizance of the fact that the universe could be likened to a dance – all particles moving in concert and harmony, or dissonance, et al. – to which I have a lot of practical experience with in body/mind fusion aesthetics. Personally, at this stage of the game, I could give two $hits as to “what Ron says” about anything anymore, however, the fact is that I reached into the subject for greater answers. I appreciate the reference to delve into.
Ah yes:,”Ideal Org” cause, “buy your way out of Ethics” cause (as if one’s conscience can be quantified by $$$), “study the Basics” cause, “IAS” cause, “slavery” cause – ad nauseum.
I believe Hubbard used to say you could tell what the leadership was like in an organization by how the organization operates. It is radical officialdom at it’s finest right now.
Ah yes – the Dead Agent caper.
“Huckleberry” – ha. Didn’t miss the reference here. Most popular “staff” movie up there with “Shawshank”.
Yup – just remember that the data is coming from the mouth of the guy that had an Doctorate of Philosophy from Sequoia University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequoia_University). That’s definitely a creation from that postulate. Not enough people agreed, I presume.
An Analysis of Scientology Factor # 1
The very first Factor of Scientology states:
FACTOR # 1: BEFORE THE BEGINNING WAS A CAUSE AND THE ENTIRE PURPOSE OF THE CAUSE WAS THE CREATION OF EFFECT.
.
Let’s examine this Factor.
1. “Beginning” implies the beginning of any manifestation. This includes the universe as an overall manifestation.
2. If Cause is postulated to be there before the beginning then the question arises, “Can Cause be there all by itself before its effect manifests itself?” An overall effect would be the creation of the universe.
3. If the answer is “yes” then Cause will be a manifestation on its own right, and the question then becomes, “What is the cause of the Cause?” This logic inevitably leads to an infinite regress of causes, and the beginning keeps getting pushed back earlier and earlier.
4. If the answer is “no” then the Cause must occur simultaneously with effect. “Cause-effect” would then be part of the same manifestation at the beginning. One may say that God and Universe must have appeared simultaneously as a pair.
5. One tries to fix the dilemma in (3) by postulating “Uncaused cause.”But this postulate appears to be self-contradictory and simply a device of convenience.
6. Thus, CAUSE seems to be part of the created considerations. This seems to be consistent with the idea that TIME itself would start at the beginning.
7. Thus, there would be no such thing as “before the beginning.”
8. Thus, CAUSE is part of a system of interdependent considerations. It is part of the creation like anything else. There is no linear chain of considerations as implied by the factor above.
9. The idea “before the beginning” would then be a projection that is created after the fact of beginning. Thus, the idea of God as the Creator would appear after the fact of Creation.
10. The assumption that CAUSE, a consideration in itself, can be separated from, and can be extended beyond, the system of considerations it generates, seems to be the basic inconsistency (contrariness).
.
Thus, it appears that beginning is simply there. We do not know how the beginning of creation comes to be. We may try to explain or justify it with arbitrary postulation, but the fact remains that we do not really know the answer.
This conclusion is uncomfortable to face. That is why we get postulates like “Uncaused cause,” “God as the Creator,” and Scientology Factor #1.
.
I’m your Huckleberry (Doc Holiday) to Johnny Ringo in Tombstone.
Just in case you might have needed a translation …
Windhorse
Thanks Marty. Another nice article. That book “the end of suffering ” was excellent. I ordered extra copies and gave out as gifts. Has some nice action steps in there too. I have not read the Tao book yet. If I look up and define the word “physics”, I may be more willing.
Karma is essentially a very complex cycle of action that is moving forward towards its completion in slow motion. There is a sense of inevitability associated with it. If that cycle is hindered then all kind of repercussions result from it. Again those repercussions force the movement of that cycle toward its completion.
For example, a person borrows some money. To complete that cycle the debt needs to be discharged. If it is not discharged as it was agreed upon then various repercussions come about. This cycle continues to influence all those associated with it, one way or another, until that debt is discharged.
>
Thanx.
If you don’t mind my chiming in, I don’t really know or care enough about physics to have a care to understanding above it being a body of knowledge based on physical mechanics. Yet – I am finding the book quite fascinating, regardless.
I have an issue with LRH’s understanding of the concept of Cause as expressed in Factor #1. I have posted my analysis of Factor #1 on this thread.
>
Very good. As a non-science type, what you wrote even made sense to me.
It relates to what I think of as ‘knowing by pervasion’.
I ate some darkness.
2ndxmr: “To be aware through a volume that encompassed my body, a large room and an adjoining large room was a singular experience that was interpretable not through the science of physicality but more so through the materials of Scientology. This event I mentioned was singular in that I had an almost tactile awareness of the contents of the space.”
I had a somewhat similar experience when I did the Sunshine Rundown, which was done outdoors. My org was located in a rundown part of the city with a lot of bums around, etc. The EP of the Rundown for me was to suddenly experience everything around me – the streets, buildings and people, including the bums – as all being part of my space, part of ME. The other totally unexpected occurrence was that the bums were looking at me with affinity! I got that they felt something different in me too. That was a wonderful “effect” in my book.
p.s. That was just a note on how I can relate to your personal experience, but I think my experience also supports your whole theory. You wrote:
“This entire behavior of particle-wave duality is the ultimate head scratcher for physicists but does, in fact, resolve if one considers the universe to be an engineered construct in which the fundamental building block is the same space that is created by an awareness unit.”
From the viewpoint of science – a theory is as good as it explains the known data. Bottom line.
Thanks. I see all kinds of causes and effects in what you say.
I have a question for Marildi since she so closely adheres to LRH’s viewpoint.
“Marildi, does LRH’s viewpoint seem to resolve some confusion for you? If so, can you describe it?”
.
That is deep.
Yes, there are all kinds of causes and effects.
I believe that space is part of the form that awareness morphs into. awareness occurs before the awareness unit.
.
“It relates to what I think of as ‘knowing by pervasion’.”
Or knowing by BEING the “object.”
I think I”m getting through to you Val..
Hubbard is fading faster than Einstein.
A bingo for me reading your post. I never quite saw it that way til now, thank you. On reflection, yes, I was always the Effect and whatever higher up I dealt with was the Cause.
Years ago when I wrote, in reply to a harsh controlling letter, my resignation, it was the first time I stood up to my so called friend or the organization. It felt so good to finally speak my mind, stand up for myself and say what I believed was true.
Well, with over 3,000 hours of entertaining lectures, books and the training courses, not to mention his avowedly fictional stories, I can’t see him fading all too soon for me. 🙂
Which kind do you prefer?
You took somewhat of a quantum leap when you hit this point: “This entire behavior of particle-wave duality is the ultimate head scratcher for physicists but does, in fact, resolve if one considers the universe to be an engineered construct in which the fundamental building block is the same space that is created by an awareness unit. That is a tall claim and one I am willing to defend, albeit it may take a book to describe adequately.” I don’t consider it a ‘tall claim’ as much as an invented arbitrary along the order of ‘before the beginning there was a cause and the entire purpose of the cause was the creation of an effect.’
Interestingly, when I told one of the KOTs at Flag, by phone, that I wanted my money back and that I would complain to the BBB among other actions if I didn’t get it, he acquiesced right away. As it turned out, it had actually been a “courtesy transfer” from the local org, so I went to them to get it and there were no obstacles placed in my way. I attributed that to those folks at the org who were old friends/acquaintances, but now I wonder if they also had input from him at Flag. He was old-school and reputed to stil be one of the good guys. Can’t think of his name at the moment.
However it is true that I had a medical problem, and the refund was part of the “secondary gain” I got from having the problem. I certainly did need the money at the time! 🙂 However, Flag had already managed to unload a set of the Basics on me previously, so I didn’t get that portion back.
Like a rock?
I never thought of it that way, but I suppose that could be what the phrase means. It is similar in that I think of pervading as extending space to include whatever I was wanting to know about and looking at it from both the outside and the inside, or something like that. Yes, I can see how it could be desribed as “being it”. However I never thought of it in terms of specific objects, but as pervading entire scenes, sequences of action, or entire “holograms”. One can pervade anything, entire ‘karmas’ or whatever
It wasn’t entirely a joke, but it is kind of a way of expressing ‘as-isness’ in Eatingness terms…. 🙂
“The personality could be considered to be the organ of digestion of experience.” -Marc Edmond Jones
Sure you got through to me. You are a guileless, passionate and affectionate person.
The question is, have I gotten through to you at all?
Theo.. I personally don’t give a shit about what that your God says about anything.
Theo.. I personally don’t give a shit about what that your God” correction
Should be ” Shit about what your God..”
Excellent definition of Karma vinnie.
I don’t consider it a ‘tall claim’ as much as an invented arbitrary along the order of ‘before the beginning there was a cause and the entire purpose of the cause was the creation of an effect.’
Lacking further elucidation that is not an unreasonable conclusion. As I said, it may take a book to explain it. Even then, in lack of physical proof of observations key to the hypothesis only those who have been able to make similar observations are likely to agree in whole or in part. That is the understood nature of this sort of endeavor.
This is deep.. My problem is that I came in to late in the evening when I am absolutely brain dead. PLus it doesn’t help that I am totally a right brain thinker. Sigh. This isn’t exactly my forte.
I do wish I hadn’t flirted all the way through Physics with my professor. I did get an A, because he flirted back! sigh I learned nothing!
But tomorrow I will sit down and read it slowly when my brain is awake.
I just love your post Marty.
Want to shake up a 40 year Scn member? Just say something like this:
“Any mind yet somewhat intact after years of adhering to scientology sci-fi mythology as cold, hard reality, still has the potential for seeing through the self-limiting constructs it has been persuaded to abide. ”
I cannot stop laughing… it’s a total relief… Wow!
Of course I know you are an old member too.
Thanks for being there and communicating.
Wow — evaluation and invalidation, ad hominem attack and appeal to authority logical fallacies, all in one sweet post.
PS My post was aimed at poking fun at Theo — and Theo, really, nothing personal. We’re all, er, human.
Sometimes I wonder if there can be 6-valued logic — all of 1-4 are true, and none of 1-4 are true. But 6-valued logic would almost have to tap into some reality with more dimensions. So I’ll stick with 4-valued logic, which makes sense to my finite intelligence.
4-valued logic also fits something called false dichotomies (which is also one type of logical fallacy). A false dichotomy tries to force an “either/or” decision when the best answer might be “both/and” or “neither/nor.”
I’m going to let Nagarjuna’s ideas seep in. Thanks for sharing them.
LOL 🙂
The is only Now. Cause and Effect are illusion. Time is an illusion.
That said, you punch me, I’ll feel it. It is a pretty powerful illusion.
I used to wig out about this stuff when I was a kid. When was the beginning of time? But… there had to be something before the beginning, but there has to be a beginning. Yikes! Also – where does the universe end? But, what is beyond the end? There has to be an end, but there can’t be an end. It has to go on forever, but there has to be an edge to it all.
And the thing is – yes. There is an infinity of potential time, and an infinity of potential space. If we take this entire universe, and imagine it inside a pingpong ball, it is easy to imagine a whole roomful of pingpong balls, and a whole bunch of rooms with pingpong balls. If you take the track of 13.8 Billion years, which is the age of this universe, and mark it as a foot long piece of string, it is easy to imagine one hundred feet of string, each one its own universe timeline. Who knows but the Big Bang isn’t just a hiccup from the end of one of the pieces of string? And maybe the string is just one long loop? Who know?
No one. We don’t know. We only sort of know an extremely little slice of this little universe. Even when we gaze at stars, we are looking at things that happened long, long ago. Who knows but the universe is being swallowed by another – we won’t know for thousands, or more likely, millions of years.
This is all a mind-cuss. But it has to be considered because infinity exists.
Good said .. it was always my idea that scientologists and LRH did always overestimate the powers of SPs .. the rules of cause and effect applies here .. you can be the effect but you must not .. you can always go away, and you can call that effect .. but it is the same time cause .. I mean you loose an anti intended being or group .. but they loose also an expected victim and especially an expected helper ..
The bad peoples can only win when the good peoples shut up .. following if an OT looses his wins in the environment of an SP or SPs .. then there was no OT there in the first place .. nobody can loose a win when he had really a win .. loosing a win depends not on SPs ..
I will speak another point. For LRH there is a analytical and reactive mind.
After hearing LRH speaking a lot of the powers of the reactive mind, it became clear to me (my thoughts) that the reactive mind must be much more intelligent and powerful than myself .. by inspection it became clearly an untrue statemant .. because if it were this way .. all man were dead ..
Okay – I myself have no experience with erasing a reactive mind. I got more than 1000 hours auditing .. nothing erased ever .. so I could not loose a win because I had none .. but it is untrue .. I had wins otherwise I had stopped that balderdash .. but my win was simply that I have neither an analytical nor a reactive mind .. had never such things .. do not need it at all .. it is only me who looks .. and are able to look back at places and times, but it is not a mind who helped me .. it is simply me who can do it ..
Basically I had the favorite cognition of all cognitions (very early in auditing), but the church did always try to convince me that I would have a reactive mind as each other on this planet and in the whole universe ..
What is also about suppression and SPs .. they do nothing else than giving you wrong truths or wrong items or other falsehood .. when I said, that the church was my SP .. I became an ethics case with all assingments down from liability to confusion .. now I am declared as SP (it is only because of my reading and wrinting here or Mike Rinder blog) .. has nothing to do with being a SP .. there is no harm involved for somebody ..
So on .. OTs can loose there wins when they go critical about her wins, but it may be the way to beome real OT .. it means seriously that the wins were never really really there ..
I will not evaluate wins which somebody had .. it is possible to have some with Scientology .. there are people around who stack up pictures, and then, and only then one has a mind ..
I asked Google for “the answer to life the universe and everything” .
I got an anwer !
Look for yourself 🙂
Rarely do we find men who willingly engage in hard, solid thinking. There is an almost universal quest for easy answers and half-baked solutions. Nothing pains some people more than having to think.
Martin Luther King, Jr.
As a young boy I made some drawings and paintings about universes .. it was from one viewpoint .. then I changed the viewpoint and looked it from the other side .. it was after reading some books about astronomy ..
Maybe I was able to exteriorize very easy .. we are living on a planet who goes around a sun with a certain speed .. the sun goes in circle with the milkyway .. and this galaxy goes in random or not in the universe ..
I thought if I add all movements together .. it is maybe the speed of light ..
If it is true, the universe do not expand .. and the speed of light is only the speed you have for yourself as a being placed on a planet ..
I did once exteriorise from this galaxy in auditing (imagened or true) .. but it made a lot of noise this random movements .. lot of randomity .. but it goes all in circles .. but your view from a planet is different, because you look at something which is million years ago .. nothing what you see is now really there where you see it now .. if you are exterior to it .. everything is there where it is now .. really, because everything has the same speed of light to your position and looking ..
I thought: what is when I am 10 mio light years away or 50 mio or 100 mio, Okay, the milkyway becomes smaller and smaller (but not so much) ..
But if I would have a magnifying glass I would then not look at 100 mio ago because I would see present time .. you can try it yourself ..
Interesting and, as usual, very intelligent summation from you, Vinaire.
As far as I see these two things (cause and effect), these are just another third density dichotomy.
The whole concept of “at the beginning there was cause and its only purpose was a creation of an effect” is just a construct to attempt to explain why anything can be “created”.
The truth (as I see it) is that there are densities where cause and effect are unnecessary because there is no difference between them.
It is hard to conceive of this in a third density mind frame, where we all have to think in dualities to be able to make anything sound logical.
Even logic is effected by this. I strongly believe that in higher densities (from the sixth on up) logic has completely different dynamics and what may be logical in those densities isn’t logical in this density.
We live in a universe that is comprised of dualities; however, this universe was not “created” by dualities. It was conceived by a “source” that stems from a density that does not have dualities and therefore its workings are uncomprehesible to those who think in binary, trinary or even quaternary logic.
I am quite certain that we will be able to understand quantum mechanics better once someone will start to think “outside the box” of dualities and cause and effect. This includes also the duality of beginnings and ends. There is probably no need to have a beginning or an end, at higher densities.
We need to remember that most of the terms of reference, for the most simple things we experience, are expressed in dualities or multiples them. Things like these are a dichotomy but we often do not think of them that way: beggining/end, cause/effect, creation/destruction, life/death, night/day, birth/death, and so on.
We live in a density that has to, has to, has to have these dichotomies to be able to function — as a corollary (another example of third-densitiy dual logic), anything that even vaguely conveys “oneness” or singularity is often misunderstood, hard to comprehend and often shunned or dismissed.
The message of “being one with the universe” has been degraded (also by scientology) to mean “losing once individuality”.
However, individuality (I am sure I do not need to be telling you this) is just another dual construct to identify oneself in this density. Higher densities may not need one to be an individual to be aware — and awareness may be something entirely different at those levels.
In conclusion, the reason why we have so many questions about why we exist and why the universe we live in is the way it is, may be answered when we spot the fact that dualities appear to make up this universe, which in fact was created (or brought about) by higher densities that did not think in dualities.
A good read is a book entitled The Prysm of Lyra by Lyssa Royal and Keith Priest.
1. True
2. False
3. Both True and False
4. Neither True nor False
This doesn’t come up to logic because 3. is indicision and 4. is the same .. in 3 and 4 you have doubt also no decision .. basically a NO .. which means that True and False is not in order .. or other said it is a Maybe ..
You can limit your logic to
1. Yes
2. No
3. Maybe
So you can expand this in a large way when you take the Maybe to more Yes or more No .. but this goes with 1. and 2. but you can also put in some other parts like
4. Nothing .. looks like No, but means not looking at it .,
5. Prefer .. looks like Yes, but means not looking at it really ..
6. Postulate .. which has nothing to do with Yes or No or Maybe ..
All logic should include Create .. because it is the source of Yes or No or Maybe .. must people use logic .. my table is mostly used .. and it is also LRH who used it .. I mean his introduction of the e-meter goes always in and about your Maybe .. never about your Yes or No .. the meter reads only for a case if you have a Maybe .. which means you have no Yes or not a No ..
My problem too .. when LRH spoke about Cause and Effect and his intentions to cause it was confusing because both goes together .. always a one to one game .. anyway .. for me the karma was to accept both of it as reality ..
2ndxmr: “This entire behavior of particle-wave duality is the ultimate head scratcher for physicists but does, in fact, resolve if one considers the universe to be an engineered construct in which the fundamental building block is the same space that is created by an awareness unit.”
Here is my explanation for particle-wave duality:
Quantum versus Classical Reality
We assume an electron to be like a Ping-Pong ball. We then apply the Heisenberg’s principle of uncertainty to its location around the nucleus of an atom. This is Quantum reality.
Why can’t we assume an electron be like a piece of wave that extends in space like a snake. Then we can do away with the Heisenberg’s principle of uncertainty. That would fit more with the classical reality.
Einstein was opposed to Quantum reality. He would have preferred this snake analogy for an electron. The following ia a quote from the excellent book EINSTEIN – HIS LIFE AND UNIVERSE by Walter Isaacson, Chapter 20, Quantum Entanglement.
Einstein’s fundamental dispute with the Bohr-Heisenberg crowd over quantum mechanics was not merely about whether God rolled dice or left cats half dead. Nor was it just about causality, locality, or even completeness. It was about reality. Does it exist? More specifically, is it meaningful to speak about a physical reality that exists independently of whatever observations we can make? “At the heart of the problem,” Einstein said of quantum mechanics, “is not so much the question of causality but the question of realism.”
Bohr and his adherents scoffed at the idea that it made sense to talk about what might be beneath the veil of what we can observe. All we can know are the results of our experiments and observations, not some ultimate reality that lies beyond our perceptions.
.
But Einstein seems to be protesting against what he himself contributed to with his idea of photon and his Theory of Relativity.
It seems that quanta of light (photons) shall be packets made up of finite number of wavelengths. In that case, a photon will also be shaped more like a snake than a Ping-Pong ball. If the number of wavelengths per photon is constant then low-energy ELF photons shall be like very long snakes, and high-energy gamma photons shall be like very short snakes. We may then call very long snakes as waves, and very short snakes as particles.
Furthermore, Einstein denied any need of a medium for light. He denied the Newtonian absoluteness of space and time but replaced it by the absoluteness of the speed of light, thus upsetting the reality of classical physics. But Einstein seemed to backtrack from his mathematical reality later in life.
The above quote continues as follows.
Einstein had displayed some elements of this attitude in 1905, back when he was reading Hume and Mach while rejecting such unobservable concepts as absolute space and time. “At that time my mode of thinking was much nearer positivism than it was later on,” he recalled. “My departure from positivism came only when I worked out the general theory of relativity.”
From then on, Einstein increasingly adhered to the belief that there is an objective classical reality. And though there are some consistencies between his early and late thinking, he admitted freely that, at least in his own mind, his realism represented a move away from his earlier Machian empiricism. “This credo,” he said, “does not correspond with the point of view I held in younger years.” As the historian Gerald Holton notes, “For a scientist to change his philosophical beliefs so fundamentally is rare.”
Einstein’s concept of realism had three main components:
1. His belief that a reality exists independent of our ability to observe it. As he put it in his autobiographical notes: “Physics is an attempt conceptually to grasp reality as it is thought independently of its being observed. In this sense one speaks of ‘physical reality.’ ”
2. His belief in separability and locality. In other words, objects are located at certain points in spacetime, and this separability is part of what defines them. “If one abandons the assumption that what exists in different parts of space has its own independent, real existence, then I simply cannot see what it is that physics is supposed to describe,” he declared to Max Born.
3. His belief in strict causality, which implies certainty and classical determinism. The idea that probabilities play a role in reality was as disconcerting to him as the idea that our observations might play a role in collapsing those probabilities. “Some physicists, among them myself, cannot believe,” he said, “that we must accept the view that events in nature are analogous to a game of chance.”
.
What happened in 1905 was that mathematical reality replaced physical reality starting with the Theory of Relativity. This has continued with Quantum Mechanics even to this date. The article The Philosophy of Cosmology attempts to reverse this trend and reestablish the realism of physical reality.
.
nice said but you said not that the karma goes in trouble when you do not what you have promised yourself .. think yourself, everybody who came into Scientolgy promised with his doing to become an OT .. and then the karma goes out when trying doing it .. your promise goes flat .. you are really much more aberrated as you have ever thought ..
AN ANALYSIS OF CAUSE
The following statement seems to summarize very efficiently what is believed in most western religions and philosophies.
“Before the beginning was a Cause and the entire purpose of the Cause was the creation of effect.”
Judaism emphasizes God as the ultimate creator. Christianity makes God a personal being. Islam seems to de-emphasize that identity of a personal being by declaring God to be formless. However, God is still retained as the cause of all existence.
Spinoza starts his philosophical system with the premise of “uncaused Cause.” Aristotle starts his philosophical system with the premise of “unmoved Mover.” The system of philosophy that follows from either premise is pretty rational. But is the underlying premise rational?
Regardless of how rational a system of philosophy might appear, the logical consistency of that system is set by its starting premise.
…
The premise “uncaused cause” seems to be an attempt to fix the unwieldy conclusion of the endless chain of causes when Cause is assumed to exist all by itself. “Uncaused cause” is just another arbitrary consideration. No wonder it appears to be self-contradictory.
CAUSE is part of the creation, and has no meaning prior to the creation. Neither “Cause,” nor “Uncaused cause” is an independent premise. It is part of the system of philosophy it generates.
What is beyond the sphere of considerations (philiosophy) may only be speculated. But a speculation being a consideration would remain within that sphere.
The assumption that the consideration of “Cause” can extend beyond the “system of considerations” seems to be the basic inconsistency.
“Cause” may appear to be consistent but only within a system of consideration and not beyond. What is beyond is unknowable and it cannot be symbolized as Cause.
.
Thanks. It is not so much lack of physical proofs that creates some dissonance for me. I think it is more the tendency to default back to the ‘I’ as creator. I wonder how much one even holds a sense of self apart from anything else in such peak experiences. My similar experiences are concomitant with a sense of losing self, letting go of the considerations mocking myself up as separate than the rest of the universe. Perhaps it is a taste of non-duality. Perhaps this defaulting back to such stable data (as contained in the ‘The Factors’; inclusion of ‘causation’ and I) is why – by broad survey – it seems that scientology connected peak experiences are so short-lived, and often never-again experienced.
Yes, Scientology is facing its Karma right now because of failed promises.
It seems to me that another movement will come along that will contain best of the thoughts from Buddhism and other movements since then including those in Scientology.
The Church of Scientology, as it exists now, would be embroiled with increasing numbers of law suits until all its assets are gone.
.
Thank you Flavp. Could you please explain your concept of “density”.
Thanks.
Friend wrote:
“This doesn’t come up to logic because 3. is indicision and 4. is the same .. in 3 and 4 you have doubt also no decision…”
Well Friend –
The best way to respond to you is to give you an example of how this 4 valued logic is useful.
Remember, a workable definition for logic is “a system that can be used to preserve the truth throughout your reasoning process.”
Good logic preserves the truth, bad logic diverges from the truth the more you reason with it.
So let’s say you want to use logic to reason out the human phenomenon of ghosts. Humans have always been seeing ghosts and reporting them to other humans, who, using 2 valued logic, have engaged in endless controversy.
Using 2 valued logic, ghosts can either be TRUE, or they can be FALSE. There is no other “bin” to put ghosts in when you are using 2 valued logic.
For some humans, ghosts are TRUE.
For other humans, ghosts are FALSE.
And it NEVER SETTLES. There is no conclusion you can make which corresponds to the human truth of ghosts. And in order to conclude with only these choices, you have to block out and ignore some of the observed phenomena in order to decide EITHER/OR.
What is the true nature of a ghost? Even for the person seeing it, it is both there and not there at the same time.
For someone who did not see the the ghost, or who does not “believe” in ghosts, it’s not there – but SOMETHING is there.
If you’ve only got EITHER/OR as your choice, then what is there has to be denied in order to conclude and to place it in the only 2 bins that you have.
So you have this actual quality of ghosts being both there and not there at the same time.
THAT is the true nature of a ghost.
When trying to use 2 valued logic to reason out ghosts, there’s no place to put it. There is no bin to put ghosts in to decide or conclude which actually addresses the full nature of a ghost.
Ghosts ARE BOTH TRUE AND FALSE.
And if you look around, there are a lot of phenomena in human existence that fits this description. The use of 4 valued logic allows a person to apply a logic that actually addresses the world as it is for a human being.
4 valued logic allows you to better preserve the truth throughout your reasoning process than 2 valued logic does.
4 Valued logic allows you to conclude, and it allows you to conclude in such a way that corresponds to the actual truth of the phenomena as it exists for a human being.
Alanzo
Well, I learned a new phrase “wig out” meaning “to make or become wildly excited or enthusiastic.” Is that a British slang?
My operating basis is to start out with the broadest concept and then narrow it down. Here is what i looked at sometime back.
SOMETHING AND NOTHING
Beginning means a beginning of something. This something continues in one form or another until it ends. From beginning to end something is manifested. From the end of a cycle till the beginning of the next cycle nothing is manifested.
Beginning starts with the manifestation of something. A “something” can be the flimsiest of thought or the heaviest of heavenly body. It can be any manifestation whatsoever.
Space and time are abstract dimensions representing the extent and duration of manifestation. When “something” manifests successively till the end of the cycle, we get the sense of TIME. Time depends on a primary manifestation persisting over a duration. Therefore, Time would begin with the beginning and would continue until the end.
Persistence of the manifestation of something brings about the sense of TIME.
When there is no longer any manifestation, the cycle has come to an end. From the end till another beginning, there is no manifestation, and no time either. There is simply NOTHING.
NOTHING is “absence of manifestation.”
Science is a study of manifestations. The primary manifestation seems to have the aspects of energy and matter. The secondary manifestation seems to be space and time. So far science has not grappled directly with the absence of manifestation, or NOTHING.
Science presupposes SOMETHING to be there. It is looking for a “cause” that is supposed to exist before the beginning of the universe. That “cause” would still be something to be studied by science. Thus, that “cause” may very well be considered a part of the universe. Scientifically, before the beginning would be NOTHING.
Science cannot go into the beginning of universe as long as it presupposes SOMETHING to exist before the beginning.
Logic and Mathematics are based upon thought. Without thought there can be neither logic nor mathematics. Thus, logic and mathematics presuppose thought to be there.
Thought is just what is being employed in these essays. Thought is not NOTHING. Thought is “something” that would have to manifest at the beginning for logic and mathematics to be there. Therefore, neither logic nor mathematics can go before the beginning of universe. However,
Thought may look upon “before the beginning” as “potential of manifestation.”
The Big Bang Theory seems to confirm a great deal of observations; and it comes quite close to describing the beginning but it does not address the beginning itself.
To describe the beginning of the universe then, one may have to speculate upon the nature of NOTHING.
And that would give us another universe.
.
Thank you, Baby. Here is the complete essay on my blog.
What is Karma?
Hope you enjoy it. 🙂
.
FOTF wrote:
4-valued logic also fits something called false dichotomies (which is also one type of logical fallacy). A false dichotomy tries to force an “either/or” decision when the best answer might be “both/and” or “neither/nor.”
Great point!
It is for this reason that some scholars recognize that Aristotle’s teachers, Plato and Socrates, taught four valued logic, too. There are a couple of Dialogues (which I can not name) where socrates Identifies the four possible lemmas (conclusions).
But their student, Aristotle, directly addressed logic in targeted writings and lectures, and he did not apparently get this lesson from his teachers as well as he could have.
The rest is (Western) history.
Alanzo
Yes, “Experiencing Fully” is an aspect of mindfulness (as-isness).
Mindfulness 7: Experience Fully
.
The dichotomy of “cause-effect” lies within the universe. “Cause” cannot be extrapolated to exist outside the universe and independent of it. That is a contrariness or inconsistency.
Theo says; ” I am not impressed….”. Theo, I don’t think it matters to anyone but yourself. No one is trying to impress you. Your tone indicates that you seem to impress yourself. Hope that will suffice.
True-False is binary logic. It can be presented more rationally as a scale with infinite gradients with one end approaching TRUE and the other end approaching FALSE. There is neither an “absolute truth” nor and “absolute falsity”. There is only relative truth and relative falsity.
I cannot understand the following statement:
FRIEND: “All logic should include Create .. because it is the source of Yes or No or Maybe”
Why do we have to assume an absolute cause for “Yes or No or Maybe”? These attributes may simple exist relative to each other. Why should there be a CREATE?
.
Thank you for your serious and well tought out reply. It was educational, intresting and unexpected.
CD
Oh Good and thank you. I hope you meant guileless in a positive manner.
Gotten through to me? Val.. You are the type of person I could have a beer with ..If you don’t drink than you can have coffee or tea..
and I could smack you on the shoulder and say, ” AWWWW come on now Val you don’t believe in all that Scientology Bull Shit do you?
I do see you as a seeker of truth.. and one day you’ll see the truth that the Emperor has no clothes.
This sense of “I” is where it all begins. Part of my practice for some time now is simply watching this sense arise.
It is so interesting to observe. And so liberating to not attach oneself to it when it arises.
Then the cause for action comes from a more spontaneous intuitive deep place insted of “I want” ” I am.”
It is also interesting when the sense of “I” dissolves, any conflict with “others” dissolves. That is because the sense of “you” arrives only after the sense if “I” is conceptualizer.
This wonderful process is so beautifully revealed in marriage. My wife and I can dissolve conflicts now almost instantaneously.
Another result in the dissolution of “I me mine” is a return of childlike wonder for life.
Young children can still retain that spontaneous being without the conditioning and imprinting of the need to form an ego.
On the other hand, there is nothing wrong with having that sense of “I” as long as it is not taken so seriously.
As actors in the game and on the stage, our “I” should be played with gusto and real ness. But when the play is over, we should remove the makeup, take off our wardrobe without a fuss. Then go home after a fun romp with our fellow actors.
Neti Neti means: not this not that. Our true natures are not the roles we play not the objects in the play. We are Spirit, ever free, ever joyous, ever conscious, ever existing- Sat-chit-ananda.
One must understand that EXTERIORIZATION has a much broader definition as follows:
EXTERIORIZATION = Unfixing of a long term fixed attention
Most people have attention fixed on the body. When this attention is unfixed most people are amazed at the affect.
Similarly, attention can be fixed on the self, or on the universe. When that attention is unfixed, the result is amazing.
Such fixed attentions may be described as “body-centric,” “self-centric,” “earth-centric.” “human-centric,” “matter-centric,” “cause-centric,” “universe-centric,” “awareness-centric,” etc. It is eseentially getting fixated on one aspect of a dichotomy. Dianetics was fixated on “survival”. Scientology is fixated on “Cause, static or thetan”.
It is fascinating when exteriorized from the body, but that is just the beginning of an adventure. There is a lot more to come. Try mindfulness. 🙂
I have news for you. The speed of light is not a constant. The speed of light is a function of its frequency. We are simply looking at a very narrow band – the visible band – of the electromagnetic spectrum. A lot more experimentation has yet to be done.
.
Good answer. You got what you deserved. Haha!
The whole talk about “SP-PTS” is simply a justification forwarded by LRH for the failure of his tech. When tech is working there is no need for ethics. To use ethics to put in tech is an altered sequence.
“illusion” is an incorrect translation of the Vedic concept of MAYA. The correct tarnslation is a combination of the ideas of “impermanance” and “relativity.”
This view may have implications for auditing, which, if I am correct, is usually undertaken in pursuit of a sole cause such as a basic trauma or action or decision on a chain of similar events.
Very interesting, My experiences have been so varied, and so have been my perceptions of anything that I sense, including the “I”, that I eventually gave up trying to define things with such precision or certainty.
The closest that I came up, which I sort of feel more comfortable with, is that my experience of the Universe including any sense of self seems to completely change with my state of mind at the moment.
You nailed with the sense of letting go, which as far as I’m concerned is an inseparable part of all of theses experiences.
Crowley and Hubbard got themselves in a pickle trying to will a permanent self into all of this. So we need BALANCE.
Well put.
Somewhere in the comment Vinaire said … as if in passing …
Marty’s blog is becoming an online sangha.
I’ve been thinking about this and indeed it is. We are a group of people who are gathered here in space … something has brought us together and the common denominator is our experience in, around, with, or out or near scientology …
But always with the intention of the person who has gathered this thinly joined group of beings with the aspiration:
Moving on Up.
I’ve not found another place anywhere including many various buddhist centers either the highly “religious” ones or the more “mindful” oriented ones who shares OUR common denominator … LRH
And thus when Marty says:
“Any mind yet somewhat intact after years of adhering to scientology sci-fi mythology as cold, hard reality, still has the potential for seeing through the self-limiting constructs it has been persuaded to abide. ”
Many of us can say — oh boy — you can nailed it. And oh boy – I’m so happy to be alive.
Thanks Vinaire. Got me thinking. Thanks Marty for having a big living room.
Windhorse
+1
Piercing the Middle Way Between Science and Religion: Sam Harris’ first chapter is up on his website in both text and audio.
And it is awesome.
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/chapter-one
Alanzo
Crickets, from the fountain of computations.
I find the following from THE TAO OF PHYSICS very enlightening.
Ground State of Universe – History
.
BRIAN: “This sense of “I” is where it all begins.”
This is not so. To me it is awareness where it all begins. The sense of “I” is an additive.
.
Alanzo,
Pretty cool read. Thanks
Grasshopper,
Exactly. Good insight.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_(illusion)
Effect and cause are written about by Harold Percival in “Thinking and Destiny. Chapter II, pages 28-29″ is one passage where he touches on it;
” Every thing existing on the physical plane is an exteriorization of a thought, which must be balanced through the one who issued the thought, and in accordance with that one’s responsibility, at the conjunction of time, condition and place.
This law of thought is destiny. It has aspects which have been expressed by such terms as kismet, nemesis, karma, fate, fortune, foreordination, predestination, Providence, the Will of God, the law of cause and effect, the law of causation, retribution, punishment and reward, hell and heaven. The law of thought includes all that is in these terms, but it means more than all of them, it means, essentially, that thinking is the basic factor in shaping human destiny.
The law of thought is present everywhere; and is the law to which all other human laws are subservient. There is no deviation from, no exception to, this universal law of thought. It adjusts the mutually interdependent thoughts and plans and acts of the billions of men and women who have died and lived and who will continue to live and die on this earth. Happenings beyond number, some apparently accounted for, some apparently inexplicable, are marshaled to fit into the limiting framework of time and place and causation, facts innumerable, near and far, apposite and contradictory, related and unrelated, are worked into one whole harmonious pattern. It is only by the operation of this law that people exist together on the earth. Not only physical acts and their results are thus ordered; the invisible world in which thoughts originate is likewise adjusted. All this adjustment and universal harmony is brought about by the action of universal forces operating under this law.”
I am sure there are a few readers of this blog who would now ask about these universal forces. The book which is online is free and the author does explain it all. Quite interesting.
It turned out to be much more of a pitch for Buddhism than I expected. There’s even a section in there on Scientology!
Vinaire will be pleased to see Sam’s argument for Vedic Supremacy.
As a fellow Vedic Supremist, Vinaire has been trying to articulate Sam’s argument for as long as I’ve known him.
Looks like it took a Westerner to finally nail it, Vinaire.
Maybe you can cut and paste some of his points on to your website so you and your Vedic Hordes can finally conquer the western world.
Admit it: This has been your covert goal this whole time. You’ve been sent here by your Vedic Masters to undermine The West and usurp The Glory for India.
Alanzo (:>
I have read some people’s (such as Elizabeth’s) descriptions of actually pervading a physical object – being it, in the sense of occupying the same space – and thus being able to perceive every iota of it from the inside out, all at once.
But what you described I think is similar to what I have done – which is basically to “look” at some particular subject of thought in a general way and then “know” about it. Some people might call this tuning into the Akashic record!
I got the phrase ‘knowing something by being it’ from 8-8008, where “object” is defined as “any unit manifestation of energy including matter.” And thoughts themselves are manifestations of energy no different from physical universe energy, just of a higher, finer wavelength.
Whoa boy whoa! Buddhism also says in exssense, that Ethics must be “in”, for Tech to work. The Noble Eightfold Path is a central, integral part of Buddhism, because Buddha did say that a person whose ethics were “out” could not achieve nirvana.
Three of the 8 ‘folds’ of the path are directly concerned with Ethical conduct 1 Right speech
2 Right action
3 Right livelihood
Two others are related, they fall under “wisdom” and are the first 2 listed
1 Right view
2 Right intention
Here’s a synopsis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_Eightfold_Path
Marty is right when he says that in peak experiences, even the sense of self is gone.
Buddhas sense of self is limited to the sense of body only. Mentally, there is to trace of ego (fixed considerations). The only thing fixed is the body as an instrument of use, and there is a limited need to take care of the body and to keep it alive.
.
…Mentally, there is NO trace of ego…
I tend to think ‘peak experiences’ are usually short-lived. I like Wilbur’s idea that there are stages of development and that if the earlier ones are not fully achieved, any experiences of the later or ‘higher’ ones will not be properly integrated by the person. There are many ways to reach a ‘peak experience’.
Many Tibetan and Sufi teachers can induce such an experience in another, but they usually don’t without extensive preparation of the person being induced. Often it is done by a simple physical touch. But the preparation is necessary, and part of being a ‘teacher’ is having the judgement about when is the student ready? Because if the student is not ready, it can be a wasted effort.
Peak experiences can also be induced by drugs, LSD is ‘famous’ for this, but that is a particularly dangerous way to go IMO.
I am with Heraclitus rather than with Parmenides.
“Heraclitus [c. 535 – c. 475] believed in a world of perpetual change, of eternal ‘Becoming’. For him, all static Being was based on deception and his universal principle was fire, a symbol for the continuous flow and change of all things. Heraclitus taught that all changes in the world arise from the dynamic and cyclic interplay of opposites and he saw any pair of opposites as a unity. This unity, which contains and transcends all opposing forces, he called the Logos….
“A drastic step in this direction was taken by Parmenides of Elea [c. 515/540 -c. 450] who was in strong opposition to Heraclitus. He called his basic principle the Being and held that it was unique and invariable. He considered change to be impossible and regarded the changes we seem to perceive in the world as mere illusions of the senses. The concept of an indestructible substance as the subject of varying properties grew out of this philosophy and became one of the fundamental concepts of Western thought.”
Hubbard and Crowley went the way of Parmenides.
I find the following observation very interesting.
“Attention is aberrated by becoming unfixed and sweeping at random or becoming too fixed without sweeping.” ~ L. Ron Hubbard
Attention helps us become aware of things. Normally we can freely direct our attention and put it wherever we want. But when we cannot do so, something is obviously amiss. This gives us a valuable tool for discovery.
Pursue non-optimum attention to discover what is amiss.
In KHTK,
INCONSISTENCY = Something that fixates or disperses one’s attention.
So any inconsistency (non-optimum attention) is a target for “auditing” in KHTK..
Back in the 1960s, in Berkeley CA, I met several people involved with SUBUD, which involved the practice of ‘the latihan’, a way of inducing a peak experience. I did not try this particular ‘way’, but had it, and the specific experience, described to me. I believe Subud still exists. Bu the practice of ‘latihan’ is more wisespread, in southeast Asia in particular. The word itself is Malay.
http://en.wikipediaorg/wiki/Latihan
Good explanation.
For me the speed of light goes in bin 3 or 4 in the absence of better experimental data.
.
Robbie Basho was a true master of the steel string guitar, both 6 and 12 string. He studied with Ali Akbar Khan, a master of the Indian sarod, a lute-like instrument.
This song is about the dangers of LSD induced peak experiences. Here is what he said on the liner notes:
-Song of the Snowy Ranges
“Definition of a bummer – too much too soon
Definition of acid – Karmic Cosmetics
Bringum-back-alive-Basho’s contribution to the ant-acid campaign. Better to wait 3 years for a good thing than to push it and get “jammed”.
From beneath icy pinecones,
The breath of peace.”
ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaWgs7aZsPE
Listen my son to what I tell you,
I who hold the Reins of Time.
The passageways are dark and narrow,
The Snowy Ranges hard to climb.
High Himalayas she’s an icy stallion
Warmed by the blood of men who love to ride
But do not mount her, till you are ready,
Or be like me and sorely tried.
The bride of Christ, she’s too hot to handle
Like fire through the fingertips.
A ruby sword, a golden pommel,
The Queen of Death pressed to the lips.
Down in the valley the bulls have assembled
White tusks gleaming in the night.
A grave before them, bones of desire
For I have long since taken flight.
As I lay sitting in the sunlight,
My wounds do slowly, slowly heal.
The Royal Nights, the Golden Lanterns
The mountain horns around me peel.
High Himalayas she’s an icy stallion
Warmed by the blood of men who love to ride
But do not mount her, till you are ready,
Or be like me and sorely tried.
And then will you parse it down for me?
The only part I understand the The Tao of Physics. Read that book in college, I think.
This and your later comment about lsd are very relevant to scientology.
This is stated pretty well and clearly, it seems to me.
There is no RPF, heavy ethics, and interminable sec checks in Buddhism.
Scientology ethics is not the same as Buddhist ethics. Just because the same word “ethics” is being used, it doesn’t mean it is really ethics that Scientology is doing with “PTS-SP” tech. It is screwed up tech. It is Hubbard squirreling.
Isn’t it possible ‘I’ can’t be unless I am ‘we’?
From the following link: http://www.zengardner.com/ubuntu/
“Africans have a thing called ubuntu. It is about the essence of being human, it is part of the gift that Africa will give the world. It embraces hospitality, caring about others, being willing to go the extra mile for the sake of another. We believe that a person is a person through other persons, that my humanity is caught up, bound up, inextricably, with yours. When I dehumanize you, I inexorably dehumanize myself. The solitary human being is a contradiction in terms. Therefore you seek to work for the common good because your humanity comes into its own in community, in belonging.” — Archbishop Desmond Tutu
NOTE: Ubuntu (oo-boon-too, n.) means, “I am because we are.” Ubuntu is a Zulu or Xhosa word, and a traditional African concept. It’s a term for humaneness, for caring, sharing and being in harmony with all of creation.
I should add though that that viewpoint, philosophy fails in one respect.
Namely, how does the individual and or “We” deal with the obvious and confirmed ‘Sociopath’ as Martha Stout and some others describe?
Isn’t that what ‘we’ as humans have faced since time immemorial?
An acute minority, Sociopaths…..
Are there degrees of this syndrome? Thus, isn’t it possible that LRH was dramatizing this to a degree?
Then again I should add that perhaps the concepts in your essay Marty find the essential flaws within some core western thoughts and conclusions!
Valkov wrote:
“Whoa boy whoa! Buddhism also says in exssense, that Ethics must be “in”, for Tech to work. The Noble Eightfold Path is a central, integral part of Buddhism, because Buddha did say that a person whose ethics were “out” could not achieve nirvana.”
The purpose of the application of Buddhist ethics is to alleviate suffering, not to attain Clear and OT.
You are doing it again.
Alanzo
Good point.
There simply MUST be a pony in there somewhere.
[Sarcasm alert]
Oh…oh…me…me!
That’s what I want.
More of what RON says!
It is always so illuminating.
Double, nay, Triple LOL ! You nailed it Al !
OOOPs – cut of the front end of the link. Let’s see if I get it right. This song still gives me scary chills:
Thanks. I agree. Ron found ways to create peak experiences rapidly. To his credit he did recognize there could be problems with individuals “going up the pole”, but gives it scant mention that I know of. But all the ‘undercuts’ he worked out trying to create “The Bridge” could be considered as addressing the problems with it.
I had tried LSD.
Then, years later, I got a peak experience the “legitimate way”, by working hard over a long period of time – I did the 2 “Zero” TRs for probably hundreds of hours to eventually achieve the ‘major stable win’ experience. It was worth it. I have retained that to a large extent. After an LSD trip you come down a few hours later, and may be worse off than you were before. I think most people would be worse off.
Abraham Maslow studied peak experiences and the states of mind of the people experiencing them. His first book was “Towards a Psychology of Being” and is still relevent today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Maslow
damn right it’s interesting Vinaire.
Maybe “attention” is the wrong word in hubbards statement.
Don’t know the correct word.
But I do know Hubbard sure as hell fixed our attention onto and only scientology and his lectures & HCO PL’s & HCOB’s. That is quite evident with KSW and his course room known as a academy. We only studied Hubbardology. And we were not allowed to compare notes between ourselves nor with “other practices”. LOL at myself.
Anybody notice KSW, PTS/SP tech, and other such mind keeping attention fixed on source, came out about the same time?
And refined as time marched on?
BRIAN: Then the cause for action comes from a more spontaneous intuitive deep place insted of “I want” ” I am.”
In my opinion, a “cause” is made up of a summation of various vectors in a scene.
.
BRIAN: It is also interesting when the sense of “I” dissolves, any conflict with “others” dissolves. That is because the sense of “you” arrives only after the sense if “I” is conceptualizer.
This wonderful process is so beautifully revealed in marriage. My wife and I can dissolve conflicts now almost instantaneously.
Another result in the dissolution of “I me mine” is a return of childlike wonder for life.
That is wonderful. 🙂
.
Childlike wonder is the result of awareness that is accompanied by simple mindfulness.
BRIAN: On the other hand, there is nothing wrong with having that sense of “I” as long as it is not taken so seriously.
“I” is just a mental object. You look at it just as you look at any other object.
.
BRIAN: Neti Neti means: not this not that. Our true natures are not the roles we play not the objects in the play. We are Spirit, ever free, ever joyous, ever conscious, ever existing- Sat-chit-ananda.
Neti, Neti means that we are not any consideration… not even the consideration of Spirit.
.
I will look for The Tao of Physics for Dummies for myself outraged. And until I totally ( well not totally ) understand this thread I will lurk,
I took a course on Non Western Religion in college in the 70s. I love to be interested in various subjects.
That said connections between Eastern philosophy and modern physics just isn’t a passion for me. But I will keep an open mind. Maybe I can learn something through osmosis.
I was responding to a post someone made using your handle, which categorically stated that- “When tech is working there is no need for ethics. To use ethics to put in tech is an altered sequence.”
Buddha taught that his tech would not work for a person who was not “ethical” and he went on tho enumerate the 8-fold Path, which includes several points of necessary ethical behaviors. You can go ahead and define ‘ethics’ however you wish, but the fact is in both cases, no matter how different they may be in their specifics, they are both referring to considertions of “right” and “wrong” conduct.
Nya nya.
And those specific points of ‘ethical conduct’ in the 8-fold Path, when combined with being a member of a ‘sangha’ are kinda like a continuous ‘sec check’ one is living under the yoke(yoga) of, to help keep one on the straight and narrow of the Path.
That may be true, but I am not translating it from the Vedic concept. I mean it as it means in English which is: Appears to be, but is not.
I am glad you like the idea, Windhorse. 🙂
While Western culture is busy degrading India, it behooves India to strike at the center of that corruption with Vedic knowledge.
Well said. I think the question of how subjective selves come into being is very fruitful. There was the theory that selfhood is illusion and we are all one; there was a theory about lots of eternal individual spirits. The truth might be something different to both.
Could it be that a sense of “I” arises from opposed postulates? If one being cannot hold both postulates simultaneously, there would be a division into self and not-self. The field of not-self can then be subdivided into objects and other beings known as “you”. Resolving the postulate opposition would resolve the boundary of a self.
Thank you Vinnie. I did. Karma fascinates me.
+1 for that evocative description of exteriorization! Reminds me of when I discovered that I could get impressions of texture and mass on almost anything that I could contact by sight. Or walking down a street and feeling the 3-dimensional volume of buildings on the other side.
Space might be considered as an ‘experiential’ or ‘phenomenological’ aspect of beingness. Space doesn’t have to be the gulf separating a tiny individual from the rest of the world. It can also be the individual’s beingness embracing that world.
Sorry, but being punched is being punced. It is not an illusion.
One may try to justify it as an illusion in their mind.
I guess you missed that one all important word in my post – ENTERTAINING.
(sarcasm alert 🙂 )
I remember LRH saying that when tech is working there is no need for ethics. But it is not pertinent whether he said that or not.
What is pertinent is that when tech is working, ethics is obviously in. Therefore, there is no need to apply ethics. The person is behaving ethically on his own accord.
One uses ethics to put in ethics. One does not use ethics to put in tech. When a pc is sent to ethics because tech is not working on him, then it is a failure of tech. Sending him to ethics is an unusual solution.
Hope you understand what I am saying.
I know you are, Al. (Doing it again). Don’t make me sorry I called you a good guy.
Or go ahead and do so. If you still need motivators, I guess. But I do think you have been too hard on yourself for all those overts you committed while in Scientology. One is always one’s own harshest critic, isn’t one?
There are no sec-checks in Buddhism. A monk is keeping his ethics in on his own accord. If a person is unable to follow the rules of the sangha he is simply let go.
Yes, Hubbard was the biggest squirrel.
.
What if the Hokey Pokey really is What It is All About?
You left out “joking”. We aren’t simply ‘degrading’ India, we are joking about India too.
Well, Tutu is quoted as saying “Therefore you seek to work for the COMMON good…….” So we get into th e area of ‘ethical philosophy’, which of course has never resolved how to determine what is “the common good”, although many attempts have been made through the ages…..
So I guess we need to deal sufficiently with proven sociopaths in ways that are the most clearly ‘for the common good’. That has proven to be a slippery slope many times. Uncountable times, to my view.
This could keep you busy for awhile. ALL ABOUT KARMA, Have I read it? No. But looks like a good reference.
http://books.google.com/books?id=4WZTj3M71y0C&pg=PP2&lpg=PP2&dq=karma+derivation&source=bl&ots=jdagBJeAel&sig=0df1jptN3itpygle1HKKPhkyde4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Rcv6U-noGcSsyASjwIGIDQ&ved=0CEsQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=karma%20derivation&f=false
In my opinion, Hubbard’s description of infinity-valued logic is more inclusive of different realities and offers more potential for predicting realities than 1, 2, 3, and 4 valued logic. This frame of reverence seems to allow for more degrees of “certainty” as to what is “true” and what is “not true”, always leaves open the possibility of further observation, and allows more tolerance for truth existing in different points of view.
This is not to say that very many Scientologists actually practice infinity-valued logic, including in many, many cases, LRH in his own writings.
Vin, here’s something for you to contemplate since you are an engineer and have considerations about absolutes and consistency – all three of which are mentioned in this lecture.transcript excerpt. You and FOTF2012 both may change your minds about scientology being “entirely lacking in taking into account meaning and context.” Here is a different definition of truth than the one FOTF2012 referred to – which I believe was used in another context.
———————————–
“…very funny thing about the whole deal is, is that the engineer cannot obtain an absolute anywhere. And the harder he works, he just can’t obtain an absolute. He’s almost there, on any one of his natural laws, but not quite.
“Fortunately, there is never a hundred percent agreement. There’s always a hole in the natural law. There’s always a hole in the atom, always a hole in the structure. Uh… he starts into the actual complexity of this matter, and does he become complexed. He is complicated beyond measure because its consistency and so forth keeps shifting under his hands as he examines it. Now he… he becomes very puzzled after a while.
“You know, it’s a strange thing that the search after truth, then, could lead some men to disaster and some to glory.
“It could lead uh… Newton into great renown. It could lead Hegel into disrepute. It could lead uh… Lenin into an early tomb. They’re all going after what? Different kinds of a datum.
“A truth is something which would exist without much contest, something which is triumphant. A champion who stands up after a battle with bloodied shield and sword and yet has won is himself truth in the force universe. A datum which itself sweeps all data before it, in another universe, is truth. It is that which works. And that which works most broadly to that which it is applied.
“Don’t have pity upon some of your preclears who are still scrambling in some direction and haven’t ever classified the field of truth in which they’re searching for the truth. Some are searching for it in the MEST universe, and some are searching for it out in the stars, and some are searching for it in their own hearts, and others are searching for it in the lives of great men. And sure enough, they will, every one of them, find a truth. And all they need to do to find the ultimate truth, is simply find the winning truth by which all other truths proceed in that field.” (PDC-19 AXIOMS AND LOGICS FURTHER DATA)
“This sense of “I” is where it all begins. Part of my practice for some time now is simply watching this sense arise.
It is so interesting to observe. And so liberating to not attach oneself to it when it arises.”
Who is not attaching and is thus liberated?
Cause and effect in the physical universe are simple to explain.
Cause = energy source. Effect = energy receive.
Energy is difference in speed. Something A has speed X and Something B has speed Y. Speed X is not equal to Y.
Effect is caused by Something A with speed X (faster than Y) encounters something B with speed Y. Thus the phenomenon of energy can be observed.
As cause depends only on point of view cause can be assigned to the faster moving something or to the slower moving something.
The sentence “Cause = energy source…” is also wrong. As Cause and Effect points are emanating and receiving energy at the same time.
As we can see now the physical universe does not know the difference between cause and effect.
We observe collision of fast or big something with slow or small something and see that the course of the slow or small something is changing more. Thus we say fast or big is cause. Therefore fast or big is win. But the small or slow side can also consider it as win as the course of the big or fast something had changed too.
Lose is when A and B are equal. Therefore we have as urge to be different.
Dear Vinaire,
To be precise, I will quote the above book:
“As science has discovered, matter is densified energy vibrating at a specific rate. Every aspect of the universe is made up of energy. In Earth technology, it has not yet been discovered how to measure certain portions of reality. If technology possessed the ability, an infinite number of gateways into time, space and dimensions would be seen For the time being, the seven frequency levels that Earth’s galactic family fragmented into by passing through the Prism of Lyra will be explored below. From this point forward, the term “density” will be used to refer to these frequency levels.”
And here is a brief description of the seven densitites, as described in the book:
FIRST DENSITY — Awareness as a point. Physical matter.
SECOND DENSITY — Awareness as a line. Biological matter; development of group or species identity.
THIRD DENSITY — Volumeric awareness; Ego; Loss of group identity, development of individual identity; ability to remember past and cognize the future, while retaining present awareness.
FOURTH DENSITY — Containment of volumeric awareness; superconsciousness; reintegration of group identity without loss of ego identity; as vibration increases, perception of past, present and future become more fluid, along with the ability to interface with multidimensional and multidensity realities; negatively oriented consciousness becomes more difficult to maintain.
FIFTH DENSITY — Experiential awareness of “I”, as a group identity; not bound by linear time.
SIXTH DENSITY — Awareness as the dimension itself.
SEVENTH DENSITY — Awareness as the multidimensional experience; group-matrix identity (Social Memory Complex).
Definitions:
Density — density denotes a vibrational frequency and not a location, which the term dimension implies. The density structure of this reality is primarily expressed in seven levels, though each level has sublevels within it. The density scale is a model used to communicate one’s perception of orientation in relation to other realities.
Ego– Ego is the “I” or self, as distinguished from the selves of others. It is that part of the psyche that is conscious in physical reality and acts as the mediator between inner and outer worlds.
Frequency — Matter is vibrating energy. Different vibratory rates denote the property of matter. Frequency is the rate at which molecules or consciousness vibrate.
Galactic Family — The galactic family is the group of extraterrestrial beings (physical and nonphysical) who are interrelated energetically and/or physically with Earth’s development.
Prism of Lyra — This is the archetypical idea of the entrance of consciousness into this reality. For Earth’s galactic family, the entrance point exists within the Lyran system. As consciousness/energy emerged, it fragmented into seven density frequencies, much as a prism would fragment light into seven visible colors.
Social Memory Complex — this term refers to a mass consciousness or a nonphysical group-matrix identity that has evolved from a physical society.
————–
In other books on the subject, there are mentioned others densities above number seven — it appears there are 12 in total.
Hope this answers your question.
Flav.
Before wondering about how a sense of “I” arises, one should consider how the sense of any “form” arises. “I” is simply a type of form with certain properties..
From Beingness, Viewpoint and Reality
Beingness is “existing-ness.” A phenomenon exists as a spiritual essence and a physical form. The spiritual and physical aspects go together. They cannot be separated as some absolutes. A spiritual state will have physical form, no matter how subtle. And a physical state will have some spiritual characteristics, no matter how subdued.
Thus, an atom has a configuration and certain properties that express its essence. Both of these physical and spiritual aspects go together to make up the beingness of an atom.
Beingness is inclusive of both form and essence.
.
And the rules of a Sangha are rational and well-defined unlike the rules in Scientology which keep on changing like the flavor of the month.
.
No, Valkov is not doing it again. He is simply ignorant. May God forgive him. 🙂
That’s not true, we are not just looking at the visible band. There are X Rays, U.V., I.R. (infra red) and radio waves. They have all been confirmed to propagate at the same rate in vacuum. Any one that can prove experimentally that this is not the case is likely to get the Nobel Prize. Anyone that can dis prove the steadiness of the speed of light is likely to get a Nobel prize. Everything can be measured. Saying the “speed of light is not a function of it’s frequency” is a very vague generality. If it was the function of the frequency wouldn’t it propagate at different rates ? After all, there are orders of magnitude (scientific nomenclature here) of difference in frequencies between the experimentally measured propagation of various electromagnetic waves.
Sorry, I quoted you wrong. Typo. I meant to say, “The speed of light is a function of its frequency” is a very vague generality . Not, ” Saying the “speed of light is not a function of it’s frequency” is a very vague generality.”
Val, Baby knows more about you than you do about yourself from crossing your path on an Internet Forum. Baby doesn’t have to walk a mile in your shoes, sit an hour in your seat, live a minute of your life or sleep an hour in your bed to know what is right and wrong for you. Baby only needs to walk a mile in Baby’s shoes to know what is right for the entire world. Why can’t you just surrender to that? Entire ownership of your life to someone who put them self in your path on the Internet? Thousands of people all over the planet do it every day. Why can’t you?
Key word recommendations for research. . Speed of light. One way speed of light. Two way speed of light.
Oh, I see you wrote “For me” to distance yourself from current scientific results.
I can’t argue with that. “For me” , speed of light is only about the planets going around stars and moons, that emanate light. Is it the light, or the planet’s motion that we measure? That is an important variable. If I cared to engorge my analytical mind .
And the value? Most people just want to know when they flip the light switch in the bathroom can they find the fucking toilet paper?
Didn’t you just post this? “There is neither an “absolute truth” nor and “absolute falsity”. There is only relative truth and relative falsity.”
Karma is when you hang around to be the effect of your own create. In order to escape it one must have no trace of narcissism. Where did that come from? Me. All of your set backs only come from you. People are only the effect of themselves in this universe. That is my understanding. I am sure it does not align with any one else’s. And why should it? That wouldn’t make sense either would it? Because we live in a world where people are totally certain, “What is true for you, is true for me. and what is true for me , is true for you.” And that in itself is narcissistic.
From the link provided by Alanzo:
Despite the imponderables in her philosophy, Blavatsky was among the first people to announce in Western circles that there was such a thing as the “wisdom of the East.” This wisdom began to trickle westward once Swami Vivekananda introduced the teachings of Vedanta at the World Parliament of Religions in Chicago in 1893. Again, Buddhism lagged behind: A few Western monks living on the island of Sri Lanka were beginning to translate the Pali Canon, which remains the most authoritative record of the teachings of the historical Buddha, Siddhartha Gautama. However, the practice of Buddhist meditation wouldn’t actually be taught in the West for another half century.
Let me now say that like masses of ignorant Scientologists in the Church of Scientology, there are masses of ignorant Hindus in India. Ignorance is not something copyrighted in Scientology only. It is universal as made very popular during the Dark Ages.
True Hinduism can be found among educated Hindus though, who are open to knowledge anywhere.
.
Infotainment has some value among thrill seekers.
For he knows not what he does….
Thank you Flavp. The sequence of these densities in reverse seems to parallel the DISTUBANCE LEVELS in KHTK. Please see the graph here.
The Nature of Form
.
What is “me” or “I”? That very concept speaks of a fixation.
I’m just pointing out to you, Valkov, that you are seeing Scientology when you are studying Buddhism again.That completely wrong statement you made about Buddhist ethics is total proof of it.
I know that LRH told you that Scientology was a “cousin to Buddhism”, and that he also mimicked Buddhism in many ways to deceive and to attract Buddhist followers to Scientology. He mimicked Christianity with the cross and talked about how Jesus was a “natural Clear” and all kinds of other tricks. It was all part of his con to make money from Scientology.
He even said “When you address me, you address Lord Buddha”.
Eyeroll.
So believing what Ron told you, I can understand why you would think that Buddhism was actually Scientology while you are studying it. I’ll bet you even skip over parts in Buddhist texts because you feel you have “already studied that part before in Scientology.”
But when you do that, you are missing very important lessons in Buddhism that have absolutely nothing to do with Scientology. To a Scientologist, these Buddhist lessons are a COMPLETELY NEW and DIFFERENT of SPIRITUALITY. And when you place a Scientology understanding over a Buddhist passage, you are not getting what the Buddhism is actually saying.
I worry for you, Val. You have been totally snookered by L Ron Hubbard and you are continuing that snookering right on in to your subsequent studies of things.
It really isn’t my problem. It is all your problem. I’m not really even worried that you will “squirrel” Buddhism and pass on your squirreling to others, and thus, snuff out the subject and lead others into the sticky dark, alone.
I’d just hate to see you continue to trap yourself with the mental traps that LRH gave you.
Step on out of the trap of thinking with Scientology, Valkov. There’s a big wide world out here.
Alanzo
CORRECTION: To a Scientologist, these Buddhist lessons are a COMPLETELY NEW and DIFFERENT KIND of SPIRITUALITY.
FLAVP: “As science has discovered, matter is densified energy vibrating at a specific rate. Every aspect of the universe is made up of energy. In Earth technology, it has not yet been discovered how to measure certain portions of reality. If technology possessed the ability, an infinite number of gateways into time, space and dimensions would be seen For the time being, the seven frequency levels that Earth’s galactic family fragmented into by passing through the Prism of Lyra will be explored below. From this point forward, the term “density” will be used to refer to these frequency levels.”
Yes, I believe that inertia and density increase with frequency of electromagnetic disturbance. I have presented these as disturbance levels. The prism of Lyra is just a metaphor. How these disturbance levels increase are described in the following essay.
The Nature of Form
.
FLAVP: “FIRST DENSITY — Awareness as a point. Physical matter.
SECOND DENSITY — Awareness as a line. Biological matter; development of group or species identity.
THIRD DENSITY — Volumeric awareness; Ego; Loss of group identity, development of individual identity; ability to remember past and cognize the future, while retaining present awareness.”
Straight increase in frequency of an electromagnetic wave shall ultimately lead to formation of electrons, protons, neutrons and atom.
As these atoms interact with each other, more complex molecules are formed until macromolecules, such as, DNA are formed. These macromolecules have enough number of electrons to act as micro computers. This is the basis of life.
As life units are formed, there overall property becomes the ego. Ego is the final summation of all the vectors generated by all the microcomputers in a body that are designed to direct the body..
.
Val.. I am in total agreement with Vinnie and Alonzo.
I deal with simplicity as you know. The old KSS method ( Keep it simple stupid) and please note I am NOT calling you stupid.
Ethics for me is What is right and wrong? I was raised that way. It was the moral teachings of my family. I’m not saying we excelled I am just saying this is the way I was raised.
The traits that I observe in those of high ethical standards are honesty, compassion, generosity, fairness to name a few.
That is what those in the real world believe. The ones that aren’t going by Hubbard ‘s made up definition.
Ethics as described by Hubbard is based on Stats. A High Staff person can get away with any infraction without a blink from Ethics.
The entire Scientology organization is set up to be extremely unethical.
To begin with Marty has already explained how Scientologists are trained to lie.
FLAVP: “FOURTH DENSITY — Containment of volumeric awareness; superconsciousness; reintegration of group identity without loss of ego identity; as vibration increases, perception of past, present and future become more fluid, along with the ability to interface with multidimensional and multidensity realities; negatively oriented consciousness becomes more difficult to maintain.”
This seems to be talking about transcendence beyond the individual ego. This does not happen when awareness gets introverted upon itself and gets into a figure-figure loop. This is essentially what the “awareness of awareness” is. An animal, who is simply aware, does not have this introversion loop. Man will fare better if he is simply aware and out of the “awareness of awareness” loop.
The “awareness of awareness” loop is useful for higher intelligence only in the absence of inconsistencies as defined below.
Inconsistency in KHTK
.
Very good question! 🙂
It the liberation from “who” itself. Haha!
Oh Great Observation Oracle! Thank you for recognizing my greatest strength.
Theo, this is Marty’s blog. I think people read here because they want to know what Marty has to say. You constantly imply that Marty doesn’t deserve to have any say. Somehow your Identity as a Scientologist puts you in a position to discount the value of others.
If people want to know what Hubbard has to say, they would be reading his books instead of reading Marty’s blog. People read here because they want to know what Marty has to say.
You clearly are not curious about what Marty has to say. So why are you reading what Marty has to say?
I read what Hubbard has to say often. I read what Marty has to say, often. I read what Marty has to say and while I have read it, I have managed to get myself and four other people up the bridge. Because of what Marty has had to say. And in spite of some of, your “standard tech” siblings.
You only read what Hubbard has to say and you have not managed to move on the bridge at all. In spite of the fact that I once offered to send someone to Greece to audit you, or to fly you to Texas to get audited by Marty.
I think it is you Theo, that is oversimplifying things. You think as long as you keep some blinders on and “have faith”, you are going somewhere when you are not. I think since you can’t get yourself GOING, you think the best you can do is STOP.
You are the one in a doubt condition, if you think anyone can discount what you know to be true. If you didn’t think Marty was a threat, you wouldn’t be trying to stop him. And Either would David Miscavige and the other fanatics. It is YOU people that are in doubt. It is YOU people that are afraid to take off the blinders. Afraid some reality adjustment will take away from all you know, instead of adding to it.
Yet you come here or go to his home or go to his friends or create enemy camps and publicize “security”. And Marty’s failures to live up to some standard because you can’t think out of the box or think with YOUR OWN MIND. You think it must be either his or Hubbard’s. It doesn’t occur to you to think with your OWN. To respond to his post you have send a Hubbard tape reference.
I understand it is working out best for you to think with someone else’s mind.
But Marty wants to think with his own and so do other people. That is supposed to be a product of an enlightened person. Even by Hubbard’s standards. Yet is pisses you and a lot of other people off when someone reaches that state.
It is you people that fail Scientology. Not Marty, not me, not us. You are still living on borrowed mind. We prefer to stand on our own.
Excerpt from “The builders and Large Common Universes. MNR
.”…….the games universes era. (Possibly the longest era of our past existence. A time when systems of MEST were designed and built by individuals and groups for entertainment (games) and aesthetics (galleries).) An explosion of creativity and diversity lasting for, well, almost forever. Interaction and activity galore. Every kind of existence you and the rest of us could imagine. An interactive carnival of varying systems of existence the likes of which make the large common universes of late seem mundane in the extreme.
But like an oppressive teacher in a 19th century British classroom, a few decided that what was needed, what was correct, was a completely controlled, extremely ordered, nice and quiet environment. The thought that anyone or any group could build their own universe with whatever rules they wished, and invite friends or even passersby to come and play or even add to the creativity, just wouldn’t do. We can’t have that.
So they built ever larger and more orderly spaces with ever stricter rules. They told us it was more “fair” for everyone. No more confusion. No more having to learn new rules as you went from one space to the next. Made sense at the time. And you were coerced and tricked, and eventually punished into believing that this was the way to go, the right thing to do. And a few, armed with a knowledge of considerations, opinions, desires, fears that most of us had built up and forgotten during our past, carefully guided us into these traps, convinced this was the best way to go.
The large common universes, like this one.
But that wasn’t their only intent, to make life better for us all. They “knew” they were smarter and superior to the rest of us and it was up to them to decide how things were going to be. And THEY should be in charge. The average guy wasn’t worthy. Only they had the wisdom and ability to control everything. And as a bonus, they would be respected, revered, feared and looked upon as, dare we say it, Gods. The Masters of the Universe. Total communism on a scale difficult to even comprehend.
Not only that, we were carefully and cleverly dumbed down to a point where this all seemed acceptable to us. We would squabble and argue over the nature of a photon while they would laugh and pass judgment over our activities, for our own (and especially their own) good…….”
MEST universe “truth” is an invented thing which is then promoted for a particular purpose of the inventor. Even the most basic truths of life and spirituality have an origin for a purpose, and are subject to change.
My observations.
Mark
Brian. That was so heartfelt. I absolutely agree with you. I had tears in my eyes for you being so real with your feelings. I try to live my life the way you have written it. It is truly liberating.
Thank you Vinaire for your spirited response.
Excerpt from Relativity and Frequency. MNR
“……In any space, whether physical or mental, for interaction to occur, there has to be common ground, common rules, a common environment. If we want to play pitch, distance has to be the same for you as for me. The width of the ball, the speed of flight etc. must be understood and common to all. Otherwise there is confusion, inconsistency, NO GAME. If every time you threw the ball it traveled 50mph and every time your friend threw the ball and it traveled 1000mph, you would of course say “Screw this, I’ll go someplace else to play.” (An actual incident.)
The speed of light is one of the most basic laws of the universe which make up this common ground. That is well understood. It is fast enough that in normal interaction it is instant. When all things in a closed environment operate at a pace that does not approach this speed, there is no problem with their interactions. Go left, go right, go forward, backward, no difference in operations. EVERYTHING IS FAIR FOR ALL. This is fine for a small space.
But when spaces became large, very large, and relative motions became so great at large distances, this rule of the speed of light based on the entire space did not work. The larger the space, the more it became skewed from one side to the next. For gravity to work on a large scale, constant velocities had to be great, great enough that the change in the speed of light from one direction compared to the other was noticeable. (This relates to orbits around stars and galaxies. As orbiting bodies come toward and then away from any agreed upon ‘center‘ of the universe, light and motion would be skewed according to that difference.) In an effort to build larger universes where more and more people could play, so that the builders could have more power and control over larger groups and environments, there had to be a solution. (This point would be an entire set of OT levels on its own.)
The solution was simple, it solved several problems, and caused only a few others. Do away with the notion of motion being relative to the entire space and make it an individual thing. Make it so that the law works the same for your immediate environment, no matter where in the universe you are or how it is moving compared to the universe as a whole. THIS ALLOWED FOR INFINITE EXPANSION. There were a few details to work out but it worked perfectly as long as you kept your viewpoint relatively small. ANOTHER IMPORTANT FACTOR IN THIS DESIGN.
But there had to be some common control mechanism for this law of the land, this basic construct. And that was vibration, frequency, wavelength. But wait, frequency is a measure of time, not speed. WEEELLLLL, we’ll just kill 2 birds with one stone. Anything moving at a certain speed and vibrating a certain speed will travel a certain distance with each oscillation. Wavelength. Time and space tied together. Space-time. And we had a lot of experience with frequencies. It had long been used as the most common method of communication between individuals in a physical space. Give every basic particle a certain emotion (frequency) that is recognizable to all that will orient everyone to the space they are in.
We will do this by making all basic particles have a constant velocity of ‘C’. (Speed of light.) (This comes from the theory that all basic particles Must Always be in motion at ‘C’ in one manner or another.) Different particles will have different frequencies. Particles vibrating at lower freqs. will travel farther between oscillations and will be larger. This will give them different properties. Massive particles will vibrate in 3 dimensions. Mass-less particles will vibrate in 1 dimension and, when released, travel in a straight line at ‘C’. Massive particles traveling at speeds relative to the observer will have their wavelengths stretched out due to the greater total distance traveled, left to right, between oscillations. This will lower the apparent freq. to the stationary observer. But to the observer traveling at speed, the distance between oscillations remains the same, and he orients his time reference to particle vibrations in his space.
Oh, a few problems would pop up such as machines that operated beyond the normal rates of experience. Different lights bending at different angles, but these were minor and actually became interesting and useful. Several things were accomplished. Space and time worked the same no matter where you were since your operating rules were based on your viewpoint. Peoples viewpoint was kept small, since things got skewed over vast distances. Peoples operating speed was kept slow since things became confusing at extreme speeds. The laws of MEST were complicated enough so that the average guy couldn’t really get a handle on it. Only the builders could “Know” how things really worked. Keep everyone happy, keep everyone in his place, keep all a little bit confused. Keep them under control and believing that you are the smartest guy around, the boss. GOD. A near perfect system…….”
Vibration and speed are the two constructs which orient one to the space he is in and allow him to interact smoothly with others.
Mark
I can’t do it because it doesn’t roll me over.
Vin:
“As these atoms interact with each other, more complex molecules are formed until macromolecules, such as, DNA are formed. These macromolecules have enough number of electrons to act as micro computers. This is the basis of life.”
Mark:
A completely MEST centric philosophy.
I don’t disagree with that.
However I am referring to Ethics in its fundamental definitions, not as it evolved in the CoS or was estblished for the Sea Org. Especially the Sea Org, I guess, would be a very special case. They act like Police who feel they are above the laws.
It appears to be a fact that although the US keeps a complete and detailed data base of crimes committed nationwide, they keep NO stats(available to the public) regarding how many people are shot and killed by police every day, week, month, and year. It is a substantial number. Is that “ethical”?
I mention this because Al in particular seems to counter-post to me that it is not possible to compare ethical systems, and I don’t agree. I argue that ethical philosophies do have some commonalities, similarities and differences. Ethics is basically an attempt to discover universals for deciding upon right conduct. And that is the bottom line for Communist ethics, Republican ethics, Hindu ethics, Scientology ethics, Buddhist ethics, Mafia ethics, etc. What is right conduct?
Expelled? Disconnected? Excommunicated? Terminated?
I do indeed. The McMaster materials on dealing with so-called PTSness make it especially clear. The tech was available but not used by LRH.
Yes. That’s what I mean by’pervading’.
“World without end, amen….” Let us pray.
The Swedes, who used to be among the fierce people known as Vikings, were at some point in their history Christianized. I don’t know if this is derived from that, but now they have a saying that guides their social behavior: “The nail that sticks up gets hammered down.”
I wonder if the Hindus have something similar?
“Ethics as described by Hubbard is based on Stats.”
This is not my basis.
Ethics is better described as “rationality towards thegreatest good for the greatest number of dynamics”, the dynamics being understood as divisions of “everything existing”, the entire universe, in other words. In fact I think there are probably a lot more ‘dynamics’ than the original 7 or 8 that LRon expounded upon. The original 4 as in Dianetics, comprise the human world.
Stats don’t have much to do with it, unless you are counting stats like “tons of carbon pollution discharged into the atmosphere” by some industries. Even if it is producing the electricity for you to watch your TV, run your laptop and microwave oven etc, it may be doing more harm than good if it is causing more deaths of elders and babies, more asthma, meltin gof theice caps and so on.
That is what Ethics is all about, and it was originally defined that way by LRH. If he departed from working things out that way, that is not my problem, I don’t have to depart with him from the meaningful defintion of it and follow him into some abyss of unethical behavior, as some think he did go. Whether he did or not is irrelevant to how I use the basic concepts I am talking about, except as an example of how to not do things.
Hi Miss Oracle.
I have been noticing lately, that there are several different forms of agreement. Thought you might be interested.
There is one on one agreement. Sometimes called personal interaction. You think it is fun to go to a bar, have a few drinks and chat with friends. Your spouse thinks that it is fun to go to a bar……. Agreement. I like to tension a motor drive belt to 240 lbs., my co worker tensions his drive belts to 240 lbs. You chat at 42 decibels, your sister chats at 45 decibels, close enough. Agreement.
Then there is group agreement. Social mores and culture. Wear shirt, pants and shoes in public. Smile when you speak to strangers, decorate your yard with azaleas and trees.
Then there is authority. Drive on the right side of the road. Pay your taxes, don’t dump trash in the ditch, don’t steal. Even so far as breath air or the body quits working or space must be traveled to get from one place to another.
But authority goes much deeper and even extends into the basic operating rules of MEST and personal interaction. I have been looking at this for some time. Authority is both desired by and then detested by an individual. You WANT to be a member of a group so you SUBMIT to the operating rules and mores of the group and environment. You also want OTHERS to submit to the rules, so authority is desired, but it restricts yourself so it is, again, a suppressor.
Authority can be a method of bringing order without the hassle of every member of the group being responsible for every other member. It relieves individuals of the constant necessity to control everyone and everything.
It begins with a desire to be a member, often sparked by suggestion or observation. It is then indoctrinated willingly by instruction and experience. If you learn these rules and do these things and not these other things, and if you operate in this manner, you will have a great time. Then it becomes enforced. If you do this or don’t do that, we will kick you out. Then punishment. If you do this, we will put you here and you can’t get out till we say so.
This goes all the way back to the laws of motion, communication and even to individuality and how we think. This is a key ingredient in the “Trap” described by Hubbard and other philosophers. Obsession to buck authority and to go along are alike aberrations which have these desires and enforcements at their heart. Rules and enforcement had and have their use and allowed for much fun in the early days, but have become very conflicted and aberrated as of late.
This is a larger area of confusion than previously thought and quite a rich area of inspection. It can eliminate the phenomenon of small being, big being, and can resolve the conundrum of “Absolute power brings absolute corruption”.
I’m still investigating.
Mark
One of us certainly appears to be trapped. Enjoy this, from Wikipedia:
“Philosophical ethics investigates what is the best way for humans to live, and what kinds of actions are right or wrong in particular circumstances.
i recommned Jacob Needleman’s book titled “Why Can’t We Be Good?”. It is all about Conscience and is based on workshops he did in schools. Many good quotes in there, too, by such thinkers as Marcus Aurelius. He has a whole section on Socrates, as wel as Buddha. And more. And yet it is not a long, difficult to read book.
In the meantime, I think T.O.’s recent post says it all:
https://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2014/08/23/effect-and-cause/#comment-315078
JUst plug in “Al” wherever she has “Baby”.
You can read up on it.
The point was when tech goes in ethics backs off. You don’t use ethics then. The person is following a disciplined, except in Scientology, it seems.
I don’t think so.
You are welcome. 🙂
Marty, after two decades of believing every lie Hubbard told us as gospel and unquestioningly, I’m ashamed to say, I’m in a bit of limbo. I need to undo some stuff.
I’m so please to have these two books are recommended by you and will get them very shortly.
What a hoax Scientology turned out to be; and Hubbard a scroundel, criminal and pathological liar.. Yes, there is some stuff I can still use and I do but there is so much that is balderdash that I’m somewhat bitter.
I’ll get over it.
FLAVP: “FIFTH DENSITY — Experiential awareness of “I”, as a group identity; not bound by linear time.
SIXTH DENSITY — Awareness as the dimension itself.
SEVENTH DENSITY — Awareness as the multidimensional experience; group-matrix identity (Social Memory Complex).”
“I” is just a mental object, which is a summation of vectors associated with a body. Similarly, a group identity is summation of all the vectors associated with a group. It is a complex matrix type layered awareness.
Awareness as a dimension is the electromagnetic disturbance itself. It is the “substance” common to the whole spectrum of energy and mass.
There are two aspects to awareness. From The Nature of Consciousness
With awareness there is perception. The perception is followed by recognition of awareness. Awareness, by its very nature, then perceives, and the cycle continues. Thus awareness as a disturbance is an oscillation between perceiving and recognizing.
Awareness oscillates between perceiving and recognizing.
At a high degree of complexity awareness is viewing itself as called here Social Memory complex (a mass consciousness or a nonphysical group-matrix identity that has evolved from a physical society).
.
Valkov wrote:
“I do indeed. The McMaster materials on dealing with so-called PTSness make it especially clear. The tech was available but not used by LRH.”
Statement by Valkov noted.
Somewhere, a bell has rung.
And an angel has received his wings.
Alanzo
Valkov wrote:
“I mention this because Al in particular seems to counter-post to me that it is not possible to compare ethical systems, and I don’t agree.”
I never wrote or counter-posted to you that it is not possible to compare ethical systems.
Remember Valkov, duplication comes before understanding.
Alanzo
FLAVP: “Galactic Family — The galactic family is the group of extraterrestrial beings (physical and nonphysical) who are interrelated energetically and/or physically with Earth’s development.”
I have no idea what this Galactic Family is. What objective evidence do we have for this that I can verify?
.
FLAVP: “Prism of Lyra — This is the archetypical idea of the entrance of consciousness into this reality.”
To me, reality itself is an aspect of consciousness. It is reality looking at itself.
.
You are right in that “Cause” and “Effect” do not denote things. They denote relative relationships among things.
So the same particle can be cause in one scenario and en effect in another scenario.
.
FLAVP: “Vin, here’s something for you to contemplate since you are an engineer and have considerations about absolutes and consistency – all three of which are mentioned in this lecture.transcript excerpt. You and FOTF2012 both may change your minds about scientology being “entirely lacking in taking into account meaning and context.” Here is a different definition of truth than the one FOTF2012 referred to – which I believe was used in another context.”
Marildi, I shall look at this transcript, but I don’t understand why are you so stuck with defending Scientology. Scientology is a mixture of ideas. It is not one coherent thing. If a datum is right in Scientology, it does not make whole of Scientology right. Or if a datum is wrong in Scientology, it does not make whole of Scientology wrong.
I have recently acknowledged what is right in Scientology in the essay Inconsistency in KHTK. It actually provides a fundamental datum in the KHTK system.
It makes me actually wonder, “What confusion in you is being restarined by Scientology?” You seem to be very afraid about Scientology being proven wrong. If Scientology is proven wrong would you be overwhelmed by some confusion?
But that is not going to happen because there are some wonderful observations in Scientology.
.
Am going to give a further plug to the book Marty suggested:
The End of Suffering by Russell Targ and J.J. Hurtak
I have been studying buddhist logic for over 7 years rather intensively. And scholars from various schools of buddhism have written tomes. The kind you could (and should) use as door stop for a huge mahogany door.
This little recommended book has helped me pry open those concepts better than anyone AND I can use the information. I have about 1/4 of the book read.
This book — The End of Suffering does a remarkable job at showing the interested reader about 4 valued logic … etc
AND frankly unless you have read it or at least had the curiosity to TRY it — the endless “I don’t think so” with hands akimbo is just
YAWN
Windhorse
MARILDI quoting LRH: ““A truth is something which would exist without much contest, something which is triumphant. A champion who stands up after a battle with bloodied shield and sword and yet has won is himself truth in the force universe. A datum which itself sweeps all data before it, in another universe, is truth. It is that which works. And that which works most broadly to that which it is applied.”
I am interested in investigating the interface between physics and metaphysics. A common observation between the two subjects is that everything is relative, conditioned and impermanent. Nothing that is absolutely permanent has been found. Something may be triumphant for a while, but that triumph is temporary. Triumph through force is the least permanent. Triumph through logic is relatively more permanent. Triumph through science and mathematics is still more permanent. Triumph through the application of mindfulness, in my opinion, is more permanent than rest of the triumphs combined. But even that is not permanent for ever.
LRH is correct when he says, “A datum which itself sweeps all data before it… is truth. It is that which works. And that which works most broadly to that which it is applied.” Unfortunately, that datum is not Scientology Axiom #1. The Scientology Axiom #1 follows Parmenides of Elea and not Heraclitus of Milesius. I find Heraclitus and Buddha agreeing with each other. I agree with them too. See Ground State of Universe – History
.
Mark,
It sounds like a perfect description of Scientology to me.
MARILDI quoting LRH: ““And sure enough, they will, every one of them, find a truth. And all they need to do to find the ultimate truth, is simply find the winning truth by which all other truths proceed in that field.” “
I think LRH’s weakness has been going with Parmenides and not with Heraclitus as I indicated earlier. That made all the difference in Scientology.
Heraclitus had the winning truth.
.
LRH himself did not follow the infinity-valued logic. THETA-MEST theory is a glaring example of that.
.
For Hubbard, truth was the winning datum. Now that is some slippery slope.
Stats provided the winning datum for Hubbard. That was ethics to him.
That is correct. 🙂
What are waiting for? Try mindfulness. 🙂
There are more recent articles, but I found this interesting. Just he part about he universe expanding much faster than light, when the Big bang occurred.
Google for “gravitational waves” for more.
http://time.com/24894/gravity-waves-expanding-universe/
What are the relative dates when he originated he two ideas? I always thought the “theta-MEST theory” was avowedly a “theory” (duh, says so in its name). What succeeded it in his thinking? If anything…..
Thanks, Val. It looks very interesting from what I read there.
Up to now, what I have gathered is that the very essence of karma is cause and effect. And if cause and effect did not exist in this universe, what would be the point of free will and Buddha’s setting down a path that one can of free will choose to follow and thereby affect the karma?
LG, that has been my question too. There seems to be a conflation by some between an individual’s assumed identity – or “ego” – and an individual as a spiritual being – a “nothingness” in terms of physical universe constructs.
“LRH is correct when he says, ‘A datum which itself sweeps all data before it… is truth. It is that which works. And that which works most broadly to that which it is applied.’ Unfortunately, that datum is not Scientology Axiom #1.”
Why not? The idea that “Life is basically a static” indicates relativity to the kinetic of the physical universe.
Oh, wow. Thanks. That makes the idea of pervading or being an “object” more clear – whether the object is physical or mental. And now that I think of it, what 2ndxmr said about an “almost tactile” awareness I could go along with too. Awareness of one’s space seems to be like that – an almost tactile “perception.”
Vinaire: “I don’t understand why are you so stuck with defending Scientology. .. If a datum is right in Scientology, it does not make whole of Scientology right.”
I never said the whole of Scientology is right. What occurred was that FOTF2012 made a statement about Scientology – and you agreed – which I felt was incorrect, and then I gave a quote to show the basis of my view. I don’t see why you would conclude that I’m any more stuck with defending than those who criticize are stuck with stating their criticisms.
Have you ever just kicked a can ?
I will make it more Intresting:
Mark, what I love about your essays is that they are based on LOOKING, rather than conjecture. Now, some may say that you looking at your own record of the past doesn’t count because it isn’t objective, but it is a record nevertheless. And the interesting thing is that others have essentially the same subjective records or else “intuited” the same understandings. The above essay of yours reminded me so much of what Cameron Day has to say. Here’s one of his best blog posts: http://www.ascensionhelp.com/blog/2013/08/23/why-i-am-no-longer-a-light-worker/
It may have been “ethics” to him at some point, but as I say above, that’s irrelevant to me. I go by how he originally explained ethics and work with that.
Scientific truth is never complete, you know that, right? It is always changing as new data and new paradigms emerge. Where do those emerge from, by the way??
Tweedle Al and Tweedle Vin get in the act. Notice how their knees jerk in unison in th esame direction, in response to some of my posts?
Oddly enough, I am not offended by Al’s post about me, as I would have been in the past. Now, it looks to me like a window into his mind, into his thought process and mindset.
Into how he feels he “knows best”, feels he knows and understands me better than I know myself, etc.
Fascinating.
REAL MESSENGER GIRLS:
Very interesting Mark. Very interesting. It kind of aligns with what I mentioned about bypassing upwards needing to be part of the equation. As “authority” is a one way command flow downwards.
Malarky. I don’t think you are really asking a question you are curious about. I think you just wanted / needed to get a personal dig in. What you imply may be a fixation may also be an awareness. Me and I concept is an awareness. If I couldn’t see the distance or separation between us, and know who and where I was, that would be an outpoint. We are not all one and the same. At least from where I view. The word “I” is a differentiation, not a fixation. When I use the word. Your implication that my use of a word denotes a handicap or some form of insanity is a wrong item for me Vinaire. Not sure I care to run around behind you either to clean up the abracadabra you lay upon the table for others. You. You. As in the source of it, not me.
So you concede that Buddhism has an ethical system, and that Scientology also has an ethical system? Splendid! So therefore I can compare them for differences, similarities, congruencies, and parallels, and even concordances? Great!
Is that anything like kicking the bucket?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy)
This is violation of Discussion policy and mindfulness.
Valkov wrote:
Oddly enough, I am not offended by Al’s post about me, as I would have been in the past. Now, it looks to me like a window into his mind, into his thought process and mindset.
Into how he feels he “knows best”, feels he knows and understands me better than I know myself, etc.
Fascinating.
This is an interesting new angle, Valkov.
If I point out where you are thinking with Scientology – as I did with your Scientological interpretation of Buddhist Ethics – you are now saying that I feel that I know and understand you better than you know yourself.
No.
I can just spot when you are thinking with Scientology in your writing. It blares out clearly and loudly like a big clown honk horn in the middle of a circus act.
It’s unmistakable. Maybe not to you, but it is to me, and to many others here.
In fact, spotting when someone is thinking with Scientology is a very important skill to develop. If you can spot it in others, eventually you will be able to spot it in yourself.
And that will make all the difference.
Alanzo
My sense of “I” is why I am wearing heels today and not one of my son’s sneakers to the office. My sense of “I” is how I know what folders I am supposed to be dealing with on my desk. My sense of “I” knows which clients coming in today are mine so I get up to meet them when they walk in the front door and I get paid for my work. Distancing myself between me and other two hundred agents in my office, creates a money flow to ME, not “the universe”. I have wins being “me” and “I” on certain days of the week.
Karma basically means ‘action’. Kinetics.
LOL! It is just like Valkov and Marildi.
When your pay check gets put in someone else’s hand, let’s see how fixated you get on being you.
They emerge from resolving of inconsistencies.
Inconsistency in KHTK
.
Marildi, you are too complex for me.
I have dealt with this subject quite in detail here and on my blog.
Dates are pretty close to each other. I think there are two LRHs writing here – one under the influence of drugs and the other not.
“I” ?
It’s great that you have started to look now. 🙂
I do not want you to be disconcerned about the girls perse. I want you to think abour L Ron Hubbards Mind to have thought this up to be okay.
Was LRH dramatizing all this?
“All things, ideas, events, etc., are ‘empty,’ meaning they don’t cause or define themselves, but arise and cease due to conditions.”
I like this awareness of conditions.
Anyway, I like your post about “ubuntu”
In *Scientology 8-80* he stated that there is “a gradient scale of beingness, from the zero-infinity of theta to the solidity of matter.”
LOL 😀
Yes, I noticed that. And also that your humor keeps getting better! 😀
+1
Yes, that could be what’s going on.
“spotting when someone is thinking with Scientology is a very important skill to develop. If you can spot it in others, eventually you will be able to spot it in yourself.”
Excellent point Al”
I understand that. And from the viewpoint of an individual, it means one’s own actions will affect that universal action and come back to bite one. Or kiss one. 🙂
CD, did you get WHY it was that LRH, was so mad? It was because auditors were grossly misapplying tech and thus messing up many pc’s. He felt strongly about that and wanted to make sure the auditors got corrected on what they were goofing up so badly.
You mean when it isn’t possible to refute my point? 🙂
Quite right, Vinaire. Postulates on the spiritual level become directed forces on a physical level. A self has a form defined by postulates, and the form of an atom comes from a balance between the energy of the electrons making them expand away from the nucleus and the positive charge on the nucleus holding them in.
Atoms are like soap bubbles, which expand from the air pressure inside until this is balanced by the tension of the soap film plus the external air pressure. Stars and living cells are shaped on the same principle, their roughly spherical outline is where expanding and contracting forces balance.
D’Arcy Wentworth Thompson wrote a marvellous book ‘On Growth and Form’ showing how biological forms from cells to whole organisms are shaped by balances between forces – efforts and counter-efforts, in fact.
I don’t play those games. Debate is not my thing. Understanding is. I don’t get any understanding from you.
Hi Marty, I don’t have time to comment I depth, but I really like this post. It resonates strongly with the theme of a book I am re-reading right now, one that toys with themes of relativity, perception, and the illusion of cause and effect, to a delightful end — the title is The Complete Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy.
It is a popular series of novels, but I only read them for the first time a couple of years ago. Anyone who has read my blog knows I look for meaning in what most folks see as pop culture, and I find it a fruitful exploration. These books, so lighthearted and absurd on the surface, are sprinkled with delightful gems of insight into a POV that transcends time and space. But the playfulness allows the philosophical exploration to be really fluid and fun. For anyone who has never read them, or perhaps it’s been a long while, I highly recommend the books as uplifting, inspiring fiction, and perhaps another angle of approach on what I think Marty is pointing at in this post.
Thanks for more excellent food for thought, Marty!
Hi Vin, good to talk to ya.
I don’t know what Hub. was dramatizing. I never read or heard of Ron saying much or anything about this era. (Perhaps in materials I haven’t gone over.) The Pilot described this time in a manner most closely related to this, but I recollected this before reading his account. Some of the things he described, I have no recall about. Many of the things I recall are not in his write up.
One thing I have never seen properly described is the, well, the appearance and flavor of memories during periods of not being attached to a body or not being entrapped in a meat body or doll body. Vision is different, it is not exactly directed at one thing at a time. Color seems to be a matter of choice or suggestion. Also, I ‘feel’ the imprinted emotion or intent of MEST objects. Everything has an intent or purpose given to it by whomever put it together. That ‘feel’ remains after the original owner is gone off to do something else.
The ‘feel’ of things were given to them to make them more interesting and ‘alive’. It was a game to make the most interesting things and spaces. It was a fun sort of competition.
Early on, I would spread out and ‘Be’ the things I was viewing and experiencing. Later, it became more like putting out vision beams. Instead of letting the light come to you, you went out and looked at the things and spaces. Light came later. Eventually these vision beams became sub conscious and automatic. How to really look was eventually forgotten. Some individuals didn’t like others being able to see and experience so easily, so they developed hidden ways of stunting these abilities in others. These methods eventually stunted them as well.
Impact and overwhelm wasn’t painful or unpleasant. It was fun, like riding a roller coaster or going through a spook house. There were horrors and terrors beyond belief by today’s standards, but we would laugh and go through these spaces over and over. Hunting expeditions and battles were quite popular in later years. Multi dimensional spook houses were also big draws.
These were the ‘Good Ole Days’ but many opinions, pleasures, and considerations were being formed which later became sub conscious liabilities. They were forgotten and so stuck. These are the subtle thoughts I am most interested in now. I’m having fun.
Mark
Here “I” is a reference point.
Sure, I am learning to “think with” scientology. Isn’t that the goal, when learning a nw subject? Learn to think with it? I’ve done that with a number of related subjects. I set out to learn how to do that. Glad to know I am succeeding. 🙂
The point is, if I am able to “think with it”, then it is not “thinking with me”, or “thinking for me”, if you get what I mean.
That’s where your arrogance displays itself I think. To be blunt, I think maybe you were brainwashed twice – once when you uncritically accepted “scientology” and again when you uncritically accepted the “critical” explanations of it.
It shows up because you claim to spot when I am “thinking scientologically”, but fail to deal with what I am thinking on its own merits. It is as Vin always complains – people don’t follow his “discussion policy” and talk about the ideas on their own merits. That is true sometimes when you respond to my posts. If I disagree with your interpretation of somethong, you dismiss my disagree by ridiculing or simply labeling it as “Oh, there he goes again, thinking like a Scientologist!” as thought that somehow rebutted what I actually said. Psychologists have various names for that kind of behavior. But yes, of course I “think with scientology”! How else do you think a person learns a subject? I also think with Buddhism, Christianity, Gurdjieff/Ouspensky, and various other systems and thinkers
What you seem to fail to grasp is that they are all “approximations”, “constructs”, of the total reality. I also think with English, Russian, and even some Japanese because I partly grew up there and took classes in it.
I’m tempted to throw in a zinger at the end here, but I won’t.
I’m too astounded that you are trying to convince me I sometimes “think with scientology” ! The only issue that matters to me is, am I doing things knowingly or unknowingly. In other words, am I mindful of it.
For vin’s benefit, I should mention that there is no such thing as “absolute mindfulness”, either. One is as mindful as one is, no more and no less. He posts as though if I followed his instructions to be “mindful”, I would agree with everything he posted.
Good luck with that, Vinnie!
And then he said Theta produces MEST and MEST entraps theta.
This is binary logic and not infinity logic.
Yes! That is the key to the universe. You got it babe. Do the hokey pokey and turn yourself about.
The truth of Heraclitus is more basic. Parmenides is putting an additive there.
“I” can be used as a reference point, or “I” can be used as a point of fixation. This was the difference between Heraclitus and Parmenides.
When one says, “Karma is when you hang around to be the effect of your own create,” it is assuming Parmenides viewpoint.
This is again a violation of Discussion policy, and also the violation of Mindfulness #2: Observe things as they are, without assuming anything.
I must say that I can understand Alanzo better than I can understand Valkov. Valkov is complex like Marildi.
But Valkov has started to simplify himself. I can’t say that about Marildi yet.
This might help you understand what I’m about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Perennial_Philosophy
Did he ever think about the weakness of his system?
It flabbergasts me that all you guys who were “in Scientology” for so long, apparently never learned to consciously “think with it”? What in the world were you doing with it all that time?
See marildi’s post below. 8-80 was pretty early on. Perhaps you misunderstood the theory? It seems he viewed them as a gradient, a continuum.
no,
you are missing my point.
Hubbard said:
“Attention is aberrated by becoming unfixed and sweeping at random or becoming too fixed without sweeping.” ~ L. Ron Hubbard”
My point from what hubbard said is this: “becoming too fixed without sweeping”.
this word phrase by Hubbard is hypnosis, to hypnotize somebody is to fix attention. Read up on it, consider examining “suggestible states”. What did Hubbard do, but fix attention via KSW and later HCOPL’s & HCOB’s & Standard Tech. Pure suggestion & fixed attention. Consider “what is a course room” in scientology but fixed attention.
remember dianetics is based upon hypnosis. You, vinaire, of all people should know this? As you have studied & done Idenics.
One has to consider the data with which Hubbard knew during his upbringing & education at George Washington University, which he learned Aristotle Rhetoric from his Dean Wilbur. Look up his books.
One has to consider these things to understand Hubbard.
Look up Dean Wilbur & Hubbards letter to him.
If you, vinaire, do not understand Rhetoric, then you do not understand Hubbard and his so called axioms of scientology.
Scientology = much ado about nothing. Makes good money, though.
chuckle.
Yes, he built Scientology per his Games Theory in the PDC and other lectures on how to build universes.
Hubbard is the unforgiving GOD of the Scientology Universe.
“Abandon hope all ye who enter here.”
Valkov,
You won’t get past any of these dichotomies until you study the tetralemma (4 value logic) per Marty’s recommendation.
All you are going to do is wander around mentally as a ping-pong forever, as fundamental reality cannot be approached with the normal logical approach.
Okay, then according to “Discussion Policy” how should you reply to what you don’t understand, or to what you think I don’t understand?
Valkov wrote:
It [Alanzo’s arrogance] shows up because you claim to spot when I am “thinking scientologically”, but fail to deal with what I am thinking on its own merits.
But I dealt with what you said on it’s own merits in my very first response to you:
You wrote to Vinaire:
“Whoa boy whoa! Buddhism also says in exssense, that Ethics must be “in”, for Tech to work. The Noble Eightfold Path is a central, integral part of Buddhism, because Buddha did say that a person whose ethics were “out” could not achieve nirvana.”
And I wrote to you:
The purpose of the application of Buddhist ethics is to alleviate suffering, not to attain Clear and OT.
That is directly dealing with what you wrote.
I’ll expand even further.
Buddhist ethics and Scientology ethics have almost nothing to do with each other. Yes, Valkov, they are both systems of ethics (well played, sir) but they have a completely different purpose than the one you ascribed in your original statement.
You thought that Buddhist ethics played the same role for a Buddhist practitioner that they do for a Scientologist in Scientology. And this is false.
The purpose of Scientology ethics is to weed out PTSes and SPs, get and keep the statistics of the organization rising (making more money), and as Ron told you “to get the tech in”.
But Buddhist ethics, such as practicing the 8 fold path, have absolutely nothing to do with these things. And they do not “get the tech” of Buddhism “in”.
My repeated point to you has not been ad hom or “believing I know you better than you know yourself” or any of the other dodges you keep throwing in the way of addressing this point.
My repeated point is that Buddhism and Scientology are different. And any time you use Scientology to try to understand Buddhism, you will fail to understand Buddhism.
Not just you, Valkov, but anybody.
You really have a hard time staying on the subject.
Really.
Alanzo
Yes and to prove it you can find them in garages, basements and attics of many who once believed.. Or go to Ebay and buy his crap for 99 cents.
Read it twice, very narrow.
Working through Tao of Physics right now, between work and past examination. Looking at past ethics, multi flows, is so revealing. Real ethics, not Hubbard or western justice.
Mark
PS, re read my comment to T.O on agreement and authority. There is a lot there and a lot more to discover. It crosses many areas of activity. Just the tip of an iceberg.
Mark
What is the definition of “binary logic” that you are using?
I know for sure the response should not be to focus on participants, right?
Of course. That’s why there were so many changes along the way — which is a point of harsh criticism by many. To use a very old cliché, he was damned if he did and damned if he didn’t.
Valkov wrote:
It flabbergasts me that all you guys who were “in Scientology” for so long, apparently never learned to consciously “think with it”? What in the world were you doing with it all that time?
That is the problem Valkov: thinking with Scientology leads you further and further away from the truth.
Remember the purpose of logic: “to preserve the truth throughout the reasoning process”?
You can use this same understanding to observe what happens while thinking with Scientology.
Thinking with Scientology causes a person to take the truth and to change it into something that Scientology can address or accept.
Remember from Hamlet: There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.?
This is literally true.
Why?
Because no philosophy can address the whole infinity of everyday existence (Truth).
While thinking with Scientology, something that happened to you is not exactly what happened, it is re-packaged as an engram. Something you did to someone else is not exactly what you did, it’s changed into an overt according to the moral codes in Scientology.
And a whole lot of things that happen in heaven and earth have no label in Scientology at all, and fall completely outside of it, are not addressed by it, and are ignored.
Only those experiences that fit within the finite boundaries of the ideology are accepted and addressed by Scientology, and then they are repackaged into something else per its dictates.
Thus, the more you think with Scientology, the more the infinity of experience is made finite, regulated, re-packaged, and corrupted.
This is why it is a mistake to think with Scientology, or with any ideology:
It leads you further and further away from the truth.
Alanzo
I don’t see the above two statements as mutually exclusive, if that’s what you’re implying.
Thanks, Oracle.
You said:
“As “authority” is a one way command flow downwards.”
I am discovering more and more that that is part of the problem. Getting stuck on mechanics such as flow, balance, facsimiles, mass, energy, identity, consciousness, on and on.
I am sure you have noticed various individuals saying “this is the way it is” and another saying “NO, this is the way…”, on and on. When someone says “Mass hangs on to an individual when he puts his head into a radio cross wave at 4.5 GHz and waves his arms around……”It all gets kinda silly when I get a glimpse of the guy who made that up so that he could buzz around and say “Look at me”. (Close to an actual incident.)
Don’t get me wrong, to operate in this environment it is necessary to understand these so called ‘rules’. Interaction with others has it’s place. Understanding the details of living in order to be causative has it’s place. But the way people hang on to constructs of any kind is fascinating.
My Father once said that “Grammar and correct literature is easy, once you realize how unimportant it really is. Then you can master it.” Many things are the same way. The mechanics of life can be mastered once you see how unimportant they really are.
Have fun with it.
Mark
That’s wonderful Baby
Val.. What ever gets you through the day. I take back my earlier comment about joining you for a beverage to talk.
We would both be miserable. There is just too huge of a gap between our thinking. I’m sorry for intruding in your thoughts. It must have given you great pain for me to speak so disrespectfully about the man who
created fair game, the RPF and the R2-45 Process. Yes he had the whole 1984 George Orwells 1984 Society set up.
His purpose of Ethics was always, ” To remove Counter Intentions from the Environment. ” Good Standing = producing for the church. It has nothing to do with morals.
So I will respectfully leave you with your own thoughts. I over estimated how closed you were to receiving others feedback.
Because yes.. I will admit for one and all to read. I will never be open to hearing one thing.. Not one thing that was good about the evil that was created by Hubbard.
Every good he stole. So I will credit the good to those who originally created it. Stepping off soap box.
42 🙂 🙂 🙂
Not quite as funny, but equally brilliant, is Dan Simmon’s Hyperion, which covers this and other topics with effortless elegance.
Mark, I can see that this material is useful to you. Can some kind of a process be derived from this information to help others? Does it lay to rest some common confusions?
Well, I was looking at the fact that apart from what you say about Hubbard, there are situations in life that cause fixation and dispersal of attention. By the fact of this non-optimum attention one can trace it to what is causing it. That, to me, is the subject of inconsistency.
The issue you are bringing up is how Hubbard deliberately attempt to fix people’s attention. There is no question that Hubbard prevented any discussion of his subject, and any comparison of his subject to other subjects by coining the word squirrel (similar to heretic in Christianity). This was aberrative for sure. It prevented a person to question what was presented to him, and to think for himself.
Word Clearing on was used to enforce this. I remember a friend of mine, who also tutored math, got stuck on the following sentence in KSW1,
“By actual record the percentages are about twenty to 100,000 that a group of human beings will dream up bad technology to destroy good technology.”
Here the word “percentages” is used incorrectly. The correct word should have been “ratio” because Hubbard provided numbers. My friend pointed out this error in a Scientology course room, and this started a trip to the word clerarer, and then to Qual, and then to ethics and then out of Scientology being declared suppressive, because Hubbard could not have been wrong.
Original Dianetics was very evaluative like Psychoanalysis. Later, OT levels were evaluative in the same manner. They fixed attention and forced thinking in a certain way. But objectives, life repair, and other lower processes allowed a person to look for himself. That was good, but, unfortunately, that was used as a bait.
So, I understand what you are saying. But I am using a certain observation of Hubbard in a different manner to get something positively useful out of it.
double chuckle
I’m having a bit of trouble understanding this concept of “disturbance”. Can you define it for me in simple terms?
Of course the concept ofthe Prism is a metaphor. It appears that when those that entered this density to create human life (per the book referenced above, they were called the Founders and came from a 5th density dimension), the energy split into seven different vibrations, like light through a prism.
The way i look at it, it is 50% physical and 50% spiritual. It appears that on 1st and 2nd density, the spiritual side isn’t sufficiently aware to separate self from others. This occurs in 3rd density.
I don’t think this is merely a question of fixing attention or dispersing it. It is possible that my understanding of “Inconsistency”, as defined in your reference, is limited.
I have tried to read KHTK but I get bogged. Too much stuff I can’t understand.
Still, I see this mostly as an expansion of one’s individual awareness to encompass all other individual awareness. A true brotherhood of man.
I don’t necessarily view “I” as a construct or mental object. I view “I” as a centering of awareness. This does not mean that it can’t expand to encompass a greater amount of consciousness.
Once again, we might have some sort of semantic dissonance, here, and we may be speaking of the same thing in different terms.
Well, you’d have to read the book to get the full picture on this.
As far as “objective” proof is concerned — well, the book has been gathered by information channeled by the authors.
It is to be taken with a grain of salt, just like all other stuff kicking around in this world.
I am not a fanatic advocate of UFO conspiracy theories, et al. I have informed myself concerning this subject, reading a vast number of people’s accounts and experiences and there are common denominators; amongst which, the fact that some alien forefathers entered this density to create the human blueprint
Take out of this what you will, just as I did. To me, to use scientology parlance, “it indicated”.
🙂
I am not in disagreement with this. Consciousness may be a mirror of reality — in fact, it is consciousness that creates (or to use a scientology concept: postulates) reality.
However, reality, being a costruct of energy, vibrates at different levels. Some levels are lower than others. It appears, based on this book, that when consciousness from a higher vibration enters a lower vibration of reality, it splits into various frequencies, just like a prism with light. To re-enter the higher vibration, it needs to “re-integrate” itself. This is not to say that once, for example, a third density consciousness rises to seventh densitiy, and fully reintegrates itself and passes onto the next higher vibration or reality (a higher dimension), that it might not actually be fragmented in that higher reality, you follow?
Then, it would need to reintegrate further to pass onto higher echelons of reality.
It appears that, in this particular dimension, we may be a harmonic of a harmonic.
One of the LRH’s did. The other LRH applied binary logic to it as I indicated to Marildi.
Is it similar to what I believe as follows:
“Knowledge is inherently consistent regardless of the source it comes from. Complexity appears only in those areas where inconsistencies abound. Resolve the inconsistency and the complexity goes away.”
________________________________
David, how do you compare a postulate to an assumption?
To me scientists make postulates to explain observed phenomenon. Here the observed phenomenon is senior to the postulate.
I think that Hubbard twisted the meaning of this word to make his philosophy senior to the observed phenomenon. Now that is really weird.
Well, one should learn to think with a subject. But that includes looking at other things both with and without using that subject as a filter. That helps one compare the two realities and resolve inconsistencies.
Yes, there is no absolute mindfulness, but there is spotting and resolving inconsistencies on a gradient.
________________________________
I do not follow all aspects as given here in this thread .. I myself heard at first time from LRH about the cycle of action (not really true – who knows not about Start – Change – Stop) .. but it is Control by LRH .. and by LRH it is also Cause and Effect ..
I may have a lot misunderstood what LRH said about, because it goes for me this way and that way .. finally I didn’t really know what he intended to say .. and for what benefit it should be ..
Why I mix Cycle of Action, Control and Cause and Effect. It seems it is part of my soul (myself, me, I) .. but I myself have no real concept what myself or me or I is really .. the only thing I did in my life was looking for that what I can see .. there was never a meaning with connected .. I saw what I saw and it was only connected with like or dislike of it .. so I am basically a real stupid guy .. and surely I am ..
Once in my youth I sat down and asked me about myself: What you are doing here really. I found that I watch what I am seeing and told others sometimes about my likes or dislikes in a discussion .. but it did not much matter to me was the result was .. surely I gave a lot emotion in it, but this was the game which was played .. why not ..
For me is Cause and Effect in balance by my nature .. it is both the same, which means the Cause causes an Effect .. and the Effect causes a Cause and so on .. little bit stupid .. but as said above .. I am stupid, because do not grasp the point in it ..
What? If I throw an atomic bomb down it will surely create an effect for lot of environment and people .. I am surely the Cause of throwing this thing down but are not the Cause of the Effect .. it goes complicated here, but what I mean is that I did a stupid thing for which I took no responsibility in the beginning ..
I would not throw an atomic bomb down .. but I wanted to show that the idea of Cause and Effect goes a line down before you have Cause and Effect really at hand .. it looks to me more than intention and counter intention .. I work much better with that ..because between of this you have Cause and Effect as a game .. and this is which I wanted to say ..
Someone in this thread wrote that eternity is given with the concept that you can always make it a little bit larger .. the guy who wrote about his Sunshine Rundown (I think) .. the cause was that he tried to looking bright, and he got a bright space .. but the intention was the cause and he has descriped it as an effect .. but this is mostly happened in Scientology and called as a win .. but it is short time win ..
As said above in this thread .. an SP can only have powers over you when you have no power yourself .. it is all intention against counter intention .. and it is not Cause and Effect .. that is only a result of playing a game .. and it means you can always create intensions against counter intesions and so on .. but it is still a game .. but you can it really go down to the question to Cause and Effect .. but this is not the real game .. I am surely sure that it is the origin of Cause and Effect ..
Marty may now go on to speak about intention .. which was once the goal for original OT VII .. now you have New OT VII ..
Sorry if I said something wrong or stupid .. but I am stupid ..
intension means always intention .. sorry ..
Once in my youth I wrote a book: Why God does not Help. I worked through all religions in all cultures .. and found that everybody is like god. So I wrote it down (never published) .. the consens was surely where was the first god of all gods .. and why he did appear and from where he came
Who was the first of all thetan? Who was the first creator of the game. It is as like the bible .. god created Adam and Eve .. but from where came god?
Basically it doesn’t matter why god did invent himself, maybe there were 16 gods at the same time who invented themself .. but why they did that, it was no time and space existend .. we are here out of anything .. but it is surely true that something like that happened once .. out of a total nothing came up a something .. which was the sense of my book .. I asked in my book why a nothing became something .. which was quite a provocation to all readers (but had none) ..
With Axiom 1 in Scientology it is easy, there were at once thousands of billions and more thetan there .. bumm .. but in my view once in my youth it was not true .. because planet Earth had ones in old times about 1000 thetan on it .. goof thetans .. enjoy the planet ..
” A High Staff person can get away with any infraction without a blink from Ethics. ”
Correction a High Stat person.
@Vin:
For the benefit of those interested in applying the merits of discussion policy, it would be helpful to have you explain the points to which these comments apply:
vinaire | August 25, 2014 at 9:26 pm |
I must say that I can understand Alanzo better than I can understand Valkov. Valkov is complex like Marildi.
vinaire | August 25, 2014 at 9:27 pm |
But Valkov has started to simplify himself. I can’t say that about Marildi yet.
Windhorse
Great comment.
Here is a present from Nagarjuna:
http://www.keithdowman.net/mahamudra/nagarjuna.htm
Beautiful Conan. You are a true seeker. It’s nice to read your from the heart writtings.
There has been some discussion on this thread about LOGIC. Logic has to do with how one thinks. The fact is that one thinks not only in terms of certainties, but one also thinks in terms of uncertainties and approximations. Actually, the latter comprises the majority of thinking.
So, forcing one to think only in terms of TRUE or FALSE is aberrative. A famous example of that is the question, “Do you still beat your wife?” This question assumes things, which are not stated, and whose truth values have not been established.
There can be things that are neither true nor false because a firm determination of their truth or falsity cannot be made lacking data. Again, there can be things that are true or false depending on the context.
I never liked symbolic logic for that reason. That logic is binary and it depends on mechanically parsing the logical input. That logic is used for computers, but it is far from being completely logical.
Liberation, is liberation from ignorance. Liberation is liberation from identification with objects, bodies, roles etc.
But more exactly, liberation is the dissolution of mind. It is the mind that holds all of the ideas of being identified with externalities.
In a dream at night we are convinced of the “real ness” of our situation. We have emotions of pleasure, fear, fun etc. but when we awake, the entire universe of that dream recedes back into its source.
The dreamer remains to tell the story but the objects have dissolved.
Similarly, this material cosmos, or any other for that matter, is very similar. Only the laws of solidity are different.
We can withdraw the dream by turning our attention within to commune with the 8th Dynamic. This state is the memory of our true natures as consciousness.
It is not a state of nothing. It is a positive state of incredible joy and wisdom.
And when externalities and false identities are melted by the fires of inner discriminatory wisdom, the true nature of being is effortlessly intuited.
Until then, philosophers and scholars will argue on the nature of being.
That is because they are still trying to measure the Infinite by emtying the ocean with the timbal of analysis.
The mind cannot fathom the Spirit because the mind is largely composed of information gleaned from the 5 senses. And because the 5 senses only registrar a very limited vibrational scope of the spectrum, the mind cannot of itself, cognize the soul.
And because the mind cannot fathom the infinite, intellectuals, though their motives are good, say that the soul or God or Spirit does not exist. That is because their prana or energy is mostly in their brain or head: always thinking and not experiencing pure feeling, I don’t just mean emotion, I mean pure feeling. We have both natures: feeling and reason.
The ancients say:
We are ever existing, ever conscious and ever joyfull. Such beauty and wonder, my eyes sometimes tear with happiness. Then there is such love for others my tongue cannot tell.
“I came to the mango grove to eat mangoes, not count branches.”
Ramakrishna
If I could wave a magic wand and bestow on my fellow human beings what I a learned of life and spirit, I would easily give my life up for that.
It’s that good 🙂
Namaste
Brian
Brian stated in one of his posts that it all begins with the sense of “I”. I objected to it where Marty and few others agreed with it.
There are two different concepts here. There is awareness. And then there is “awareness of awareness.” The latter is essentially awareness looking at itself. It is a kind of introversion. This is where one starts to think in terms of an “I”.
This becomes confusing because “I” can also be used as a reference point for something without any sense of introversion. So, there is a relative “I” where no identification exists, and then there is an absolute “I” where introversion and definite identification exists.
The latter interpretation of “I” comes from the assumption that Being is the basis of reality, whereas the former interpretation is free of such assumption.
Hubbard of Scientology makes the assumption in Axiom #1 that Being is the basis of reality. This is the same assumption that Abrahamic religions make. The Vedic religions of the East do not make such assumption.
So the casual use of “I” in relative terms represents simple awareness and not “awareness of awareness.”
When Brian stated that it all begins with the sense of “I”, he seems to be talking in terms of “awareness of awareness.” I don’t think that it all begins with such introversion.
There can be simple awareness with no attention on oneself.
.
BRIAN: “Neti Neti means: not this not that. Our true natures are not the roles we play not the objects in the play. We are Spirit, ever free, ever joyous, ever conscious, ever existing- Sat-chit-ananda.”
Associating “I” with the idea of a free, joyous, conscious spirit is also accompanied by some sense of introversion and identification.
There seems to be an obsession within each one of us to discover who or what one is. Even after all identifications are discarded, the last identification seems to be with some idea or concept, such as, spirit.
Imagine, what will happen when even this last identification is also discarded.
There is no attention on oneself. Now that is freedom. 🙂
.
Yes, awareness and disturbance are the same thing.
If you are out in space all by yourself, you will have no idea of whether you are still or moving if there is nothing else beside you. Awareness comes with relative motion only.
This datum sits at the interface of physics and metaphysics.
>
In my opinion, it is incorrect to assume that reality starts with beingness as you are doing here.
“Who” created the human life? “Who” are these Founders? Who created these Founders?
The problem with such “hypotheses” is a basic fixation on “who” or beingness.
All MEST provides form to awareness. Awareness is expressing itself through MEST.
THETA-MEST theory that isolates and degrades MEST is for the birds.
It appears that you are assuming spiritual and physical aspects as separate and independent of each other. This is like the old view of consisdering Space and Time to be separate and independent of each other.
I think that absolutist view is no longer applicable to reality.
True brotherhood of man cannot be achieved as long as one is intoverted into oneself in the form of “I”. That introversion comes from the belief that reality starts from a Being.
Superconsciousness does not imply superbeing. All beingnesses do not merge into each other to make a supebeing. That would be like the creation of a Borglike entity (see Star Trek).
Super consciousness arises only as the introversion as a being ends.
What is your definition of awareness? Is consciousness the same concept or a different concept? Does awareness or consciousness has a form?
The punch is not the illusion.
In my opinion, just because some stuff is recalled, it does not establish the truth of it. This is where I differ from LRH and also from MarkNR.
To me this is just sci-fi stuff. There is no objective basis to it either in terms of sciece or in terms of mindfulness (consistency).
Apples and Oranges.
FLAVP: ” in fact, it is consciousness that creates (or to use a scientology concept: postulates) reality.”
This kind of idea comes from the assumption that at the basis of reality is a Being. To me this is an inconsistency. because it leaves the question open as to what is the basis of the Being.
.
The girls in my high school and at the mall were dressed skimpier than that in the ’70s. Of course, nowadays, they are all locked down into those idiotic SO outfits.
Val said:
The Swedes…..now have a saying that guides their social behavior.“The nail that sticks up gets hammered down.”
“The squeaky wheel gets the oil.”.?.?. or If you point out outpoints, you get punished for it. or If one stands up and makes himself known, he gets pushed back down.
Or is it simply Keep them in their place.? as related to my excerpt.
Mark
Hi Marty
I have been reading and re-reading your latest post over the last few days because at first it seemed to threaten my belief in a personal infinite creator God.
The idea of “dependent origination” at first appears to leave no place for God but on further inspection I realised it is exactly dependent origination that convinces the creationists of the fact of intelligent design and ultimately the belief in an infinite – personal God.
The reasoning goes that there are many observable phenomena in the physical universe that could not have arisen unless a particular set of causes and effects were working interdependently, and for this to happen the obvious conclusion is that they are working in accordance to a design.
From what I understand of Buddhism and Scientology they have a lot in common, both being rooted in UNDERSTANDING. The main difference it seems to me is Buddhism focuses on becoming more and more COMPASSIONATE whereas Scientology focuses on “MAKING THE ABLE MORE ABLE”.
The fact that Jesus Christ arrived on the scene after The Buddha in no way contradicts the teaching of The Buddha and his emphasis on compassion, but Jesus was taking it into another realm by focusing on LOVE – PERFECT LOVE.
It seems to me that compassion comes out of UNDERSTANDING whereas LOVE is what we experience when we unite with our Heavenly Father, and that is DIVINE LOVE, which cannot be understood but can be experienced, at which time compassion becomes a natural by-product.
Going back to the analogy of the “three sticks” quoted, they are INTERDEPENDENT but someone had to set them up and to knock them down.
Love and ARC
Pip
Then why didn’t he make his earlier theories obsolete? He emphatically kept them in place through the Technical Degrades policy. You argument is contradictory to the facts on the ground..
Same as the usual definition. What is your definition?
If THETA produces MEST then does THETA exist before it produces MEST? What do you say?
If THETA and MEST are produced simultaneously then one can also say that MEST produces THETA.
According to discussion policy you lay out your argument clearly. It is not clear to me what did i agree with FOTF that your disagreeing with. Could you please summarize it.
Thanks.
Val, I believe Alanzo answered your question more than adequately, and to my liking.
The very first God came from the assumption that fundamental to all reality is a being.
>
Forgive my curiosity, Brian, but I asked, quoting you:
“This sense of “I” is where it all begins. Part of my practice for some time now is simply watching this sense arise.
It is so interesting to observe. And so liberating to not attach oneself to it when it arises.”
Who is not attaching and is thus liberated?
There is no attention on oneself. Now that is freedom .. yes sure, but you will always have attention on yourself .. and there is no freedom ..
Mornin’ Vin.
As I explore and search for the sources and reasons for my fixations, I find some interesting things occurring.
I am losing the need to consider myself in a certain way. I also find that I have less need to not consider myself in a certain way.
A couple of weeks ago, I commented on the life I had in the town I was raised and the work I had done to help others and the observations I had made etc. That I had simply missed out on some of the human frailties and petty emotions of some others.
Marty replied “Good for you.” A boldly sarcastic statement that I was bragging on how great things have been and are for me. I looked back over my post and sure enough, that’s exactly how it appeared. I looked back over several of my comments and noticed another identity I have been operating from. Congeniality. Mr. nice guy who wants to tell the world what he has seen, like the guy who posts pictures of his vacation on facebook, so that everyone can see how good a time he had. I considered this a likable identity, so I used it. I avoided unlikable identities.
Letting an identity operate for you has no value except when, by random chance, it fits the situation. But that is a crap shoot. Not being able to get out of it is definitely an aberration.
But being able to create any identity for a conscious purpose, at will, now there is something valuable. To be able to operate from any viewpoint, or not, then you have something.
Is your work taking you in that direction?
Mark
That does not provide an argument by any means.
Then please explain yourself. Thanks.
Yes Al, sometimes you do respond to the content of a post. I believe I did acknowledge this. Here’s my take. I will start with this particular item, gotta start somewhere:
“The purpose of Scientology ethics is to weed out PTSes and SPs, get and keep the statistics of the organization rising (making more money), and as Ron told you “to get the tech in”.
I see this as a corruption of the basic ideas of Scn Ethics. That is NOT the purpose of Scn Ethics.
The purpose of Scn Ethics is “Reason and the contemplation of optimum survival”.
Survival of what? Everything existing. All dynamics. Not just the SCn orgs, ALL dynamics.
It has to do with “world maintenance”. The maintenance of all Creation.
If you are inviolved in the destruction of some dynamics, be aware. You’d better have a damn good reason. You’re going to pay the price.
That is similar to Buddhist Ethics, and th eEthics of many other religions and philosophies.
The fact that the CoS went its own perverted way and ignored and twisted this basic standard, is, well, a fact. The CoS became increasingly corrupt and “egoistic”. It never questioned it’s own assumption that “we are the good guys”. It never developed a Conscience.
Hearing LRon talk about Scientology and Scientologists, he idealized them. He thought they could do no wrong. It is obvious in even the earliest lectures. He thought they all “got it”. He thought they would all be “ethical” in the highest sense of the word. Thus he thought the end justified the means, and it would all be good in the end. It hasn’t played out that way, has it?
I recommend the book “Why Can’t We Be Good?” by Jacob Needleman.
That is excellent Mark.
My latest work is looking more closely at the consideration of Parmenides of Elea that fundamental to all reality is a Being. The leaves one wondering what is fundamental to a Being.
Those comments were not part of any discussion. They were independent observations.
Discussion Policy applies to discussions.
>
Thanks Conan. I’ve only been saying that for the past 4-5 years here, on Geir’s blog, etc. That doesn’t mean I don’t have hangovers of dichotomous thinking, but seriously I was posting about the tetra lemma on Geir’s blog 4 years ago.
So if you spot something in a post of mine that is inconsistent with that, address it specifically please. I derive no benefit from vague posts like yours is.
That does not logically follow. It is a common fallacy. If they are said to be produced ‘simultaneously’, then neither necessarily produces the other. They could both be the result of a third factor.
Vin.
Would you be easily able to give someone a vicious angry verbal beatdown if the situation clearly called for it?
Would you be able to ask Charles Manson a subtle question which may spark a bit of insight into his own psyche, and do it with real loving ARC.
Being able to observe without a viewpoint, without filters is a joy and obviously quite valuable. Being able to act at any moment, in any manner, according to choice, is JUST AS VALUABLE.
Mark
I think this is a misstatement:
“There are two different concepts here. There is awareness. And then there is “awareness of awareness.” The latter is essentially awareness looking at itself. It is a kind of introversion.”
It is actually one locus of awareness looking at the perceptions, views, generated by another locus of awarness.
A camera is ‘aware’ of its environment. It is a “locus of awareness”. A person monitoring the screens on which the camera’s ‘awareness’ is displayed, is aware of that second awareness, as wel as the room s/he is sitting in. S/he is awar eof his/her own awareness, as wel as the awarnessof the robot camera or whatever.
That seems emtirely clear to me. It is not “awareness being aware of itself”.
I t is more than one awareness, with one awareness monitoring another, and being aware of both at the same time.
Animals have no attention on themselves because they are not aware of being aware.
Man is further evolved than animals. He has the capability of being aware of his own awareness. In other words, he can be aware of himself. He can review his actions for errors and correct them.
But that doesn’t mean that he must always keep attention on himself. he can operate freely without attention on himself.
working hypothesis: OSA pays m. by the word
.
Technical Degrades is dated 1970. That is after the Class VIII course was issues, defing ‘standard tech’. Hubbard made it clear that everyhting before that, including the SHSBC, was the “research track”.
So what does “Technical Degrades” actually apply to?
Hi again, Vin.
Thanks for mentioning me as almost a central character in this play.
I consider your outlook and opinions to be just as important to you as are mine to me. I’m operating on a “You show me yours, and I’ll show you mine” basis. I’m gaining from the interchanges.
Mark
No this doesn’t work .. the fundamental assumption had to come from an assumption which has nothing to do with assumptions .. it is completely free of such ideas .. so on, LRH said never from where a thetan came .. no religion said it .. it is only you are because you are .. not really knowi
why you are ..
My reality is that somewhere in the past was builded up a mind who was concious about a nothingness .. however he did it .. but per logic it was done .. and there were more than one who did it ..
God was only a freak who started it .. out of nix .. once ago in the times where we were not there .. because at this time we were all god ..
But as said abvoe, it became clear to me that there are about 16 gods who played the same game .. maybe more .. it seems that a building of a god is the same as building of a thetan ..
If you will have a game you need somebody who create it .. I think the god of all gods looks only what happens .. he himself feels himself as a complete nothing .. but let everybody speculate about him .. which may be his game .. maybe ..
In which of his posts? He has made several.
I’m not sure what you mean by “kept them [his earlier theories] in place.” Here are the relevant parts of HCO PL “Technical Degrades” (caps emphasis is mine):
————————————
1. Abbreviating an official course in Dianetics and Scientology SO AS TO LOSE THE FULL THEORY, processes and effectiveness of the subjects.
2. Adding comments to checksheets or instructions labeling any material “background” or “not used now” or “old” or any similar action WHICH WILL RESULT IN THE STUDENT NOT KNOWING, USING AND APPLYING THE DATA IN WHICH HE IS BEING TRAINED.
————————————-
Note: that last clause (the one in caps) is what’s called a restrictive clause. Perhaps that’s a grammatical MU for you. Better check it out.
Interestingly, I find that there is an old Japanese proverb about this. But here is a description of the Swedish take on it. Apparently it does go back to Viking days and how they related amongst themselves.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/roads/2013/09/sweden_s_lagom_the_single_word_that_sums_up_the_swedish_psyche.html
MarkNR: “Marty replied ‘Good for you.’ A boldly sarcastic statement that I was bragging on how great things have been and are for me.”
If you are saying that it was Marty’s reply that was sarcastic, I didn’t get it that way at all. I thought he meant it sincerely.
As to the main point of your post, what you wrote here was your usual practical wisdom:
“But being able to create any identity for a conscious purpose, at will, now there is something valuable. To be able to operate from any viewpoint, or not, then you have something.”
You are either a very confused pup or are being venal.
Apparently this is an old Japanese proverb. Perhaps theSwedes adopted it, as it does dovetail with the Swedish normative ethic. It basically means “be normal!” Act normal. Don’r exalt yourself, don’t take more than your share etc etc. It is about conforming to the group norms.
http://www.snorko.org/cyberwrite/eng103/students/dianec.html
I am a very confused pup, assuming those are the only two alternatives! It is my take on the subject as I understand it, or as I understood it in 1972 and since. That’s my story and I’m sticking with it, unless you can be a bit more specific.
If you simply are then what you observe is not separate from you.
The observer and the observed are the same thing. 🙂
Not really. A “Being”, by defintion, IS. There is no ‘where did it comen from’, no ‘was’, no ‘will not BE’ etc. It by definition, simply IS. Here’s another word – “Eternity”…… Here’s another – “Infinity”…..
You are perfectly free to remain comfortably numb.
So, back to the subject, Is LRH consistent in his Theta-MEST theory? Is is using binary logic or infinity logic?
I understand.
Valkov, I am not clear how you are separating Standard Tech from the research track. Did LRH come up with his final theory culminating from all his research? What was it? Did he issue it?
As are you, I guess. Although I’m not sure why that is even an issue.
There is no single permanent thing that is acting. Action is the result of vectors present at any moment. It may be compared to the Brownian motion.
I am as much part of the scene as anything else. Or, I may consider myself to be the whole scene. It is just shifting the frame of reference. It does not change what is happening.
Looks like we are not talking about the same subject, What do you think of a thetan as “awareness of awareness” unit in this context?
Valkov, is an electron a Being? It simply IS.
Valkov,
My communication was a help flow to you, for the mental wanderings you were posting above:
“What are the relative dates when he originated he two ideas? I always thought the “theta-MEST theory” was avowedly a “theory” (duh, says so in its name). What succeeded it in his thinking? If anything…..”
I’m not interested in pointing out your thinking “inconsistencies” or the lack of them.
I’m interested in getting people to move up from the mental hangover Hubbard put them in.
So, when you you use the word, “I”, it is a reference point.
If I use it, it is indicative of a “fixation”.
Grasshopper,
Let me guess, you are referring to Hubbard’s GPM?
Perhaps I should just ask Marty.
Hey, ding, ding. Was that “Good for you” sarcasm or were you happy for me. Either way, I benefited from it, since you triggered me to do a review.
Thank you, Marty. But what I really mean down inside is, Thank you, Marty.
Mark
PS: I won’t draw this out since it was concerning a political topic, which I mentioned before, doesn’t belong here.
Vin: “Here the word “percentages” is used incorrectly. The correct word should have been ‘ratio’ because Hubbard provided numbers.”
Maybe you had and still have some missing definitions of ‘percentage’. I always made sure my students who had trouble with that line were looking in a big enough dictionary to have a variety of choices, such as are given in Merriam-Webster:
—————————————-
Full Definition of PERCENTAGE
1a : a part of a whole expressed in hundredths [a high percentage of students attended]
b : the result obtained by multiplying a number by a percent [the percentage equals the rate times the base]
2a : a share of winnings or profits
b : advantage, profit [no percentage in going around looking like an old sack of laundry — Wallace Stegner]
3: an indeterminate part : proportion
4a : probability
b : favorable odds
——————————————-
quadruple chuckle 🙂
—————————————-
Nice, Valkov.
Keep going, keep digging. Soon you will start spotting Source.
Alanzo
Friend, I am enjoying your interesting posts.
Swedes probably love the middle path of Buddhism. 🙂
But they were observations about me as a participant in discussions – and “focusing on the participant,” instead of focusing directly on comments made by the participant, is a violation of YOUR “Discussion Policy”
Marildi will get better if she follows Valkov’s example. 🙂
Valkov, as I see you may be confusing your own ideal scene with Scientology. If you identify the two correctly you would be fine.
________________________________
“Animals have no attention on themselves because they are not aware of being aware.”
You’ve really out done yourself on this one Vinaire.
Animals have no attention on themselves? I guess you have never seen a cat licking it’s paws? Or a dog chasing it’s tail? Or an animal looking for food because it is HUNGRY? I could go on and on but really………….
I already did summarize it . Look again at my comment above, the one you replied to with, “Marildi, you are too complex for me” (which, by the way, is an example of one of the many times you have focused on me, the participant, in violation of your own policy).
The Swedish principle of Lagom (go with the flow, appropriateness, and to some extent, the middle way) certainly has it’s value as an ABILITY. But to follow it as a basic operating principle is a stuck fixation like any other. This is somewhat synonymous with the eastern thoughts of following the natural way, flowing with the river, allowing life to play and taking your place in it.
Knowing, understanding, and then choosing, to me, is always better than following. Choosing to follow, for the moment, is not following. Not to much, not to little, has it’s place as an ability, not as a principle.
Just my take.
Mark
Observe things as they are, without assuming anything.
Assuming function is determined by form is a long shot. That the body determines awareness is a long shot. It has been my observation that animals have a highly developed sense of themselves, and perceptions that many humans do not. Dogs for instance, manage to get themselves picked up and bought into families without a single word needed between them and a human to place them in care for a lifetime. Humans have to be born into a family to get that kind pass. Most animals can be dropped on the ground and survive at birth or soon after without any verbal hat turnover. You rarely see and animal passing along false information.
Most animals have dignity and pride. And are capable of feeling shame and remorse. No attention on self? Why do animals run or fight? Why do they feel guilt?
The Theta-MEST Theory postulates that Life is separate from MEST. They are not the same, and Life is not made up of the Material. This is different from multi-valued logic. The theory is that theta can become more MEST-like as it goes downscale, but in no event will Theta ever fully become matter, energy, space, or time. They are two different things.
A punch is a communication from one person to another. The intention of the punch is real, the resulting feeling or pain is the illusion, as is the time the physical act takes up. “There is no spoon.”
I’m glad you said that. I am not confusing them at all. What you are neglecting to notice is the uproar is because I posted a positive idealistic statement by LRon as the basic consideration of my ideal scene. If anyone else had said “Ethics is Reason and the Contemplation of Optimum Survival”, there would be no problem. If it was a “Buddha quote”, no problem. People here would be saying “Oh yeah? Cool.” But because y’all were contaminated by the CoS culture, you are throwing rotten tomatoes at me. I don’t think I am the one who is confused…..
I don’t quite understand this explanation. Why is the intention real but perception is unreal? What makes the intention real?
Thanks Conan. Yes, sometimes I post my ‘musings’ and rhetorical questions. That is OK with me. Admittedly, it is unnecessary and doesn’t really contribute to any incisive discussion, but sometimes it helps me get my focus together.
No. If an electron simply IS, then it would be beginningless and endless. I don’t think that is any part of a physicist’s defintion of an electron. But then I haven’t asked any physicists about it.
So, there is no gradient between Theta and Mest? What makes you say life is not made up of material? How do you define life?
Grasshopper, where are you getting your ideas from? I thought Hubbard said that life is an interplay of Theta and MEST. So, life would consist of both Theta and MEST.
I’m sure he went into volumnious detail about it in lectures from that period, which I haven’t listened to. If it matters to you, you might listen to them yourself, instead of guessing and speculating. maildi did post one ref in which he was talking about Theta and MEST as an infinity-valued continnum. Let me know what you discover about what he really thought and had to say about it..
So true! Everything you said.
How does those examples describe their mental state? You seem to be projecting your mental inerpretaions here.
I can shift my body without having attention on myself. These actions can be automatic.
Oracle are you certain about your observation being free of assumptions?
It’s not my problem that LRH did not follow his own formula for making ethical decisions and led many people astray about it, if that’s what he did.
Or maybe he thought he was doing so – following that principle. It doesn’t matter to me. Those people have their own responsibility for failing to follow the original basic principle.
Marildi, this is what you said:
”I never said the whole of Scientology is right. What occurred was that FOTF2012 made a statement about Scientology – and you agreed – which I felt was incorrect, and then I gave a quote to show the basis of my view. I don’t see why you would conclude that I’m any more stuck with defending than those who criticize are stuck with stating their criticisms.”
It doesn’t tell me what statement FOTF made that I agreed with and how you felt it was incorrect. You have a habit of quoting long quotes from LRH instead of simply stating your argument. Now I prefer not to guess anything. This is by no means a summarization.
Now I am not going to waste my time with you until you properly summarize it.
Oracle, I think that you are dubbing in quite a bit.
Nope. You are unable to duplicate.
Those comments were not part of any discussion.
So which definition applies here?
Please look at the following details:
https://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2014/08/23/effect-and-cause/#comment-315316
.
Let me put the same question to you that I put to Valkov, which is the crux of this argument.
I am not clear how you are separating Standard Tech from the research track. Did LRH come up with his final theory culminating from all his research? What was it? Did he issue it?
Marildi, your argument doesn’t tell me that LRH made his earlier theories obsolete. They were still being sold to the public as if they were still valid.
Good afternoon, Marildi.
Thank you for the compliment, but I’m afraid I have a bit of a bone to pick with you.
Every time you send a comment to me, my head gets a little bit bigger. I have a collection of 22 hats that no longer fit me unless I have them let out. That would cost me over $50 at a local alterations shop. You owe me girl. Of course there are some that see me differently. There is a fine line between getting a swollen head and being a fat head. I lay on you the responsibility of keeping me on the right side of that line.
Luv ya gal.
Mark
How do you know that a Being is beginningless and endless? What makes you say it just IS and an electron is not.
Aren’t there some assumptions involved here?
Valkov, you are just picking one statement out of many that LRH said. Can you show me he always followed this statement about ethics? If he didn’t give much importance to it then it is just your ideal scene.
Basically, you are just assuming at this moment and you don’t really have an argument to make.
Mindfulness # 2 Vlakov, mindfulness #2. 🙂
A person who is source-centric cannot be trusted in his evaluation.
Vinaire wrote:
Nope. You are unable to duplicate.
Those comments were not part of any discussion.
LOL!!!
Oh!
That has to be the BEST L Ron Hubbard “Creator of Games” quote EVER!!
See, per the tech of the Discussion Policy, there a Players, Pieces, and Broken Pieces. These must follow the rules of the Discussion Policy.
But Vinaire, as the Creator of the Discussion Policy, does not have to follow the rules of the discussion policy, and can designate when a discussion is not existing.
It’s perfectly just, and totally Scientological.
Well done, Vinaire!
Alanzo (:>
Vinaire.
Heinlein would be proud. Or was it Asimov who wrote in a story that ALL activity could be predicted if ALL the current information could be gathered and calculated. No creative choice whatsoever. Is this really what you are implying? That ALL my activity is determined by forces in my past and current environment? That is exactly what Brownian Motion implies when related to human interaction.
Your statement: “Action is the result of vectors present at any moment.” reinforces that viewpoint. I rarely argue directly to any point made on this site, but this is quite a stretch, even for you, Vin.
Would you like to modify or elaborate on this short statement? Help me.
Mark
Are you saying that THETA-MEST theory is using binary logic because it is postulating that Life is separate from MEST?
Marty,
I miss the old days when true miss cabbage operatives were trounced on.
It appears they’re more sophisticated now. No surprise given the depths of POB’s coffers. They are so obvious, though. Ugh….
I don’t have the time available to call them out or read through their bullshit endless diatribes. I’ll leave it at that.
Never-the-less, moving on up continues to leak out!
Onward and upward….
All the best to you and yours.
Didn’t mention your “I”. Talking about animals.
And thanks for your honesty and perseverance. I mean it.
I have never mentioned anywhere about my observations or assumptions. So your question has no basis. I only repeated your own sentence. If it bothers you that someone assumes things, and you are trying to enforce a rule about it, it does you no good to publish your assumptions about animals.
Valkov, you don’t really need all those voluminous details to note LRH’s binary assertions that THETA produces MEST and MEST traps Theta. There are no infinite gradients compatible with these assertions.
I never proposed to describe their mental state. It is obvious to me that the statement you made about animals is false. It is you saying form dictates function. You stating about the awareness of animals. I doubt you have ever interviewed an animal. Yet you publish a finality about the awareness of animal. You wrote: “Animals have no attention on themselves because they are not aware of being aware.” I say this is false information. Prove otherwise.
Vin, you are using an incorrect (inappropriate, I should say) definition of “life.” I believe the way Grasshopper used it is the same definition as in Axiom 1 – “Life is basically a static” (which you have so much disagreement with as well, interestingly). The appropriate definition tells you that “life” IS theta, and theta is “life”. Context is what it’s all about.
In the definitions below you’ll see the various concepts.
LIFE, 1. (understanding), when we say “Life” we mean understanding, and when we say “understanding” we mean affinity, reality and communication. To understand all would be to live at the highest level of potential action and ability. Because life is understanding it attempts to understand. When it faces the incomprehensible it feels balked and baffled. (Dn 55 .!, p. 36) 2 . a fundamental axiom of Dn is that life is formed by theta compounding with mest to make a living organism. Life is theta plus mest. (SOS, Bk. 2, p. 3) 3 . a static, which yet has the power of controlling, animating, mobilizing, organizing and destroying matter, energy and space, and possibly even time. (HFP, p. 24) 4 . a thought or mind or beingness that conceives there are forms, masses, spaces, and difficulties. (HPCA-64, 5608C–) 5 . that which is posing and solving problems. (UPC 11) 6 . Life is a game consisting of freedom, barriers and purposes. (Scn 0-8, p. 119)
So, you are spouting just your ideal scene. LRH could have said it to deceive people and didn’t really mean it. He didn’t follow it anyway.
________________________________
I’m not dubbing that you are the Sigmund Fraud of the animal kingdom.
So, there are only seven planets because seven is a perfect number. eh!
Check your assumptions Mark. There is a spiritual element in what I am saying because things appear and disappear.
Brownian Motion was used as a metaphor.
I doubt it. Not if he sent an auditor trained on the Apollo to be the C/O India who still didn’t get it that function monitors structure.
Please let Grasshopper speak for himself. Thanks.
Luv ya too, guy. And you might as well start saving up for those hat alterations. 🙂
Here’s how I am looking at this. You are across from person B. You and Person B are immortal spiritual beings.
Now – there is some question as to whether you and Person B are each unique beings, or are unique viewpoints of God (but are one with each other) or animated outcroppings of Matter, Energy, Space, and Time.
I am postulating that you and Person B are unique spiritual beings.
Person B, for whatever reason, wants to punch you. That “want” is an intention – and he chooses to use his fist to punch you. Person B exists, and his intention to punch exists. But the fist is an illusion, your and his bodies are illusions, the time taken to move the fist from Person B’s side to your body is an illusion. The only things, as it were, that are NOT illusions are you, Person B, and both of your attitudes and intentions, including Person B’s intention to punch you.
You could almost say that the entire universe was mocked up in order to allow Person B to punch you. It is a common ground allowing communications between beings. It is invented and agreed to by both of you, and you both have agreed to be bound by its rules – but it is still an illusion.
The pure Scientology view is that we beings collectively mocked up and agreed to the physical universe. My personal view is similar, but not the same.
[Sorry Marty – my last reply was a false click.]
Life is not made up of the material, in my view. To me “life” is the spiritual essence, the spark of the divine, the words “I AM”. I view the spirit as being independent of the body, and the material. Intertwined, yes, affected by, yes, impacted and limited by, yes, but still separate from the material.
I could be wrong, but I believe the alternative is that I am a rock that speaks, and I don’t believe that.
Spouting? SPOUTING? There is one person who has spouted twice as much as anyone else on this blog.
Yes, MY ideal scene. Are you saying it is not worth ‘spouting’?
Please let me point out that you are having this supposed discussion with ME, not with LRH.
Therefore it is irrelevant whether or not he meant it, meant something else, or was saying it to somehow ‘trick’ people.
“Ethics is Reason and the contemplation of optimum survival” is as good a basis and guide for Ethical decision making as any I’ve heard. If everyone had been following it through history, it would be a different world. It is a perfectly good basic ‘monitoring consideration’ for one’s ‘ethics’. It doesn;t matter if Hitler or Stalin said it, or some Brit who planted their flag in the middle of India.
If you have a problem with the statement, it is because YOU have a problem.
The Dianetic Axioms define “Life” as Lamda, which is the mix of Theta and MEST which is a life form. So, yes, you can say “Life” is an interplay between Theta and MEST. However, I believe (and have experienced) that the Theta _being_ – i.e., each of us – is fully and completely separate from MEST.
If you recall, at death (according to the Theta/MEST theory) theta retreats from the MEST body, to take its learnings, and move on to the next iteration (i.e. life). I find this an interesting way to view evolution, by the way. So, theta is separate from MEST.
I can see how you are defining “Life” as animated physical beings. I get that, but that’s not what I am talking about. I am talking about Theta – Life Force, Elan Vital, “the spark of divine fire.”
I mean for a swollen head – not a fat head! 😉
Why I said Apples and Oranges is because you stated “LRH himself did not follow the infinity-valued logic. THETA-MEST theory is a glaring example of that.” Theta/MEST has nothing to do with logic, binary, multivalued, or otherwise.
Your lack of trust is ultimately your own problem, not the problem of others. It is not up to others to prove their ‘trustworthiness’ to you. Your distrust coud be a fixed idea.
Perhaps look at the source or origin of your distrust? `
“Who or what would opposed an Apple?” That is an interesting thought. Could be an orange. Oranges don’t like cold weather. Apples need cold weather. Conflict!
You don’t either, have an “argument to make”.
Oh well, it is ‘just’ my, Valkov’s, ideal scene, therefore inconsequential by your standards? Totally not worth considering, right? Why are you so obsessed with LRH?
Beware! Next thing you know, she’ll be offering you a bite of an apple….
Then why do I sometimes feel you do not understand what I write, or my frame of reference?
Thanks. I’m glad someone got what I’m saying! I am not a trained auditor and am not even that knowledgeable of a lot of th etheory, but it occurs to me today that what happens is, some of my posts miss withholds on some of the readers. That’s how I pull in some of the flack I get.
It is a fact to me, that no matter how badly I or Al or LRH or Marty or Miscavige or CoS Management collectively or individually, or org staff or public screwed the pooch, that “Ethics is reason and the contemplation of optimum survival” is a perfectly good basis for making one’s decisions and choices in life. I haven’t seen a statement that would work any better. If more people followed it more ‘religiously’, it would be a different world. All or most of the people being all cynical about it and how LRH didn’t mean it are, to my mind, using that as a justification.
It doesn’t matter who said it or passed it along, the idea stands on its own. But it grinds them that LRH said it.
Brothers and Sisters, let us pray. Kumbaya.
The description of this particular YouTube item says:
“A fair-use excerpt from the Class VIII Auditor lecture series (Tape 11) to demonstrate the thesis that L. Ron Hubbard, founder of the Scientology cult and domestic terrorist group, was an angry and disturbed man.”
HA HA HA HA! You have GOT to be kidding me.
If you have ever been in a blown Listing and Nulling session, you will understand this excerpt. It is very upsetting when L&N is screwed up.
thank you!
There cannot be any mindful discussion until all the parameters per Mindful Discussion are met. The Discussion Policy is a part of mindful discussions.
I can see that there is movement toward mindful discussions. Even Marildi is warming up to it now. So we may be able to achieve the ideal scene. The ideal scene is not there yet but it is getting better. 🙂
________________________________
By the way, I am not the SOURCE of mindful discussion tech. The source are those giants on whose shoulders I may have stood. (:>
I am just like anybody else who need to follow this tech. But it takes a group to follow it and not a single individual.
.
________________________________
I personally go for PROBABILITY, defined as follows in Merriam-Webster:
(1) : the ratio of the number of outcomes in an exhaustive set of equally likely outcomes that produce a given event to the total number of possible outcomes (2) : the chance that a given event will occur
“By actual record the PROBABILITIES are about twenty to 100,000 that a group of human beings will dream up bad technology to destroy good technology.”
Marty effect and cause? This is the tone level of the Church of Scientology’s members: “I have mental problems with you I didn’t have originally but I am fine now, OK?” You know something Marty, it has always been OK with me, I don’t know about them? It reminds me of those crazy Squirrel Busters® people. No wonder there are so few of them. 🙂 Have a flourshing and prosperous Labor Day weekend.
Got it.
However they are still viewed by most people as dichotomies, out of Scientology they will be named Spiritual/Physical. And there is all kind of hang-ups that go along with that misperceptions.Particularly religions tend to trap people with those fabrications.
Of course there is always an understanding that transcend the misperceptions.
I realize that I have been posting too much on Marty’s Blog. So, I am going to give it a rest for a while. I just hop that Mindful Discussions shall take hold on this blog.
I agree with Oracle.
I have never understood statements by my fellow human beings like “Animals have no attention on themselves because they are not aware of being aware.”
I have never thought like this for one second. It has always been so clear to me that any animal has just as rich of an inner life as any human being, and is just as aware of its existence as any one of us.
To me this is as obvious as breathing, and it always has been.
Alanzo
I think you are being condescending and possibly are intentionally misrepresenting what others think. What I have observed that seems to ‘grind’ former scientologists – most scientologists actually, but the ones still in can’t say anything about it – is that most all else that comes with scientology ethics and morals makes your quoted statement at best meaningless. At worst, bait for a most horrendous and diabolical switch up ahead.
Next you are going to write a common sense moral code called “Way To Discussingness” with precepts in it like:
and
People will hand it out on troubled discussion boards and it will save millions of lives.
Alanzo
Hey, Val, you’re talkin’ apples and oranges. 😛
I agree with Oracle and Alanzo about animals. Some like cats, dogs and some birds (my experience) have a sixth sense, feelings or some intuitive abilities or perceptions. Experience and awareness of this in other species is nice to have, call it what you may.
I was thinking of Hubbard’s defintion as a ‘causative thought’, or Dennis Stephens’ ‘causative consideration’. Also Gerbode in ‘Beyond Psychology’ said a postulate has a double structure of creation and assent. You can create an idea of a thing without implying that it actually exists, but if you postulate it into existence you’re also assenting to its reality.
If the word is used much in science these days as an alternative to hypothesis, it would be as you say. The observations come first, then a postulated explanation that, to be useful to a scientist, also needs to be a testable hypothesis.
One difference between postulating and assuming is that an assumption is an example of what Michael Polanyi called tacit knowing. Something we know and act on without bringing into focussed awareness. On the other hand, a postulate is explictly known, as when Euclid asked his readers to agree that parallel lines never meet. A scientific paper should state all the relevant assumptions (thus putting them into the category of postulates), but the most basic ones tend to get overlooked as if too obvious to need stating.
That’s fair enough Marty. As distantly as I was involved with the CoS, even I felt betrayed by the way things played out. I can only begin to imagine how others here who were deeply involved feel now. So I probably should be a lot more tactful in what I post, and I apologize to those I have upset. I’m not sure where that leaves me with posting on your blog. Maybe I’m better off as a lurker; I need to ponder that and possibly make some adjustment. I do not really fit the profile of an ex-SCN, ex-SO. I don’t have as many of the same issues. I got what I got out of it, and get what I get out of continuing to look at the materials. The perspectives I read here are informative. In any case, I am very grateful to you for running this blog all these years now the way you have, and wish you and the others the best.
Val, you a funny man at times and I get a laugh from you. I thought of this as I read your post ‘“Ethics is reason and the contemplation of optimum survival”. ‘is a perfectly good basis for making one’s decisions and choices in life. I haven’t seen a statement that would work any better.’
Wonder if someone like Hitler justified his actions by this thinking.
Yes, I have a reputation for coming across as a condescending smartass. Can’t argue that. As for misrepresenting what others say, if I knew how to not do that, I wouldn’t do it. It is the way my mind filters things. I migh try sleeping on any post that sets me off, and letting it percolate through my mind before i respond. A lot of my responses are automatic I am realizing.
However, I think the people I am speaking to usually know who they are and I don’t feel they ‘represent’ me any better than I may be representing them. Therefore the ‘sleeping on it’ before I respond may be a good idea.
Lateky I’ve been operating on “respind immediately off the top of my head and see how that goes; well, the results have been mixed in my mind. Some hits, some total misses.
I know what you mean. A recent bestseller, “Thinking Fast and Thinking Slow” may help. I think your best good buddy Al may have made that recommedation. Two in a row gems he’s suggested.
Grasshopper,
I understand. I posted my reply to you above (it seems misplaced).
It is just how the dichotomies are perceived by most people as external and in conflict with each other, when in reality they are being fabricated and put in place as opposites only by their mind’s confusion.
“But Vinaire, as the Creator of the Discussion Policy, does not have to follow the rules of the discussion policy, and can designate when a discussion is not existing. It’s perfectly just, and totally Scientological.”
Al, that is one of the fairest, most unbiased comments ever. You raised my affinity!
You make me want to be a better scientologist. 😀
I think most animals are very good at sensing the intentions and emotions of others, meaning the intentions and emotions of humans.
Thanks. I’ll check it out. Al is really coming into his own lately. I’m glad to see it.
I hear you. At some point I think you may want to look at the experience perhaps a bit more objectively. For all the fond memories, since you insist on conveying only your own personal subjective experience and arguing in present time against it, what else was scientology up to at the very time you were practicing? What was it doing that gave you only the presentation that led to your subjective view? Framing journalists? Breaking into the psychiatrist offices and stealing files of critics, chain lockering anyone who might consider letting you know what Ron’s real priorities for you – as student or pc – were? I am not saying you need to focus only on the negative. What begins to grind on me is your seeming automatic default argumentation against any important point raised if you perceive it somehow disses scientology. You have written volumes here and in all of it there is very little about the central point or theme of the original piece the thread is commenting upon. I think your insights and even positive slant are valuable. It just becomes too much when it leans toward having to make scientology right on issues where it is so blatantly wrong.
I think Hitler was very Germany-centered, so I doubt it. It’s possible he rationalized it all by thinking “In the end it wil be good for the world”, but I don’t think even that.
The Communists did think in that direction, but they only considered the first 4 dynamics, and rationalized their means as leading to a better society in the end. Well, we have several examples of how that went.
I guess any standard can be twisted and humans are clever enough to do so. But if you think that, then why bother to talk about “ethics” at all? Its like saying “Why bother to vote? The candidates and the elections are rigged anyway….”
So my point is, “Reason and the contemplation of optimum survival” is as good a basic foundation for an ethical approach to life as any. But people have to really do it, not use it to justify their overts. NO dynamic can be left out.
I’m sure you can think of many examples from the daily news, of how th eprinciple is being violated, not just by the CoS, but by greedy corporations, greedy politicians, greedy dictators, and just plain stupid selfish people.
I think one of the worst things a religion or church or society or educational system can do is make people cynical about ethics. Know anyone that’s happened to?
“…the “Way To Discussingness…”
HILARIOUS!
Watch this amazing vid about a beautiful and very communicative black leopard:
Vinny I hope you haven’t lost your enthusiasm because of our little disagreement about the animals. Listen, I am even try to see it from your viewpoint. Maybe they don’t have any attention on themselves and they are creepier than I thought. Maybe their attention during mating is on us humans?
Sure, I’ve read/seen video of a lot of that stuff. The negative personal accounts, the Blue Sky book. And the positive personal accounts as well.
It’s all pretty much on ESMB or linked to from there, as well as other places.
I can’t relate to this: “….what else was scientology up to at the very time you were practicing?” Scientology was very diverse. “It” was not doing anything. “someone” was doing something. My auditor was “scientology”. My TRs twin was “scientology”. What were they doing? I had no idea what Hubbard was doing at the time. It’s kinda like asking “what was communism doing at the time?”. It’s easier to answer that in fact, but it would still be wrong. Kinda like asking “what was the Western world doing at the time?” Things are done, actions are performed by those who are capable of ‘agency’.
To say “scientology was doing this or scientology was doing that”, is a reification.
What was math doing at the time? Or social science – what was “it doing?”
It is much more relevnt and closer to the truth to ask “What was Hubbard doing at the time?” Can you answer that? (I don’t mean you should, it is for the sake of example, because he was capable of agency.) The ‘agency’ of ‘scientology’, of any organization or group of people is comprised of their individual agencies. That’s why there can be “war criminals”. It is individuals who are tried for their crimes. No one takes “socialism” to court in handcuffs and puts it on trial. No-one takes “democracy” to court and places it on trial for say, dropping atomic bombs on two cities in Japan when Japan was already sueing for peace. If the US had lost he war anyway, I bet some individuals would have been tried in the courts of the winners, like Truman, his advisors, the guys who flew the planes etc. Hubbard and the people who carried out his orders, they could be put on trial. Some were, and went to jail.
So would it be fair of me to say that in the year I was born, 1945, waht was ‘democrac’ doing? “Oh, it was dropping atomic bombs on two Japanese cities ful of women, children, and old infirm people. That’s what democracy was doing that year.”
Would that be fair to say, about ‘democracy’? To assign that kind of agency to an abstract concept? In my book, that is the reification fallacy.
Yes, I know a lot, I guess I should say enough, about what Hubbard and his cohorts in the Sea Org were doing, because I met some of them.
My helpful friends in scientology,, who were also “scientology”, were leaving. One eventually got ‘massacred’ out of her Mission, in an underhanded way. But I do not consider it was “scientology” that did anythiong. “Scientology” is an abstract concept. It was Hubbard that did things. His minions and cohorts in th eSEa POrg did things. The enablers in the orgs did things. But mostly the people in the orgs kept tying to make it work! That’s the tragedy ot it. They were sold on the “ends justify the means” thing. They went down a slippery slpoe because they wanted “scientology” as they knew it, to survive. Because as they knew it, it was good, or more good than bad, or at least their intentions were good.
Hubbard’s intentions by then questionable. Obviously he thought drastic actions were necessary to preserve his “baby”. We see the results today.
I’m a firm believer that social realities as we know them are co-created.
Ubuntu, as Tom posted
They are co-created by action and by inaction as well.
My memories are “fond” only by comparison. There were at least people trying, back then. Many of them were succeeding, too. Those helped me a lot. They were pretty much driven out of the CoS. And just as well, when the CoS structure was attacked and undermined by the IAS in short order. And it took me awhile to see that wasn’t working, but it sure kept me away. So maybe it was working, if that was the actual intention – take my money and keep me from getting up whatever Bridge there actually was.
My “fondness” is for whatever and whoever helped me at the time, back in 1970-1983 or so. The rest was a bitter disappointment. I guess that didn’t come through in my posts.
But I hope you get my point about reification and how I see agency.
Now just wait a minute Alanzo. Have you considered the squirrels really don’t have attention on themselves, and they gather and hoard nuts to run a “Can’t Have” on humans?
I don’t know. Maybe the K9 units aren’t thinking of the treats they will get from the handlers. Maybe some of those dogs have drug track.
Maybe the seeing eye dogs are just ser facing. Making themselves right and others wrong.
Marildi says..” I don’t see why you would conclude that I’m any more stuck with defending than those who criticize are stuck with stating their criticisms.”
I can not speak for all critics so I will speak for myself. Marildi.. I don’t know who you are. I know who Hubbard is. I know what he has said. I know his technology. I have done my homework.
I have read Marty. I enjoyed ” Memoirs” the best. Had I not loaned it to someone I would reread it again. I study human behavior. It fascinates me to see how Marty has progressed through the fog .
I love how he is deconstructing Scientology. He is doing this remarkably well. I have learned a lot. I have kept my mouth shut and waited until now. I can’t wait until his next book comes out.
I am not stuck. I am a realist. LRH plagiarism is well documented. All one has to do is to read Jon Atack’s, Bent Corydon’s and Russell Miller’s book to read who he stole much of his work from.
Marty has the information. He has shared the information. After all that you have read… even here if nowhere else. You still continue to quote Hubbard and put him on a pedestal that is not deserved.
Am I highly critical of Hubbard. Yes. I also see the radical MS2 group as those who are only deluding themselves.
I understand mind control. I understand those needing to go through their own path to decompress. I do have compassion for those who do read. Do take the time to process the information that is presented to them.
The ones that I admire. The ones that I respect for making it through this Mind Fuck known as Scientology I am at the end of the tunnel congratulating them for their effort . I applaud them for their strength. Many of them are the heroes of this saga.
So to say that I AM stuck? I am confused. What part am I stuck on? I do not hate. I come from a good place.
I do hate what Scientology has done to good people who have not recovered ..mentally, financially or spiritually.
Please don’t use a quote. Just your own words. Thank you.
I heard it loud and clear Val. You know like, ” MIND YOUR OWN FUCKIN BUSINESS..” You will never have to guess what I am thinking. Passive Aggressiveness has never been a part of my nature.
Apathy has now set it.
It did come from a good place. I thought I saw a light in you that needed to glow further out. I was mistaken.
That was a nice post, Brian.
Namaste /|\
deElizabethan, Very true. My cat went nuts and woke me up about 45 seconds before the 1994 Northridge earthquake in Los Angeles. He was howling and standing on his hind legs and slapping the door knob on the back door of the house. He wanted to get the fuck out of the house. He had never done that. I got out of bed to help him and BOOM!! Earthquake. Shock waves move slowly through the ground. Animals probably think we humans are pretty lame that we can’t sense what they can. I don’t know why scientists are baffled by this. It seems they haven’t been able to design a scientific test to show what happens here. Maybe they should ask a cat for help.
vinaire, I got your dub in right here.
Amazing vid. Leaves no question that dogs have feelings.
That lady sure has a lot of dogs! Interesting how some of them were shrinking in obvious shame, while others turned over onto their backs. Wonder what the tone levels were – grouped together on the tone scale are failure, pity, shame and accountable, in that order moving downward.
Hmmm… poor Vinaire — are you now confusing me and marildi? too many discussions going at once?
Deep breath, matey, deep breath.
OK, still this is not a definition. I can’t attempt to understand you and be understood by you unless you define the terms of this exchange. What is the actual definition of disturbance, as you understand and use it. Please, write a definition, if it isn’t too much trouble.
Act like you are talking to a retarded child, when you speak with me, and we’ll get along just fine.
Probably, reality does not start with beingness. The fact that these Founders may have created the human blueprint in this reality does not mean they created this reality — they created the human blueprint. I cannot put it in any other plain term else than saying that they are our “galactic forefathers”.
As far as creating the All of Reality, well, the question, as far as I am concerned, is still unanswered.
It appears that I am not communicating to you in the same language, somehow. No, I do not believe that the spiritual and the physical are independent. I believe they are two facets of the same thing — two types of energies intimately connected. It’s just that their interaction develops, as they progress from lower densitiy to higher density.
Dear Vinaire, resistance is futile — just kidding.
When I say “one’s individual awareness encompasses all others”, I do not actually mean one becomes a “superbeing”.
A true brotherhood of man is each individual being, being aware and in harmony with the other and, all together, working towards higher spiritual ability and so forth (whatever their goal may be).
At fourth density, as it is described in the above-mentioned book, one is no longer aware of only oneself but of everyone else, too. Each and every individual is aware of every other individual and therefore a true brotherhood can be achieved.
Of course, it comes out that, instead, it’s the other way around and we would become like the Borg, I am taking first bids on the Borg Queen position!!!!
Let me use allegory here:
Let’s consider consciousness as a vast body of water. This vast body of water is like a vast body of energy that has both physical characteristics (which can be measured) and metaphysical qualities, which can be experienced (I would term these “spiritual” qualities but the word ‘spiritual’ unfortunately has other connotations in the normal language, which I find may be misleading). These physical characteristics encompass all matter of quantitative phenomena. The metaphysical qualitites encompass all kinds of phenomena that can be felt and experienced, while not necessarily in a pure physical manner, which include the potential for perception, recognition, computation and finally thought.
This metaphysical potential for experience, which consciousness has, is awareness.
Now, let’s also envision that consciousness, being energy, physically vibrates — it has different forms in which it manifests. This is both at a physical level and at a metaphysical one. As it vibrates at different frequencies, different patterns of energy coalesce into different densities. Each density has different levels of awareness (potentiality of perception, recognition, computation and thought).
Now, a tiny drop of this body of water has the exact same potential for awareness as the whole; however, in order for it to sort of “wake up” and become individually aware (as we earthlings are), this drop must reach a level of “3rd density” in order to become “aware of its individuality”. As it progresses up the density levels, due to its vibration frequency changing, this awareness of self is not cancelled, it expands to encompass other awareness units (other drops in the body of water) and operates in concert with these. It does not become the other drops. It becomes aware of them and they of it. I envision that at the highest levels of density (the seventh) these drops of the vast body of water are so tightly aware of each other that there is maximum affinity, agreement and communication between them (the scientology concept of ARC) that it gives the appearance of them acting as one — however, I conjecture that it may be only an illusion.
Thus, my definition of awareness is the potential for consciousness to perceive, recognize, compute and think.
Vinaire,
I know I said that I did not get everything in KHTK but I believe that in the 12 or so points of mindfulness it mentions something about observing or perceiving something without a sort of “pre-judgement” — basically, perceiving something as it presents before one without other thoughts clouding your mind.
In view of that, how can you say this is Sci Fi? Just because it may not be categorized and defined, as per your own views of reality, it does not mean that it is fictional.
I can assure you that fiction is a misnomer, when it comes to the normal language. A lot of things that are considered fictitious are in fact based on true hard facts. It’s just that the normal public isn’t cognizant of them. I would use the term with a grain of salt. This is what, I, as a Sci Fi writer, found to be true.
In no way am I suggesting that you must believe what I say is true and factual but at the same time, at least for manner’s sake, be truly objective.
It is possible that what the people wrote on the book above is completely false — it is also possible that they are completely right.
I cannot tell you either way. If I am to be truly objective about it all, I have to give both you and them the benefit of the doubt.
Please refer to my allegory above. See if this makes it clearer.
Marildi wrote:
You make me want to be a better scientologist.
It seems I’ve always had that effect on you. And so has the toaster, and the cars passing in the street, and the people at the mall, and aspirin.
Scientology is a self-perpetuating, parasitical meme that has attached itself to its host and which gets continually positioned with survival itself.
It survives, not because the world needs it, but because the host has a hole where it can fit. If the host can spot the hole where Scientology fits in its life, then the host can see where Scientology is being a parasite.
Until then, everything and everyone makes it want to be a better Scientologist.
Alanzo
Valkov wrote:
“As distantly as I was involved with the CoS, even I felt betrayed by the way things played out. I can only begin to imagine how others here who were deeply involved feel now. So I probably should be a lot more tactful in what I post, and I apologize to those I have upset.”
Apology accepted.
“I do not really fit the profile of an ex-SCN, ex-SO. I don’t have as many of the same issues. I got what I got out of it, and get what I get out of continuing to look at the materials. “
But you don’t look at all the materials.
There is a sowing period to Scientology. Then a reaping period. This is Hubbard’s pattern throughout Scientology history.
You just look at the materials with the high ideals and faux mimicry of other religions and philosophies Ron wrote when he was sowing seeds.
You continually discount and deny the reaping materials he wrote after he locked down peoples’ loyalty, violated the Creed he used to attract his victims, and enslaved them in billion year contracts, etc.
The Scientology materials, written after Hubbard’s sowing period, are the manifestations of his intent all along: A person does not sow seeds if he does not intend to eat the plants when they are grown.
So just as you are loyal to the “sowing” Ron, you completely block out the “reaping” Ron and blame good and trusting people for having been “reaped” (raped?) by him.
This is blaming Ron’s victims, Valkov, and you are doing this more and more lately.
You got out early when you saw Ron’s Sea Org Reapers appear.
Good for you.
But now you are remaining loyal to “Sowing” Ron, while just beginning – after many years – to acknowledge that Reaping Ron ever existed. Acknowledging Reaping Ron is progress, Valkov, and I applaud you for that.
When will you stop blaming L Ron Hubbard’s victims, though?
Alanzo
I skimmed enough to see that you are not even trying. I think Al’s analogy may be apt. You are acting as a host. That ‘scientology’ doesn’t do anything deleterious is part of you. Oh, in your mind, it does plenty good. But you see, according to scientology, scientology does good, people do bad. It is like we cannot have a discussion on sensible weapon control because ‘guns don’t kill people, people kill people’, or ‘I am rubber and you are glue…’ Thanks at least for demonstrating the principle as it applies to scientology.
Got a little story that applies directly to this site and the people who frequent it. Not too long.
When I was 16 I worked at a restaurant and in the afternoon things would slow down. I had a small amount of free time and I would goof around a bit. So I started juggling knives. The big 12in. chefs knives. (Not the expensive ones.) Others thought it was scarey but it was really easy, if you weren’t concerned about the value of the knife. I would flip the knife up and if the handle was coming down toward my hand, I would catch it. If the blade was coming toward my hand, I would pull back and let it hit the floor. Easy. No problem.
Most people have a sub conscious hesitation and decision making process when they intend to do something and then need to change their mind. They can’t quickly and easily ‘let it go’. In that instant when the blade is coming down, there is an intent to carry through, to do what you started. This is taught to people from almost the start of life and is usually a valuable life lesson. But it runs deeper than that. It is instinctive in most people. But no, it is even deeper than that. It can become obsessive, or dare I say, reactive.
But Mark, that’s crazy. Everyone knows that to accomplish anything, to do well in any endeavor you have to be able to finish what you start. Mark, you even mentioned it on this site in a comment. Well yes, as long as it is conscious, not obsessive or mindless. Even the finest and most valuable of traits are aberrations when they are not under your complete control.
If a race driver pushes through to finish a race, he is bold, gutsy, admired. If he goes 2 mph too fast into the last turn and wrecks 5 cars, he is insane.
When Dia. and Scn. was introduced, it was promoted as a precision tool, a fine instrument, a surgeons knife for deftly cutting out aberrations. But sometimes the blade of the knife didn’t come down just so. That is when you have to pull back, quickly and easily, without hesitation. THEN FLIP THE KNIFE UP AGAIN, WITHOUT HESITATION. OTHERWISE, YOU WILL NEVER LEARN TO JUGGLE KNIVES.
LRH taught a LOT of very valuable things. But it all has to be looked at in a mindful (seeing exactly what is there) way. This is the case with any instruction. If something isn’t right, quickly and easily let it go, AND THEN CONTINUE. As your skill improves, you will more accurately recognize what is right for you and what is not.
I have many tools in my garage which are not totally perfect, but if I threw them all away, I would never finish the dresser I’m working on. I use them wisely and skillfully. Recognize the value of the tools available and use them. Recognize the imperfections and work accordingly. This is part of the reason that I have been able to use Scn. without becoming upset when Ron went off the rails or worse, going off the rails myself.
Mark
@iamvalkov,
Excellent post – the one above about “reification”.
There is no doubt that the squirrels in my backyard are in a games condition with me.
And some are winning.
Alanzo
This is one of the best history lessons on the Church of Scientology I have ever seen. He addresses long-standing mysteries and unconnected dots.
Chris Shelton is becoming a freaking treasure in the history of Scientology watching.
His data is great for the burgeoning army of legal practices who are looking to feed their families on the remains of the Church of Scientology.
Alanzo
Got it, Checking.
Marildi.
Light worker, keepers of darkness, Satan, Lucifer, Benevolent Gods.
I have not looked at this directly, but it appears like what has been going on for a very long time. Control games, energy whores. A few individuals weasel their way into a position of power and try to f##$ everyone over. Those who need and usurp life energy from others are pretty bad off.
I recall a similar scam going on some time ago. A group set themselves up as the givers of pain and pleasure. The sensations involved were similar to a tough guy saying “Hit me harder, I can take it. Yea, feels good, harder. That’s more like it.” And then goes and sits in a hot tub with a couple of hookers. Adrenalin junkies, sensation seekers would get really addicted and the givers would keep them going, living off the sensations of their addicted captives. Their ‘adrenalin’ was keeping people under their thumb.
Old scam, new techniques. The guys running the show over in the systems toward Orion’s Belt, about 23, 25 lt. yrs. out have one going. Perfect order, harmony. But it is locked down tight. No dissent.
If you run into similar things on your track, just go earlier/similar and pay attention to desire for order, authority, pleasure, punishments, and then look at exchange. Exchange seems to be a basic, natural part of beingness, interaction, but it too has a beginning and can become obsessive, aberrated.
Mark
Religious writings and taped lectures are not rectification. They exist.
And when those religious writings are written as direct orders that threaten the believer with excommunication if he does not carry them out exactly, as Scientology religious writings do, then those writings have agency, as well.
I’m glad that Valkov is now thinking with this idea of “reification”. But, as he often does when he first starts using a new concept, he is using it as another excuse to look away from the Source of the abuse and insanity of Scientology.
Don’t you use it that way, too, Maurice.
Alanzo
Oh, by the way. If you ever make a mistake and someone points it out, and punishes you, either verbally or physically, and you say “Yea, your right, I deserve it.” Dig into that thought right away. Making amends or making things right is perfectly fine, it’s a win. But ‘deserve’ is a false, invented idea used to make someone wrong or make them less. Agreeing with it is a hole that you dig a little bit deeper each time you do.
Today’s tech tip.
Mark
Thanks for the above explanation. These are very interesting definitions.
Awareness = the potential for perception, recognition, computation and finally thought.
Consciousness = a vast body of energy that has both physical characteristics (which can be measured) and metaphysical qualities, which can be experienced
.
I have similar definitions where I also see a large spectrum of frequencies involved. My definitions are as follows:
Awareness = the spiritual component of elecromagnetic disturbance. The electomagnetic aspect progressively condenses as matter. The spiritual aspect progressively condenses as self.
Consciousness = self awareness
.
Mark –
You do realize that you are speaking in analogies, right?
If you look at LRH writings and taped lectures – text on pages and recorded words – and see “tools” like hammers and screwdrivers, you do realize that you are dubbing in something that is not there.
That’s fine for illustrative purposes, but Scientology recordings and writings are not literally tools. And so the analogy you are using distracts you from the real effect of text on a page, and words on tape, that are religious commands to be followed to the letter.
Never forget that Scientology, in actuality, is NOT “a set of tools”. That is just an analogy and does not exist.
Scientology is text on pages, and recorded words, that contain religious commands to think and behave in an exact manner, under threat of being declared “SP” of you do not comply to the letter.
And even if you do comply to the letter, you still may be declared SP by your fellow followers.
Hammers do not have followers that can declare you “SP” and take away your families, friends, and business associates.
Screwdrivers do not create self-identities. No one ever said “I’m a scredriverist”.
But many people do declare themselves “Scientologists” and take on that self identity.
This is where your analogy to Scientology being “a set of tools” breaks down and allows you to continue to blind yourself to the actuality of Scientology.
Don’t do that.
Alanzo
I really like this.
“A true brotherhood of man is each individual being, being aware and in harmony with the other and, all together, working towards higher spiritual ability and so forth (whatever their goal may be)”
.
It seems to me that an individual is not fully aware and in harmony with others because he is introverted into “I” or self. When he extroverts it doesn’t mean that “I” disappears. He is simply extroverted with optimum attention on self and in total harmony with it .
.
To me electromagnetic wave represents a disturbance in the fabric of space.
Good. I understand you now.
Typo: Religious writings and taped lectures are not reification. They exist.
Animals are not introverted into their “self” as humans are.
This is all that I was trying to say above. Looks like I didn’t express myself too well. Here is the basic idea.
Just like there is exterioriization from body, similarly there is also exteriorization from self.
A person obsessively wanting OT levels is interiorized into self..
.
Mark, you are so right. Very few of us aren’t operating on “Give ’em an inch, they’ll take a mile” – which gets us nowhere. That and the whole point about tools make this one of your best – if not the best – posts yet. I’d say you truly are a handyman. 🙂
Geeze Al, I thought you’d see the humor in that. It was a play on Jack Nicholson’s “You make me wanna be a better man.” Sort of self-deprecating humor. I even put a grin face after it for you.
Can we ever be friends? 😀
Alanzo.. Any comparison between Scientology and Buddhism is offensive. I share your thoughts.
Was that post you quoted even addressed to you?
The true spiritual element is the unpredictability of the appearance and disappearance of things and associations. The rest is mechanical.
The mechanical element is the predictability of things and associations that are in existence.
But, like any other dichotomy, “spiritual.and mechanical” form the two ends of the same graduated scale. In other words, these concepts are relative to each other.
I don’t view Spiritual/Physical as a dichotomy. I can see, however, “Spiritual/Not Spiritual” as a dichotomy. and “Material”/”Not material” as another one.
To me, there is a question of spirituality. Either we are, or are not spiritual in nature. Either consciousness is, or is not, purely a physical function. The working view of Neuroscience and indeed most sciences is that consciousness is a result of brain function only, and is completely encapsulated by the material events in the brain and body. The person’s personality, his ability to read, think, perceive, enjoy, reject, play – all of that, are the result of physical processes and only physical processes in the body. Furthermore, this is all supposed to have come about due to the mechanical process of natural selection, starting about 3.5-4 billion years ago. There is no God, no Divine design, no spiritual external force. Only the aggregate process of lots and lots of cells (ten _trlllion_ in the human body!!!) collectively working together to produce the intellectual stylings of thee and me.
That is either true, or it is not. Call jt proposition MEST, or Prop-MEST. Either we are, or we are not, purely the result of physical processes. Prop-MEST is either true, or false. It can ONLY be one or the other. If we are _mostly_ physical, with a sprinkling of spiritual, then Prop-MEST is false.
If you look at this as a Tetralemma: 1. Prop-MEST cannot be both true and false. It is one or the other. 2. Since we exist – consciousness does exist, and we are here – Prop-MEST and Not Prop-MEST cannot both be false. This is the classic “given” statement. Given that humans exist and are conscious, and have an awareness of being conscious, then: Consciousness is purely the result of physical processes – Prop-MEST. True, or false? In this context, it’s not true AND false. Or both false. That leaves 3. Prop-MEST is true, or 4. Prop-MEST is false.
Infinity-valued logic plays in areas of judgement or degrees. You can view the weather as HOT or COLD, but you can also have mostly hot, and mostly cold. You can view a financial decision as RISKY or NOT RISKY or you can view it is mostly risky, or mostly safe.
Logic is a toolbox – use the method that will yield the best result, or at least the best approximation.
Mark,
You are still babbling a bunch of generalities, irrelevant to this post.
You posted before your personal insight on the nature of universe creation.
I took you up on that not to invalidate your insight (which I found pretty cool), but to point to you the complete absurdity of Scientology, and the delusional state that Scientologists find themselves in.
You keep asserting subjective insight for objective reality.
You keep pushing Hubbard’s number one trick of mind control:
That just because something “terrible happened ” to you in the distant past and/or because there are some dangerous people around who may threaten your life and sanity, Hubbard won’t do the same to you. No, no he is your ONLY friend and he will help you out of the morass that OTHERS put you in.
How naïve, how oblivious to the actual reality experienced by thousands of people for the past sixty years of this Scientology nightmare.
If you are going to equate Scientology to a toolbox, then at least be honest enough to OBSERVE, that Hubbard sourced it from Magic.
And that despite any propaganda to the contrary, Magic is always a Black/White proposition and so is Scientology.
Here is a link to it’s source:
http://hermetic.com/crowley/book-4/defs.html
Yes, I ‘entertain’ ideas. Growing up isolated and alone, I read books and entertained ideas. I guess that’s like ‘hosting’ ideas.
The issue to me is, which ideas? Compare ideas. Hubbard expressed idea sthat were good, as well as ideas that were bad. You guys seem to view ideas as strong wine, that if one drinks any, he will become an addict. I see ideas as food. They can be nourishing or toxic. It appears you, Al, and others see all of ‘scientology’ as toxic. I assume that is based on experience. I haven’t had that experience so I don’t see it that way. If I listen to say, a group processing recirding and feel lighter, why would I see that as bad? Or listen to a lecture and feel enlightened or entertained in some way, why would I see that as bad? If I run an assist on someone and they feel better or resolve a problem, is that supposed to be dangerous?
You may say I am not even trying, but you are not even trying to answer some of my questions, as above.
You seem to be saying the CoS and ‘scientology’ is basically a control operation. I can’t disagree with that. It is an operation designed to perpetuate the dissemniation of Hubbard’s product, the auditing philosophy and tech. The issue to me is, how viable is that product? The small amount of it I was exposed to seemed positive, by comparison with other available ‘therapies’ or methodologies. The cult aspect seemed undesirable to me, not something I would want to be involved in, although I can see the attraction it has. It is a relief of responsibility, a kind of “trust in God” kind of thing, only it’s ‘trust in Ron’ as the leader of the pack.
So the CoS to me is the sales organizations set up to sell the product, the dealerships set up to sell the cars.
My questions have to do with the viability and worth of the product. You are presenting it as, “there is no difference”. “The dealership is the car you are buying.” Well, no it isn’t. That doesn’t make any sense to me. I’m not buying the dealership or a membership in it, I’m just shopping for a car. If you’re saying “well, don’t buy from Henry Ford, he was anti-semitic”, that’s a different issue. Henry Ford is dead, and we are a “ford family” as far as buying new cars go, because our daughter works for Ford.
Sorry you’re disappointed with my level or style of thinking or its lack of depth, but that’s where I’m coming from.
I am dealing with a heavily primed, associative-auto mind that bats back at me recharacterizations of my words to fit its matrix. No thanks.
When you lob me a softball, I always go for the basket.
Alanzo
Baby, I got all you said. Here’s how I look at the whole subject based on the data I have – which includes a fair amount of reading many articles, blog posts and comments, and portions of critics’ and religious scholars books about Scientology. I’ve also read the accounts of those of opposite views, who have a lot of positive things to say, including many who were “there” as either public or staff, some of whom worked closely with LRH.
Maybe he did plagiarize a lot, but he was the one who put it all together into a system that in the earlier years, at least, was reportedly helping people be more aware, happier, and do better in life.
I do see that LRH started going in an entirely different direction at some point as compared to where he started out with scientology. Or maybe the change was more gradual, I’m not sure. And neither do I know for sure his motives, even from the beginning.
More importantly, to me, is that in present time I hear about or read about the positive results people are getting from independent scientologists who apply only LRH materials, as well as practitioners who have researched and apply what they consider much better methods than what LRH came up with – and as critical as some of them are of LRH they still give him credit for the foundation of their work.
Btw, I’ve even had some auditing from one of those people, so you can see just from that I’m not a “strictly LRH” person. My basic view is that what he started can and should be built on and improved, such as the TIR methodology being used in your field.
Basically, even if LRH had been completely evil and yet came up with, or put together from others’ work, something of value – there’s no reason to not make use of what was beneficial and build on it. Otherwise, it seems to me that we would be cutting off our nose to spite our face.
This is why I focus on the positive and have the urge to protest when others deny that it exists or ever did. In turn, they protest what I say too, because their view is that it’s more harmful than good, at least with regard to “strictly LRH” tech. However, I assure you that if the day comes that I see it that way, I’ll see it that way. Not to fear.
Grasshopper,
You will need to read the book “The End of Suffering” to get the complete understanding of the Tetralemma.
It is a working model that approximates the PARADOX of life, as viewed by ancient mystics and now Quantum physics.
While you and I might know all about the Static, that however is not how Hubbard and others before him spun their religious mythology on unsuspecting marks.
Hard as I tried while I was in Scientology the “there is no spoon” gnosis was not around to be found In every day practice.
What I actually found was the usual religious dichotomies masquerading as pseudo-scientific space opera certainties.
You don’t see Spiritual/Physical as dichotomies. Try again:
How is the Static “damaged” by so called wholetrack incidents?
How is the Static “caused/effected” into being by long ago and distant events, if there is not such a thing as Time & Space per your own observation?
How is Incident One possible, or anything else that exists for that matter, if per your own observation there is nothing there?
How is one “condemned” and/or “saved” by causes/effects that per your own observations are just an illusion?
If there is no spiritual/physical dichotomies in Scientology, why Ron-The Commodore run his loyal officer corps, purportedly attempting to salvage this sector of the universe from the “non-existent, spiritual Xenu cataclysm”?
Is not that simple, isn’t?
LRH said about THETA-MEST theory in Scn 8-8008: “Scientology is essentially a study of statics and kinetics. If anything, it is more exact than what are called the physical sciences, for it is dealing with a theoretical static and a theoretical kinetic which are at the opposite ends of a spectrum of all motion.”
Grashopper, do you agree or disagree with the above?
>
Val says ..”In the meantime, I think T.O.’s recent post says it all:
https://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2014/08/23/effect-and-cause/#comment-315078
JUst plug in “Al” wherever she has “Baby”.
…………………………………………………………………………
This is what I was referring to..
It was rude and dismissive.
For 30 years I was a Case Manager for those Hubbard would deem to be degraded beings. The Mentally Ill, the Mentally Retarded/Developmentally Disabled ( MR/DD) Veterans suffering from PTSD, etc.
I drove a dilapidated Bus around picking up the Homeless to take them to AA/NA meetings.
Or as Mirildi would call them Bums who were in the same area as she was while out walking.
During that time I counseled and set up treatment plans to ensure that my clients would successfully acclimate into society. As long as my Mentally Ill clients remained on their medication they were stable. When they were off the medication they were not.
Since I am retired I no longer do that. I have always tried to live a purpose driven life. My purpose now is to inform and educate those about the dangers regarding Scientology.
I read your post about Marty being at the end of the tunnel of Scn and you just at the beginning of the tunnel. I erroneously interpreted that as you still had doubts.
I apologize for any advice that was given to you that you did not ask for.
It will not happen again.
Very nice video Miraldi. I have been able to talk to most animals since I was seven years old. I would think anyone that has solo audited wouldn’t have any problem communicating to animals.
Right. You should watch out for confusing frames of reference in general.
Laughter! The animals can feel it coming. I knew the last Earthquake I was in, was coming when I saw two of my dogs digging holes for themselves to go into. “What the hell are you digging big holes in the yard for?” “To lay in when the Earthquake hits.” “When is it going to hit here?” “Roof ly two days from now.” Two days later…….. 5.1 .
They know about the drought too on the west coast. All of animals here.
Plenty of D E and R (dog emotion and reaction) with my animals to get off the south west coast.
The birds have cleared out. No more birds around here. When you go outside and can’t find a bird anywhere, You’ve got to believe it’s time to pack up and get moving.
I don’t think it is possible to know about future conditions if you are not in communication with the animal kingdom.
Laughter!
I don’t think the dogs belong to the same person. It is a series of clips put together from different people I think.
Al Brown and Oracle, I enjoyed your animal stories and experiences. It has always been real to me too. Thank you.
Val, honestly, you have so many questions and many, many interesting thoughts you like to express and discuss on this thread. I would think it would be worth the effort to start a blog where you could continue with those interested in debate each day. Maybe fun too!. In fact, you really have a wide view of the workings of the world that could fill a nice book, which may benefit the public. Give it some thought, eh?
ery nice video Miraldi. I have been able to talk to most animals since I was seven years old. I would think anyone that has solo audited wouldn’t have any problem communicating to animals.
Thanks, TO. Very cool that you can talk to animals, and could do so since you were a child. Children lose such abilities because, not being objective, they get invalidated as not real.
By “solo audited,” are you talking about NOTs? Its EP was “Cause over life” and I think the definition of “life” (the activity of living) that most people use isn’t what he meant. Rather, it was “life” as in theta beings. And that should extend to animals, maybe plants too.
I don’t know why LRH wanted the person to get all beings out of his space, maybe just as the setups (it was actually the pre-req) for the next OT level so that there would be no “interference” from other life sources. But the ability to communicate with “life,” and to that degree not be the unwanted effect of other beings, would have been the actual ability gained.
I thought so too, at first. But I kept hearing the same lady’s voice for quite a few different dogs. And I know that some people do have many dogs. Or cats.
I think any mastery of life I command, is in realizing how unimportant I am.
A lot of truth in what your father had to say Mark.
Interesting read..
http://barefacedmessiah.wordpress.com/2013/12/17/scientology-ethics-power/
Thanks, Mark. That was an enlightening post.
The few years I spent in West Virginia, and some subsequent summer vacations there, were a real blessing for me in terms of coming into communication with the supernatural. It is a very spiritual area. Everyone was in communication with the animals and everyone talked to ghosts.
Hubbard’s write ups on the Nots, I didn’t find all to be true for me. And I didn’t and don’t have an aversion to the presence of other spirits. Especially spirits that have been under my protection, and vice versa.
Really, I haven’t found anything weird or unusual in Scientology.
I didn’t pay much attention to anything I read that was NOT an eternal truth.
Policies on in baskets and so on. That stuff just didn’t interest me. The justice lay out, I didn’t come there for that so I blew it off too. Things that had time expiration on them I just didn’t take in. Stuff about people.
I have known for a long time , it is not about today or next year or even next life. It is about someplace I am going to be standing a thousand years from now. And I knew this my whole life, even before Scientology.
I look at the reactive mind as a tool rather than a handicap. And a lot of people really don’t think they can survive with out it. It is like trying to snatch a life preserver away from someone who is floating in the middle of the ocean. It was not easy at all for me to let go of it. I felt very vulnerable and fragile and small for quite a while myself when I went clear, and even mocked up some other systems as buffers.
I say, if someone isn’t going to enjoy life with out it, let them keep it. It’s just a tool. Nobody wants to into a war zone unarmed. A car is a tool too.
So is a weapon. The analytic mind I have found to be a bigger burden than the reactive mind. It is also a tool. I felt much brighter and more intelligent once I unloaded that. The identities are tools too.
What was I doing in Scientology? Just sorting out my tool box.
The Scientology didn’t cause me to transcend any further into the supernatural than I already was, until I got into the identity clearing and purpose clearing (L12). That was mercy. And that was when I got to the point where I felt the only tool I needed, was my ability to look and know.
I think if this L12 had just been made one of the grades, like grade V, people would have had a much happier experience in Scientology.
From what I have read it undercut the case to such a degree, the price had to be jacked for the lost income one would get from a P.C..
At the end of the day, if you really get what is going on in this auditing, you can just decide not to have identity that has a case. Then what? Who needs Scientology?
If you can manage your identity, managing your life is very easy. You wake up, you go out, something upsets you. Then you say to yourself, “Do I want to have anger as part of my identity today?”
Mark, what to you is “real ethics”?
You’ve answered your own question: At the highest level, a being is not affected by anything unless he agrees to be. Of course, we are all affected by life on Earth. But we shouldn’t be, really – at least not adversely affected. So the question is: Why are we?
In context I do. In the same chapter, LRH wrote “It is now considered that the origin of MEST lies with theta itself, and that MEST, as we know the physical universe, is a product of theta.” Theta is not a kinetic (to use Ron’s word).
Laughter!
Thank you for the clarification. Heard and understood.
Let me better understand, are you saying there is the being(1), the self(2), and the body (3) when you write:
“Just like there is exterioriization from body(one entity to get out of), similarly there is also exteriorization from self (two entity to get out of) . And the third one would be the escapee? And the being is not self?
Thank you for your patience with me.
So you never bought into the ‘Scientology is the only hope for mankind’, ‘you pulled it in’, ‘we are creating a cleared planet’, ‘do not discuss case’, ‘do not voice disagreements except to the proper terminal’, ‘In all these years I’m the only one who figured it out’ crap? Good for you.
Alanzo.
Please read the comment I sent to Conan.
It is even mildly amusing.
I’ll send it to you if you skimmed over it.
Mark
Marildi.
I say, “Give em an inch, and they’ll think they’re a ruler.”
Mark
You didn’t happen to mosey by Harper’s Ferry in the summer of 06 did you?
I know. This quite a cognitive dissonance for me.
I am glad that you understand it.
Please see the definitions I added recently.
In my understanding, “self” refers to anything with definition. The “no self” is the postulated ground state that has no definition.
Ideally, the “being” shall be pure awareness that is not identified with any self (not introverted into itself).
.
Here “self” may be looked upon as the “mind” or “ego” that defines one.
Thanks, TO. Very interesting post.
You wrote: “If you can manage your identity, managing your life is very easy. You wake up, you go out, something upsets you. Then you say to yourself, ‘Do I want to have anger as part of my identity today?’”
The above is very much like Mark NR was saying in a recent post too.
Here’s another line of yours I especially liked:
“…I got to the point where I felt the only tool I needed, was my ability to look and know.”
Love it when you get on a roll like this, stuff that’s simple but deep. ♥
Actually you are dealing pretty well with it! I noticed a couple of weeks ago that a lot of my comments were on automatic, and you picked that up. But he characterization is exactly right. I also like the “not even trying” characterization becaus eit is true. I gave up trying quite some years ago and went on cruise control. I like it because it is one of the definitions of “wog” in the Tech Dictionary. That is how I think of myself. The only difference between me and some other wogs is, I know I am a wog. And I think there is a posssibility of moving to a different state or condition.
The past couple of years I have started a “life review” because of my age and medical problems, and you have been helpful with that. Thanks!
You do see me correctly as to my own condition. The ‘host’ thing I see differently; I don’t think it is based on the postulates Al thinks it is based on. Perhaps he does see more deeply than I do, into the scientology culture. That’s all well and good, but what he sees doesn’t necessarily do ME any good.
In any case, thanks for the time and attention you have taken with me. 🙂
+++ 🙂 I gotta keep L12 in mind! Sorry Al.
No, but it’s on my bucket list!
“The passage of the Patomac through the Blue Ridge is perhaps one of the most stupendous scenes in Nature… worth a voyage across the Atlantic.” – Thomas Jefferson, 1783
Could you mean “identity” as “self”?
Grasshopper,
Good. You can answer your own question.
My questions to you were to point at Hubbard’s bamboozle with Scientology, and why what Marty is doing here would not deter you or anybody else from auditing, to the contrary it will improve it.
Good chatting with you
I don’t see a comment to Conan.
Nonetheless, kinda stingy of you to offer me a twofer, don’t ya think?
Don’t I get a comment of my own?
Alanzo
response to Conan rejected for name calling
That is as an apt description.
Yes. Here are some definitions:
Here are some definitions:
BRAHMA (Vedas) – A postulated ground state that has no definition.
GOD (Christianity) – A Supreme Self postulated to explain the appearance of existence
STATIC (Scientology) – A concept to describes the state of Godhood.
GROUND STATE (KHTK) – The ground state has no awareness and no definition. The definition comes from awareness.
AWARENESS (KHTK) – Awareness arises (from ground state) as a disturbance, that provides definition. Awareness oscillates between perceiving and recognizing.
CONSCIOUSNESS (KHTK) – This is self-awareness, or the awareness of one’s definition or properties. The spiritual essence of consciousness is awareness, and its physical form is light. Consciousness has a frequency, wave-length and period. It is fundamental to all existence.
SELF (KHTK) – Self refers to anything with a definition. The purest self is low frequency awareness As frequency increases, more and more definition of self comes about. The structures known as mind and ego are aspects of self at high frequencies.
.
Cece, thanks.
Here we go, another bedtime story. Don’t worry, no Sci Fi.
When I was 12, I baby sat for a recent OT-1 completion. She demonstrated exterior travel or viewing. There was no doubt. Several times. Then she couldn’t. I read about release and erasure and realized that these abilities were fragile and perhaps temporary. Hubbard got her there, and then let her down, then gave excuses and said come back, get more. But, then again, he got her there.
Then I read about all these abilities and how to release them. Hubbard said he knew processes that would do that. But then, he never exposed these abilities himself or brought them out in others, at least in any quantity or reliability. I then realized that he had some things, but not all he claimed. He liked to brag.
Then I read about all these powerful beings in other parts of the galaxy. But they were supposedly much more able than Ron himself. So Ron wasn’t the smartest guy in the room after all. But I read his writings and he was obviously brilliant and extremely sensible. The things I worked with produced results.
So I decided that from then on, I would decide on everything for myself. Been working that angle ever since.
Mark
Funny! 😀
Marty
It was more funny than insulting. Conan would have enjoyed it. Just pull a couple of words that weren’t all that bad. But I understand, playful banter isn’t what we are supposed to be about on your site.
“Moving On Up A Little Higher”
Mark
Thank you for your reply.
I would absolutely be so ashamed and embarrassed to call myself a Scientology in 2014.
I do understand those STILL in.. Disconnection, Unable to Escape.. Mind Control etc.
but to be given all the information that is available to those on the outside to me is absolutely reprehensible.
Unless if you are decompressing. If that is the case than I would advice you to read Marty’s posts addressing this.. Letting Go, or
https://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2013/06/20/the-way-out-is-not-the-way-back-in/.
ETC.
Please refer to Marty’s comments to Val. They also pertain to you.
I would like to write an addendum:
Marildi.. I apologize for my reaction to your post. You did not ask for my advice and yet I did what I did to Val, I gave it!
If I were to see you walking down the middle of the road with cars speeding on either side of you I would attempt to prevent you from doing so.
That is exactly what I was trying to do. I only see danger associated with Scientology.
Yes, cool stuff. 🙂
Valkov wrote:
“As distantly as I was involved with the CoS, even I felt betrayed by the way things played out. I can only begin to imagine how others here who were deeply involved feel now…”
I audited it out as survivor’s guilt, it is very upsetting to discover other people suffered, and you were supposed to be part of a team and you did not know what you were doing and thinking was contributing in some way to another person’s suffering.
I can tell you this is a situation in Scientology like no other group. The team mates have NO IDEA what the other Team mates are doing and thinking.
But the conflict between people’s as a result is simply bizarre.
There is no way “a middle path” was laid down in the Church for people to walk. You read things like, “You can’t be half in and half out of Scientology”. You know, that is running a must have / have can’t.
If you are laid back you are “reasonable” or “theetie wheetie” or “PTS to the middle class” or a “drug case” or you have “other fish to fry”.
I got accused of all of those things but it wasn’t me who steered the ship upon rocks and shoals. It wasn’t me who created all of these P.R. flaps. It wasn’t me sitting in the MAA office ser facing on the public. It wasn’t me enturbulating staff.
It was the people that went far right with a “Scientology Identity” that had standards set by Hubbard. All or nothing, save the planet now, no dilettantes, no doubters, no Q and A, no flash back, yes sir yes sir yes sir!!!!
And this whole standard was set up where you were in all the way or all way against it all.
And what do you have as a product? Fanatics and haters.
What is funny is that this standard runs so deep, that even when you come out here it is run on each other.
God forbid you hint at any success with a hater or hint at any losses with a fanatic. I mean, it is STILL GOING ON.
Who is the third party? Off hand I would say 80% of the conflicts going on here between people will find the Church Of Scientology and it’s culture to be at the bottom of the conflict.
I don’t think anyone has to apologize for having gotten gains from there and I don’t think anyone has to apologize for being very angry at NOT having gotten gains or for getting fucked over. But the people out here fighting with one another are usually not the ones responsible for the other person’s misery!
There is a lot of prompting in the Church to be anti social. To think less of others. To fair game others. To discount the value of others. And when you lump it all up the result is PEOPLE GO OUT OF ARC WITH THEMSELVES, OTHERS, AND THE WORLD. And Scientologists have a great reputation for being mean spirited people, inconsiderate, judgmental and out of ARC with the world. And they carry it with them even when they flip into hate against the Church and Scientologists.
Put humanity before your Scientology. What if neither of you is wrong? What if you are both right? It doesn’t make either one of you wrong.
There is a middle road through this you can make for yourself.
The biggest coming together ever between peoples was when Marty pointed out there is no standard tech. Just taking that lie off the table created a vacuum that pulled people back together.
Sure there are some ruled you should think with. if you are auditing someone you keep in the auditors code. But that isn’t even in at the Flag Land Base now. When you are being filmed or watched in a session that is NOT a TWO WAY comm cycle anymore.
Yes, there are some usual things you can think with that are just plain human decency.
But what if the wrongness’ are not between US? What is we are all well meaning people?
See, I think we are. Except for a very very small % of the population.
I think the people that were curious about the supernatural, wanted to improve their lives and help others, I think we were all well meaning people and still are.
If you lay that down as your stable datum, and I think it is true, you just, you just look for the messages you learned in the Church that violate the notion that we were all well meaning people, and those are where you will find the reason for conflict out here.
Why would you even lose a good friend or make an enemy because of something you read there? Why would you do that?
It is not natural to require people to assume identities that set up them up to be out of ARC with the world and themselves.
There is no ARC in the Church of Scientology. Unless it is between the clients at CC L.A. or CC N.Y..
ARC has become so forbidden it is heavily policed between staff.
Once someone is out the best thing a person can do for themselves is start to build up the ARC for themselves their friends and the world.
This blog has managed to become a platform for that. It is the ONLY community out here where people really have a chance to reach out to the other side and do a contact assist. And realize most people are damned fine people. Very easy to love actually.
Whatever Scientology did work, worked because the person behind it was still able to care about the person in front of them. A NO ARC person will not make it work no matter how books they read.
“The viewpoint of a Scientologist” was something I had to audit out to restore my ARC for the world.
It doesn’t matter if it is all wrong or half wrong or all right or half right, if it means the person in front of you can be abused because of it.
Humanity. Humanity. It IS A RUD. It is a rudiment.
Being out of ARC with the world is an out rudiment, and no amount of Scientology is going to make you feel better, if you have been trained to be so deeply out ruds with THE WORLD and YOURSELF.
And this is how HUbbard undermined his legacy. Show me one Scientologist who isn’t out ruds. Show me one. You read the promo coming from the Church, “The world is in such decay….” The most low ARC dribble you ever heard. Apathy resentment etc etc.
If your ruds are out you are not going up the bridge.
The staff run on empty, all penalty no reward. Half starved, no friends, unattainable goals, you name it.
And when people leave they leave with their ruds out. Usually, worse than when they walked in the front door. How many enemies did you have before you got involved in Scientology? How many do you have now? Think about it. This is where the world AROUND YOU GOES INTO A LOWER CONDITION from your view. The world is in a condition of enemy from the view of a Scientologist.
If the Sea Org sucked every person off this planet right now that didn’t care for Scientology it would be the end of civilization. Are they going to feed people? Provide medical care? Energy? The ONLY hats they have are cult management and cult progression. They are handicapped in today’s society.
Who said anyone that doesn’t like Hubbard is a bad guy? Anyone who doesn’t like Scientology is a bad guy? Hubbard did. Is it true? No. It is not true.
Marty is right. Until people collectively can see how they ARE RIGHT and it isn’t THEM that is all fucked up, nothing will be salvaged from all this. Not even friendships.
So please stop attacking one another. Neither of you are bad people! It is NOT true that you are in an enemy condition because the Church of Scientology says so.
Note: The Church of Scientology is not the first Church to put walls between people and create conflict between people. The program for any Church is to separate the holy from the unholy. And there is always someone deciding who is unholy for the rest.
OK, got that.
A person obsessively wanting OT levels is interiorized into self ..
More than that, because he is interiorised in his mind too .. because he declares his mind as source why he is not OT .. so on LRH did it the same way .. no auditor has ever grasped that my definition for exteriorization was not his definition .. it means basically “to being in session” means by my experience to interiorize into a mind (doesn’t matter which one it is) .. but from here stems in my view the definition of exteriorization from LRH .. he postulates only that a thetan goes out of his body when the mind release but is a confusing idea, because he postulates also that you go back ..
I will give an example: I had once a bycycle accident. Boom. The bycycle stopped immediatenly because of a car. My body made a jump through air for about 20 metres. My bycycle was broken because of crash, my body did stay on his feet after this flight .. no harm. I myself did coach this incident in a position about 20 seconds before the accident .. I would that not call as an exteriorization .. means, I did only hold a position, and my body did fly away from me .. I hope this joke is well understood ..
Exactly.
Geeze Christ someone even tried to run that campaign here. “Yee Hawgy let’s kill off all them unholy freezoners! All them unholy squirrels. I’m holy you’re not.” This is the think of the fundamentalist in EVERY religion.
interesting
Excuse me if i butt in all of a sudden, here, Vinaire.
Hubbard, in his Theta-MEST Theory, does not say the Theta produces MEST.
In that particular theory he says that Theta collides with MEST and then detaches and then collides again and again, each time gaining more experience. This is the gist of the theory.
He does say that Theta, as a static, has the ability or potentiality to create MEST in other writings.
Remember my definition of consciousness that I wrote in our exchange above?
Think of theta as a “vast field of energy”, which has the potentiality for perception, recognition, computation and thought. It should make it easier to assimilate.
Thank you marildi .. but is all stuff which was never before said .. so it is all withhold per scientology definition .. so I speak out here what was in my mind .. better to say what came into my mind with handling my case as proposed by scientology and his workers (auditor, C/S, ethics officer, Qual and Word Clearer) .. and with all of that I lost my orignial soul, it is in final decision not well what I have here .. I have something experienced which I would not write in my own book .. so I give away my thoughts so that I may come back into my own roots ..
I mean very carefully said: if you do not can postulate .. you are not on the verge to be an OT .. but see, my power to postulate did ruin with this scientology stuff .. I know very well that scientology decrease OT powers, nobody will ever become an OT on this route ..
So I speak out about my view why it happens this way .. I am not at the bottom line of it .. I said once to my Qual Sec: It seems to me by your words that one must be OT before he can become an OT in this church ..
I add this up to a point, where I said: How do you would handle LRH when he comes in as a teenaer? What would you do whern he says that he is the source?
See what I mean?
as a teenager .. okay
vinaire said: There are two different concepts here. There is awareness. And then there is “awareness of awareness.” The latter is essentially awareness looking at itself. It is a kind of introversion. This is where one starts to think in terms of an “I”
No – that’s not true .. have you ever meet people who have MUs about this I, me, you .. means simply that they change all I and me to you .. and too you changed I with me .. it can be that you do not unterstand that really, because it is confusing ..
Example: If you say to somebody: you are nice .. he understands that you are nice and not that she/he is nice .. in the reverse, when you say that you are nice .. then is she/he is nice ..
In my personal experience in this lifetime is clear that a lot of people mix up the idea of I, me, you .. so what do you want to say with your awareness (which is only the ability to look) and there is no awarness of awareness or then what? An awareness of awareness of awareness ..
In other words. self denial is the way?
Vinaire: “Ideally, the “being” shall be pure awareness that is not identified with any self (not introverted into itself).”
In other words. self denial is the way?
Self-denial
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Self-denial (also called self-abnegationand self-sacrifice) refers to altruistic abstinence – the willingness to forgo personal pleasures or undergo personal trials in the pursuit of the increased good of another. Various religions and cultures take differing views of self-denial, some considering it a positive trait and others considering it a negative one.
Well, this is disappointing – and kinda funny – at the same time.
I was really hoping to get Mark’s opinion on my having isolated what Scientology actually is:
Scientology is text on pages, and recorded lectures, that contain religious commands to think and behave in an exact manner, under threat of being declared “SP” if you do not comply to the letter.
When you sift through all the “tools” analogies and the “owner’s manual for the mind” metaphors and all the other figurative PR positionings that Scientologists use to describe the subject to themselves and to others, I think that description above is pretty concrete and accurate.
It also begins to explain why we see Scientologists committing abuses that they would not normally carry out had they not become Scientologists.
Mark is smart and self-reflective, and I hope that he can refrain from name-calling and abusive language long enough to give me a smart and reflective reply to my post to him.
Mark? Whaddya say?
Alanzo
The above video plays the full list of talking animals videos on youtube.
WARNING: So far I have wasted over an hour this morning laughing my ass off at these.
Alanzo
I have come to believe that to think in terms of helping others or obsessing over helping others does not go anywhere..
All one can do is share one’s experience and fruits of one’s observations in as clear terms as possible and let others help themselves from it, or not, as they wish.
And do not engage in any action that can be hurtful to others.
We try to help others and then suffer from a sense of failure when we cannot. In that effort we may end up hurting others as well as ourselves when the expectations are not fulfilled.
There are just too many factors involved in a situation. No single person can control all the factors. We just have to let the situation play itself out.
Self-denial is NOT-ISNESS.
I will go for understanding self so well that it is AS-ISED.
From Scn 8-8008 (THETA-MEST THEORY):
“It is now considered that the origin of MEST lies with theta itself, and that MEST, as we know the physical universe, is a product of theta.” ~ L. Ron Hubbard
Nice.
You have an incredibly intelligent and energetic spirit.
You blaze lightening every day.
Alanzo
You are wrong with your estimate .. because it is not doing something .. it is let it go as it is .. but sometimes people want to speak about it .. sometimes they cannot do that without commuication .. you have to let it go as that what it is or what it was ..
You have two chances .. one is you can read the mind of another right, or you have only to watch what he other is talking about .. it is only a question how good you are in communication ..
You may remember HCOB 22 Dez 1960 .. O/W, a limited theory .. and if you got it right you should know that you go from Help down to Failed Help and then to Overt an Withhold ..
You said: Why try to help others and then suffer from a sense of failure .. with which you are right .. it was often my own result .. but I have learned if you have really wish of help in front of you .. you should clear miscontrol ..
This HCOB from LRH is one of the best of him .. it stems from his time when he spottetd that Help is the button for clearing .. I mean, you have to look at the right point (botton) and go then up to Help .. and then handle the miscontrol .. if you can .. but do not expect that you can do that, because it is big gradient sometimes .. but you can surely protect yourself when you are aware that help is handling miscontrol .. and as you said, you did fall into miscontrol when you tried to help .. and went down in failed help yourself .. sorry for you, but it happens ..
I consider an hour spent laughing as time extremely well spent 🙂 But where is the link? I want to laugh, too.
Incidentally, the need to be productive at all times in yet another aspect a former scientologist has to be weaned from.
Oracle, I really do not want to be reading anything about NOTs here, would you please STFU about that OT level shit because its dangerous .
Oracle, “Roof ly two days from now.” That’s good dog talk.
Oracle: “I audited it out as survivor’s guilt…………………”
Nice Post!
Matthew 10:34
“Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35″For I came to SET A MAN AGAINST HIS FATHER, AND A DAUGHTER AGAINST HER MOTHER, AND A DAUGHTER-IN-LAW AGAINST HER MOTHER-IN-LAW;…”
The real reason why the Co$ has gone down is because they could never STFU about it, people who will not STFU end up going down , another example is Bill Ryan of project camelot , he was thrown off that because he would not STFU about it and mark my words this blog will be gone and finished if you and other posters here do not STFU about it . I do not want this blog to go but continue like this and it will , something will happen and it will be gone off the internet .
This is also not unique to scientologists. It is possibly a Christian cultural thing, as in th esayings “The Devil finds work for idle hands”, and “Busy hands are happy hands”. That attitude also provides justification for enforcing child labor and lots of “production” by all hands, which is supposedly “the basis for morale”.
From that angle, LRH and the Sea Org might be considered quite holy, having made many many people, or at any rate their hands, very happy and kept them out of the Devil’s clutches, giving them no chance to masturbate…..
So it seems to me the Sea Org is the expression of some major Western cultural ideals and mores……
For some reason this reply ended up at the very bottom of everything.
The video I posted is right below Al Brown’s Dog video in the discussion about talking to animals.
It is the whole youtube playlist. There are more talking animal videos that are just as hysterical as the first one that Al Brown posted.
And yes, the need to be productive and the guilt you feel for not being productive even for one second, is something that should be “run out” of Ex Scientologists!!!
Maybe Scientology can help me with that!
Alanzo
I bet those inclined towards 3P have had a field day with this, over the centuries……
Yes, I do see what you mean. And I’m very glad you are speaking out and telling what was in your mind then and what is in your mind now.
Even if Ron was sincerely trying to create a path that anyone could walk and move “upward” as a being, that obviously did not occur for many. And even assuming such a path really was created, then he failed to get it into existence because of his failure to get the staff and public educated and trained well enough to apply it successfully, and also because of the failure to get and keep the organization running in such a way that the path itself, with its potential benefits, would have come about.
To me, the above considerations are actually the basis of all these discussions, since there are people who fared well and did achieve ‘OT abilities,’ as well as others who were harmed. So I hope you continue to contribute your thoughts, and that it helps you ‘come back to your own roots,’ as you worded it. I feel confident that you will, one way or another. 🙂
Thanks. I knew that was what you were trying to do. Never had any doubt it.
I find it to be true that when I’m productive my morale goes up. But like any other life principle, it can and has been abused.
The above should have come under Valkov’s post.
LRH created and recreate dianetics and Scientology. If you are using only selected parts of what he created you are not using Scientology, you are using iamvalkovology. Welcome to your own religion, but this site discusses Scientology.
I was reading the HCOB 22 Dec 1960, O/W, a Limited Theory, referred to by you. It says,”We use O-W since it explains phenomena found at a low
humanoid level.” But then it is being used heavily in the Church on people at OT Levels in the form of Sec Checks. This does not make sense.
Oh good, I like that. I do hope you will excuse me though if I wallow in the human experience with out shame or remorse. I will be with out an identity or body sooner or later and for the time being, I prefer wallowing in all of it and living it up in the experience. Peace.
“using iamvalkovology” LOL!
Jus try NOT to think about XENU.
“The staff run on empty, all penalty no reward.”
By the way, have you ever looked in the ethics book under “Penalties and Rewards”?
It is ALL penalties and NO rewards! Seriously.
Yes, good old slavery.
You got that! Laughter!
Alanzo, of course Scientology can help you with that. Cash or credit? (I love people who reg themselves!)
Do as you like. I have too much on my hands here. 🙂
Thanks for pointing that out, Alanzo, and thanks Al Brown – made my day!
*stillonthefloor*
Hi Oracle, if you don’t mind using your words.
“I will be with out an identity or body sooner or later and for the time being, I prefer wallowing in all of it and living it up in the experience. Peace.”
Me Too!
Al: “But you don’t look at all the materials.”
Right there, you fall into error.
What do you know about what ‘materials’ I look at or have looked at?
Sure, LRon expected to reap something from his sowing. What farmer doesn’t?
That’s not the point at all. I have posted about this before, but of course you never commented on those posts, you just plug along on your hobby-horse. So I’ll sketch it out again. Consider it one of my own ‘hobby-horse’.
I see at least 3-4 distinct goals/purposes infusing his actions. 1. Make money, 2. “Smash my name into history”, by 3. making a lasting contribution to the improvement of conditions for a lot of people.
These all led to his choice of product to sell, which he syncretized. Some complain he ‘plagiarized’, but that is not the correct word. He attempted to syncretize a system out of many previously existing ideas and elements, and also codified some new methods, some/many of which were developed by others, no question.
This is old ground. He ‘played’ people, no doubt. To me that proves only that he had a pretty good understanding of the human psyche. At issue is, how did he use it?
I am thinking that where we disagree is in our respective evaluations of the value of what he did. Call this a ‘defense’ if you like, that’s fine. You will anyway. If you see it as a defense, that impies only that you recognize that you are attacking.
“The ability to observe without evaluating is the highest form of intelligence.”
― Jiddu Krishnamurti
Although I overstated the case by being too absolute, I stand by my evaluation of groups and organizations “trying to survive”. History shows it to be a bloody business almost entirely ruled by destruction. The YMCAs, the Salvation Armies, all the good and constructive groups that exist, and there are many of them, because the good and constructive people are the majority, nonetheless are housed in buildings standing on the bones of buried Native Americans. Survivor’s guilt and the resulting justifications are no monopoly of ex-scientologists. They are the province of all humans.
I just changed my mind on continuing this train of thought. I don’t think it fits here on this blog. It would basically be too much of a ‘downer’, and you would probably label it as “blaming the victims”. Better to not discuss it I think, or discuss it very carefully.
You are discussing what you think “scientology” is, based on your own experience and perceptions of it. Likewise for each individual posting here.
That’s what makes this blog a “multiple viewpoint system”.
Otherwise, you are saying we have to, agree to, MUST, take “scientology” on its own terms. And we’re not even doing that unless we include all viewpoints, Freezone, Ron’s Orgs, etc etc.
So who defines what is abuse?
Also, “indentured servitude”, which has been even more widespread than slvery throughout history. Like in the European Dark Ages, and in Tibet for some centuries. And developing in the USA more recently, as it is across the world under the “modern” banking/financial system.
I looked at it once and mostly rejected it. And that was in the old book, which didn’t have nearly as many listed. He shoulda stuck with “You can’t herd cats”. And he was trying to herd Tigers! LOL.
Indeed.
Baby wrote:
I have always tried to live a purpose driven life. My purpose now is to inform and educate those about the dangers regarding Scientology.
This is very clear to me, Baby.
When you have taken care of people who Scientology would target for destruction, and even those it would try to “help” (and know how they would “help” them), you can see exactly how dangerous Scientology is.
Thank you for what you have done and continue to do.
Valkov has seen and heard everything about the damage that Scientology and L Ron Hubbard have done to people, and he continues to dismiss this damage and to promote Scientology. I don’t know how any responsible human being can behave this way, but…
There ya go.
He’s an easy target though. You can take his statements and his thinking and hold it up to others to show how fucked up Scientology thinking is. And those others generally get it.
There have been many Scientologists who have seen Valkov’s thinking displayed on their computer screens and who have run screaming from Scientology as a result.
So he does have his uses.
Alanzo
Valkov wrote:
“Although I overstated the case by being too absolute, I stand by my evaluation of groups and organizations “trying to survive”. History shows it to be a bloody business almost entirely ruled by destruction. The YMCAs, the Salvation Armies, all the good and constructive groups that exist, and there are many of them, because the good and constructive people are the majority, nonetheless are housed in buildings standing on the bones of buried Native Americans.“
Only the tigers survive, and even they have a hard time of it, eh Valkov?
I’ll bet Joseph Stalin is a real hero of yours, isn’t he?
It’s probably not that “politically correct” for you to admit it, but he really is an admirable guy for you, for his confront of reality, isn’t he?
Alanzo
All your propagandistic ad hom and unverifiable statements(speculative at best, deliberate lies at worst) ill becomes you Al. I guess we’re back to where we started. Anyone reading such posts wil recognize the words of a demagogic ideologue.
“The ability to observe without evaluating is the highest form of intelligence.” ― Jiddu Krishnamurti
I like that. 🙂
Indentured servitude works!!
Right Valkov?
Alanzo
It is better take the positive work of Hubbard out of Scientology and put it under a different frame of reference, where it is useful..
.
And when you are reborn black in USA…
“I am thinking that where we disagree is in our respective evaluations of the value of what he did.”
That is the whole crux of the matter – what the value was of what he did.
And nobody has been able to ascertain that because of all the variables and no valid research having been done on it – just individuals’ opinions based on what they personally observed.
Thanks. I would like to point out, that anyone in service to another human being, has taken “self” out of the picture.
No matter how lowly or unenlightened you consider the waitress in the restaurant to be, she is not there serving you because she is thinking of self. She is earning a living putting your wants and needs above her own.
Therefore you can consider that anyone in the service of others, for that time period at least, is exteriorized from “self”. If you know how to put someone else’s needs above your own, you can consider yourself enlightened.
Why did David Miscavige establish beggars to keep the Church of Scientology afloat?
“Income comes from:
1. Outflow
2. Expert handling of people.
3. Book sales
4. Good affinity reality and communication with the world.
5.Good service”
Any of the above call for a person to be “selfless”.
The Church of Scientology is now in “must be contributed to”.
Valkov: “I just changed my mind on continuing this train of thought. I don’t think it fits here on this blog. It would basically be too much of a ‘downer’, and you would probably label it as ‘blaming the victims’. Better to not discuss it I think, or discuss it very carefully.”
That’s exactly what I’ve come to also. So I’m discussing less, and trying to be more careful not to set off the same old back and forth.
Magical thinking.
It’s not just for prehistoric cave dwellers.
Alanzo
Thank you, Eileen.
Alanzo
Vinaire too! His hands are full!
“A person obsessively wanting OT levels is interiorized into self..”
I could also say, a person obsessed at distancing themselves from “self” is doing the work of nature. Nature provides for distancing all people from their identity and “self”. It’s call D.O.A.. Dead On Arrival.
Behold the persecuted/misunderstood scientologist syndrome. Pathetic.
Is it working for you?
It’s what you write, Valkov.
It’s all right there to be quoted and displayed.
No ad-hom to it at all. Your thinking is in your writing, as is all of Scientology writing and thought.
Don’t blame me if it is morally corrupt and makes no sense.
Alanzo
I wrote: “I find it to be true that when I’m productive my morale goes up. But like any other life principle, it can and has been abused.”
And you (Valkov) replied: “So who defines what is abuse?”
Earlier you had written about “justification for enforcing child labor and lots of ‘production’ by all hands, which is supposedly ‘the basis for morale’.
My answer would be that this is why there needs to be some sort of ethics system that makes sense to the person himself and by which s/he can decide what constitutes abuse. Some may choose, on a self-determined basis, to give their lives to what they consider a worthy cause. Look at Edith Bunker, for example. 🙂
Oh yes, probably as much as you admire Andrew Jackson, without whose Indian Removal Act, you may not be living in the State Illinois. The Indian Removal Act resulted in the transplantation of several Indian tribes and the Trail of Tears. Aren’t you proud.
I published this, my great-uncle’s book, just a few years ago. It pretty much shows how proud I am of Stalin.
http://gulagsurvivor.blogspot.com/
My family lost everything, their homes, their families, their culture and language, their history. But I guess that’s all right with you, as long as you can use me to alienate people from everything Hubbard. You are so high minded!
Lots of good Krishnamurti quotes online! He is my mother’s favorite. Here’s one site, there are several others.
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/j/jiddu_krishnamurti.html
I’ve been thinking of Marty as the Krishnamurti of the EX-SCNs. Hope you don’t mind, Marty.
Marildi wrote:
“That is the whole crux of the matter – what the value was of what he did.
And nobody has been able to ascertain that because of all the variables and no valid research having been done on it – just individuals’ opinions based on what they personally observed.”
Actually, it is very easy to ascertain the value of what he did: The evidence is everywhere.
The Church of Scientology is an obvious and scornful scam, with a psychopath at its helm, having taken over from the previous psychopath.
Hundreds, if not thousands, of people are right now fleeing Scientology – many tens of thousands have fled it in the past – and are trying to figure out what happened to them, and how their lives were derailed so badly.
The value of this is very easy to see.
What was supposed to have been a religious refuge and place of life long emotional asylum, turned out to be a vicious and uncaring exploitation of their most vulnerable selves – in order to take everything of value from them that they had.
This is so clear to so many people, Marildi, that you HAVE to at least consider this as a possible reality for the overwhelming majority of people who were unfortunate enough to get themselves involved in Scientology.
And if that scenario – as I have just outlined it – is true, then the value of Scientology is obvious.
Despite your own personal wins, wouldn’t you agree with that logic?
Alanzo
I don’t mind. Hubbard attempted to discredit Krishnamurti when confronted by a student noting the similarities of some Hubbard utterances to what Krishnamurti had been teaching for some time. Hubbard wrote him off in a sentence, asserting he was not worth listening to because he did not have any ‘tech.’ I guess sort of like the Buddha.
Incidentally, I don’t think reading his quotations does him justice by any stretch.
But marildi, you don’t post “downer” posts, do you? I decided not to go on with that one because it was depressing, coming from my jaundiced view of the world. Do you post depressing posts? If so, to whom are they depressing?
Looks fascinating.
I’ve bookmarked it.
You can always have redemption with me, Valkov.
In fact, you experience redemption with me periodically, and often, while still remaining the staunch Scientologist that you are.
That is not fake redemption. It is real. With Alanzo’s Redemption, you can get a half-off deal at the bar of any casino in Heaven.
So you got that goin for ya.
Alanzo
Alanzo: “you HAVE to at least consider this as a possible reality for the overwhelming majority of people who were unfortunate enough to get themselves involved in Scientology.”
I guess you didn’t duplicate my viewpoint as already stated: “And nobody has been able to ascertain that because of all the variables and no valid research having been done on it – just individuals’ opinions based on what they personally observed.”
This is a false statement: “Hundreds, if not thousands, of people are right now fleeing Scientology – many tens of thousands have fled it in the past – and are trying to figure out what happened to them, and how their lives were derailed so badly.”
To make an analogy, this is like saying “Hundreds, if not thousands, of people are right now fleeing Christianity”, when in fact these hypothetical people are fleeing the Roman Catholic Church, and some of them are actually aligning with other denominations of Christianity.
Many Ex-Scientologists stiil equate the CoS with “Scientology”, when really it is more comparable to the Roman Catholic Church. That church is not “Christianity”; one can leave it and still be a Christian. But of course not according to the Roman Catholic Church itself, whose basis is that it is the “one true church”.
I think maybe the magical thinking is on the part of those who endlessly repeat such false statements, thinking either that they are making a postulate which wil make it true, or are playing a political game of swaying people to their own way of thinking. Kinda like what they say Hubbard was doing himself – manipulating the thinking of others.
Alanzo will like this one.
“All ideologies are idiotic, whether religious or political, for it is conceptual thinking, the conceptual word, which has so unfortunately divided man.” ~
Jiddu Krishnamurti
I think you’ve been spending too much time on your Oiliness Table. It’s dripping off you.
I meant that on some subjects we all have our own viewpoints based on our own understandings and experiences – but those don’t actually prove anything, so discussion goes nowhere.
This is very good.
“If we can really understand the problem, the answer will come out of it, because the answer is not separate from the problem.”
~ Jiddu Krishnamurti
.
This is a good on for all religious fanatics. We can replace “God” by “Static” for Scientologist fanatics.
“Your belief in God is merely an escape from your monotonous, stupid and cruel life.”
~ Jiddu Krishnamurti
.
I like the definition of mind implied here.
“When we talk about understanding, surely it takes place only when the mind listens completely – the mind being your heart, your nerves, your ears- when you give your whole attention to it.”
~ Jiddu Krishnamurti
Apparently it’s also for midwesterners out standing in their field.
This is for Marildi.
“So when you are listening to somebody, completely, attentively, then you are listening not only to the words, but also to the feeling of what is being conveyed, to the whole of it, not part of it.”
~ Jiddu Krishnamurti
Are you kidding your viewers?
“Aristotelian and Newtonian two-valued, space-time logic philosophy and science are demonstrated to be essentially of a mind construct basis by developments in quantum mechanics and the related fledgling field of science of consciousness. ”
I am a PhD chemical engineer. I have no fucking clue about your statement above. Your exposition is, what can I say: you are posting out of your ass.
You are a disaffected Scientologist. You don’t have any background in science, mathematics, and engineering.
You need to retract you quoted statement, and get the idea that you know nothing about nothing, except Scientology.
OK, Al. I’ll write this: I think there are a lot of good central ideas in Scientology theory.
Your words conveyed that you and Val have a higher understanding and the rest of the meat heads on this blog are so unintelligent and intolerant, you have to check yourself else draw fire.
“This is an interesting new angle, Valkov.”
This really says it all, about where you yourself are coming from Al. YOu htink in terms of “angles” and how to destroy or invalidate the person you see yourself as debating and having to overcome by any means necessary.
That’s the Scientologist in you at work.
Your comparative is asinine.
I had not seen this comment of Marty’s before.
“I think it is more the tendency to default back to the ‘I’ as creator. I wonder how much one even holds a sense of self apart from anything else in such peak experiences. My similar experiences are concomitant with a sense of losing self, letting go of the considerations mocking myself up as separate than the rest of the universe. Perhaps it is a taste of non-duality.”
Whoa, Marty.
I have to sit down and take a breather on this one.
I’ve never tried to characterize, or even understand, these types of peak experiences. But now that you point this out, I think you are right.
To re-lable Scientology “cognitions” into “peak experiences” brings a very valuable set of teachings from psychology into comparable magnitude.
In college, even before Scientology, I had a psychology professor tell me that my “peak experiences” were sticking me into old patterns of behavior from which I should have moved on because my life had changed.
Is this the pathology one acquires from Scientology WINS, too?
Even without any consideration of Scientology, I can see the value of this idea in my own life – peak experiences tend to stick me into past modes of living – long after those modes have moved on..
Great fricking point, Marty.
I’m really thinking about this now. Thanks for this. This is huge.
You should expand on this idea of peak experiences. This may be the key to unlocking Scientology from a self-identity!
Holy shit. You aren’t just a pick-up B-Ball player who meddled in Taoism on the beach in the public parks of Cali, are you?
Or are you?
Alanzo (:>
Yes, I saw that when I looked back at it. Didn’t mean it that way.
As authoritative as you assert youself to be in chemical engineering, your evaluation of me is beyond any level of ignorance you attribute to me. You have no idea what I know.
Marildi – You just repeated yourself.
That’s all.
I disputed what you wrote in your quote, and gave evidence for my disputation.
Did you not see that?
Why would you think that feigning complete ignorance of what I said was any kind of a valid response?
Is this all Scientologists have to go on?
Repeated assertions which ignore all evidence presented?
Yes. I think it is.
Alanzo
Valkov wrote:
OK, Al. I’ll write this:
I think there are a lot of good central ideas in Scientology theory.
Oh! This is a good one, Valkov!
It’s got weasel words and everything!
“CENTRAL ideas”…
Which ideas are those Valkov – exactly?
Alanzo
I was focused more on the second part: “… and you would probably label it as ‘blaming the victims’ – which would be an example of the opposing viewpoints that never get settled. And most of them have been hashed over plenty, with no tone arm action – which means “do something” (a little tech talk for ya 🙂 ).
And “Scientology THEORY”
What is Scientology theory, exactly?
These weasel words need to be defined clearly and with no weasel wiggleness.
If you are not just an emotion-manipulating sophist, please define these phrases you have used with precision so that we can know what you are talking about exactly.
Thanks.
Alanzo
Come on Eileen.
Sorry, that one was to good to pass up. (Dexys Midnight Runners, song)
The study of knowledge/wisdom. The science of bodies of knowledge.
MY definition. Works for me. You can call my work ‘Markentology. That’s ok. I’m having a great time. I’ll continue to speak of my opinions and experiences as long as Marty will let me. He’s pretty cool. Has to be to let ME post here.
Mark
My answer would be that this is why there needs to be some sort of ethics system that makes sense to the person himself and by which s/he can decide what constitutes abuse. Some may choose, on a self-determined basis, to give their lives to what they consider a worthy cause. Look at Edith Bunker, for example.
Perfect example of a Scientology wife.
Alanzo
Tell that to Joan of Arc.
Well, I thought maybe you just missed the point. I’ll be more explicit. There’s a logical fallacy in what you said that I quoted – it’s called Begging the Question. I’ve put the key words of that in caps for you:
“…at least consider this as a possible reality for THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF PEOPLE who were unfortunate enough to get themselves involved in Scientology.”
So no, I don’t agree with that “logic” of yours.
IUnless you can show otherwise, I think it is a valid comparison, that CoS is to Scientology, as Roman Catholic Church is to Christianity. Or as Theravada is to Buddhism as a whole. (My apologies Mr. White)
I did not invent analogy, which is what those are. Analogies.
Analogy questions present a logical relationship between two pairs of words or numbers. Consider the following sentences:
A mason works with stone; similarly a carpenter works with wood.
A square has four sides, just as a hexagon has six sides.
Copper is a metal, whereas oxygen is a non-metal.
These sentences could be represented as logical analogies of the form A : B :: C : D. For example,
MASON : CARPENTER :: STONE : WOOD
or
MASON : STONE :: CARPENTER : WOOD
SQUARE : FOUR :: HEXAGON : SIX
or
SQUARE : HEXAGON :: FOUR : SIX
COPPER : OXYGEN :: METAL : NON-METAL
or
COPPER : METAL :: OXYGEN : NON-METAL
Anyway, I’m just trying to test Al’s logic and critical thinking skills here. I think the overall relationships between the items I named above are analogous.
If you don’t know, after umpteen years in Scientology including running a Mission as ED, and allegedly taking many course which were structured as “Theory” and “Practical” sections, there is no point to my saying any more about it.
“Repeated assertions which ignore all evidence presented?”
Isn’t that what I just suggested was the magical thinking tactic of some critics I have known? They learned it in Scientology as “postulating”….
Good to hear from you Alanzo.
You’ve been busy lately. I like to stay busy, keeps me off the streets.
My blacklisted reply to Conan wasn’t too bad. I mentioned that he missed or ignored the point of the story and that he was obsessed with his stuck viewpoint. I mentioned that I even said to be able to let go of anything that Hubbard said, or any one else for that matter, quickly and easily, if it is not right for you. The tool metaphors had to do with easily recognizing what is right for you and letting go, rather than Scn’s reference to ‘tools of life’.
As far as ‘being commanded how to think’ and ‘threat of being declared’, I have explained often how it came to be that I could take what I needed and wanted and let the rest slide easily without getting stuck on it. If I had similar experiences as you and Conan, things may have been different.
I started the comment with a reference to Dan Akroyd and Jane Curtain on SNL News. I ended with a reference to the irritating Frenchman in Monte Python’s Holy Grail, saying ” Now go or I shall insult you a second time”.
Thought Conan would enjoy it. I thought it funny, but I guess I’m the only one.
Mark
PS: I consider you and Conan to be intelligent and strong individuals. Our opinions differ but that is the beauty of life.
Didn’t mean to dis you.
Hi Marildi.
Ethics, for me, started off very simple, and stayed that way ever since.
Optimum survival across the dynamics. As LRH mentioned, “it is a personal thing”. It is YOUR 1st dyn., YOUR 2nd dyn., YOU groups etc. Justice, enforcement, assigning conditions have no place in ethics. Assistance and learning does. An Ethics Officer, working with individuals, should be more like a Course Sup. Conditions by Dynamics is an excellent exercise. “Assigned conditions” is a huge outpoint. A Case Sup. might say to an individual, “I’ve noticed that you have been having some trouble with …… Here, this may help”. (Hand him some data on ethics,)
If a person does not recognize that he is operating from a certain condition in an area of life, and doesn’t recognize that certain actions will improve his conditions, then his state WILL NOT IMPROVE. I considered Ethics tech similar to auditing tech from the start, when I was 13 yrs. old. I never liked that the Ethics book had an authority figure on the cover.
If a person has demonstrated that he is a clear and present danger to a group, then explain it to him and OFFER him some assistance. If his efforts to become an asset are unsuccessful, or not genuine, then inform him and get someone else to do the job. Offer him further assistance if desired.
I’m not bragging, just telling people how I see it, and when I saw it.
Mark
PS: I believe that if more people had this viewpoint on ethics,(that is, until one gets to the point when he no longer needs a viewpoint) things would be a lot better. Generally speaking.
Mark
Some distinction needs to be made here between peak experience and abilities gained.
To use a basketball achievement for a bit of an analogy, I think a peak experience is more like making a trey first time on the court. That single peak experience has little to show in comparison to ability, which is more on the order of playing like a Steve Nash or Michael Jordan.
If you get stuck in the win of that first three pointer then maybe you will be prone to sticking to old behaviors as well. But if you use the peak experience as a guide to attaining ability you are more likely to constantly modify behavior in the direction of improved ability.
It is not true that you are a PhD chemical engineer. I can tell you that by reading your memo. And if you have “no fucking clue” about his statement, and are still responding to it, you don’t know anything about science mathematics engineering or Scientology. Who summoned up Archie Bunker? Someone wrote “Edith Bunker” here. Please be aware of the power your words have to summon up entities.
Let’s just pray I’m born female honey. Otherwise I’m going to be a flaming queen.
I had rather hoped on coming back in my next life through Buckingham Palace. I so wanted to be in a position to dominate India.
Have you seen the Alice Kramden cartoon?
http://twinflayms.typepad.com/.a/6a0134872ce3be970c0134872ce8c9970c-500pi
The Alice Kramden crtoon was supposed to be a reply to mirildi’s Edith Bunker post…..
Here’s the reply to yours. Since you don’t want any qualifiers or modifiers, I will just say this: “IMO, There are good ideas in Scientology”.
Have you seen the Alice Kramden cartoon? The Honeymooners were a similar couple, with Ralph threatening to punch Alice “One a these days, Alice, pow! Right to the moon!”
http://twinflayms.typepad.com/.a/6a0134872ce3be970c0134872ce8c9970c-500pi
That was supposed to be a reply to Conan’s remark about slavery. What do you think about slavery vs. indentured servitude? Do you favor one over the other? Have you tried both?
Conan, this, above, is a reply to your remark about “good old slavery”. Somehow it drifted down here.
Hi Friend. I read an article tonight and thought it might interest you, especially the part about the Church and the possible real reasons it became what it did. That part is in the section titled, “Ron’s plans for the Church.” The rest of the article, mainly about Ron himself as an OT, and written by someone who knew him, is very interesting too. Here’s the link: http://www.freezone.org/LRH/bob_ross.htm
It is as you say – it makes no sense .. the bulletin makes sense because it says how it flows .. nobody needs O/Ws at all, only guys who cannot stand up for themselves .. OTs who get every time Sec Checks is only a problem of the church .. they have so much fear for evil or failure, that it became necessary to check that every time again and again and again ..
My wife was 30 years ago on OT VII (I myself was never on OT Levels) ,. she had to go for her six month check .. I asked her: Why you are doing that? Said further: It makes no sense when you have done your Grades and Clear and up to OT V .. you should be out of the field of O/Ws .. you should be in the field of Control and Cause .. and if so, you should be able to take responsibility yourself for your O/Ws if you have some .. the check of the church looked to me completelx stupid .. nonsens which I have never seen or heard about before .. but see, my wife did justify that at large .. cannot repeat it, because i have forgotten .. something about universal intention and refusings about .. and that that this were now the O/Ws which should be cleared up .. means basically that she had some O/Ws about being OT .. yes, yes, yes could understand her, but that is basically miscontrol or miscommunication .. and that is not O/Ws ..
Interestingly enough, because having reservations for being an OT can be surely called as O/Ws .. but as I know she was never asked about that on a six month check .. it was simply a security check for clearing up the overts and withholds .. nothing better ..
CD, This video is a joke.
I am not a scientology supporter any longer but I also do not appreciate opposition or criticism that is made or given without logic.
This video is illogical. It tries to make Hubbard look crazy when, in fact, he ends up coming across as perfectly normally human. If one were to understand actually what he is talking about, one would be maddeningly pissed off, too. I hope the guy or girl who made this video never goes through the experience of having someone botch Listing and Nulling on him or her. I hope this person never goes through someone botching assessing a prepared list on him or her and leaving him or her with all kinds of upsets unresolved.
I have had both and life was horrible — the emotional strain wan nearly impossible to bear.
I have also been in the position where both actions had been done correctly and I have never felt good as I did then. Some of the most incredible spiritual experiences I have gone through in my young life stemmed from these two actions being done as Hubbard had intended.
So, whoever made this video obviously does not know what Hubbard is talking about and to mock him in this manner — well, I find that the lowest form of criticism and immaturity.
I am all for constructive criticism that points out real problems and opens the door for a discussion on these matters.
I am no longer under the illusion that both Hubbard and scientology hold all the answers to life. However, due to personal experiences, I do not level my criticism lightly — I do not “make fun” for the sake of making fun.
I want you to know that posting this type of “look at how Hubbard is crazy” video does not sit well with me. You are free to continue but I personally do not approve.
I just thought I should tell you.
Lets speak a moment about “Between Lives Implants” lecture, SHSBC #317. 23 July 1963 .. it belongs to Cause and Effect .. because LRH gives here data about arrangements about .. this lecture didn’t help, because you are being introduced that you go to Venus if you make a sun bath in the Van Hallen belt .. whatever, LRH did land on Venus and got insight in the game of the implanting of 5th invader forces .. whatever LRH claims that you follow magnetic fields which would lesd you straigt to Venus .. and that there are lots of installations which you let you forget yourself ..
Beside of this, you forget yourself anyway when you die. I mean in the lecture “Death” LRH did not descibe death as it is .. you do not run around for finding a new body .. here is clear that LRH did only invent a story of a being ,, you do not run around for find some implanters who gives you new views or life .. that’s LRH view (maybe he did need it for himself) .. but than when you die you go over to nothingness .. and a nothingness can not be implanted .. simply because there is no reach and withdraw implied .. but which is necessary for having Cause and Effect situations .. a nothingness may go again down to reach and withdraw .. and build up again something which he calls I, you, me
Back to my first .. I went down the other night to Venus after hearing this lecture. It is very hot there. The clouds are so thick that you see nothing of the rest of the galaxy. Althought the sun is really near, you can not see she through the clouds .. but I did not find any activity on this planet .. if you go to Venus you may have some trouble to find home .. sure ..
Anyway nobody was ever send to Venus automaticly when he dies .. it is all invention from LRH .. lets hear what you have to say about ..
I’m telling you, whoever that might be.
Pray?
It will all depend on Karma. 🙂
You may hope whatever you want.
O/W seems to be a very interesting area to study from the viewpoint of inconsistencies that seems to abound here. The above bulletin is a good place to start.
I now have a model of self as the context in which to test out the the O/W Theory using mindfulness. This should be fun. 🙂
A Model of Self
.
“Beside of this, you forget yourself anyway when you die.” Laughter! I don’t think so. I don’t think you forget others either.
Marildi –
What percentage of people who got involved in Scientology do you think came away with this experience of it?
What was supposed to have been a religious refuge and place of life long emotional asylum, turned out to be a vicious and uncaring exploitation of their most vulnerable selves – in order to take everything of value from them that they had.
1%?
2.5%?
20%?
90%?
Alanzo
My criticism (from personal experience) is as follows:
(1) Listing & Nulling is a very dangerous process especially with a crude device like e-meter. There is no poka-yoke (check this term in Wikipedia).
(2) Assessment with Mindfulness of possible items in response to a question is much safer.
(3) As source, LRH is at fault for not providing a safe process.
.
As far as ‘being commanded how to think’ and ‘threat of being declared’, I have explained often how it came to be that I could take what I needed and wanted and let the rest slide easily without getting stuck on it. If I had similar experiences as you and Conan, things may have been different.
I understand what you are saying.
I do something similar with Buddhism. Where Tibetans call for worship of your Guru, or praying or prostrating yourself, or refraining from eating meat of drinking alcohol, I say “I’ll be the judge of that.” and set it aside.
But I don’t ignore it. I stay very aware of it. As I continue to study Buddhism, more and more of these things are stacking up until I am getting to the point of seeing just how “woo-woo” so much of Buddhism is.
But one thing makes me happy about Buddhism – there is nothing like KSW in it. The Buddha said very clearly – and never contradicted himself – that all his teachings were to be inspected as if you were buying gold at a shopkeeper’s stand in a middle eastern marketplace. You are to use your own discernment at all times. And you are to reject those teachings which your own discernment says to reject.
If the teachings on eating meat or drinking alcohol lead to greater suffering for me, then I will keep those teachings in mind for myself. I retain my own control of my own mind and life that way, and remain free to practice Buddhism as I see fit.
Let me know if I am wrong here, but it appears to me that those teachings of Hubbard that are clearly insane and destructive, such as the RPF, the denial of civil rights, the genocidal references in SOS, the practice of disconnection and brainwashing and reconditioning techniques such as sec checking, OW writes ups, ethics handlings and the like – it seems to me that you just ignore and forget about those parts of Scientology so you can continue to pursue what you like.
Am I right about that?
For instance, do you warn people that there are actual brainwashing techniques in Scientology and show people how to avoid them?
Because Hubbard very much contradicted his writings on “How to Study a Science” from the early 50’s. That was just pollen and pretty flowers to attract the bees. His real intent is expressed in KSW – which supersedes and overwrites his earlier writings with ethics and justice penalties for violating KSW, and no penalties for violating The Creed or “How to Study a Science”.
So how do you handle that within yourself?
How do you justify promoting a vicious brainwashing cult that has harmed so many people?
Alanzo
Good post!
“Ethics” conditions are fine, but assignment of them by another is a justice action, and subject to proper assessment by another and not by decree. Hubbard messed up by forwarding this idea of assignment of conditions.
I recently finished reading Dianetics. I have a dilemma:
1. Engrams can work like post hypnotic suggestions to cause individuals to do things they would NOT otherwise do – makes sense.
2. Disabling engrams with the help of an auditor and an e-meter to regain full control – makes sense.
3. Entering a Church of Scientology while DM is ‘captaining the ship’ – DOES NOT make sense.
4. What is an individual to do if 1, 2 and 3 are all true???
If you are reading this, Marty Rathbun has allowed me to post comments to his blog. Thank you Marty. 🙂
He wrote somewhere that Scientologists are basically good people and that’s how they became Scientologists in the first place – I find this to be true.
Question: How can the good parts of Scientology be enabled?
Answer: This blog and the good people posting here.
I’ve studied comparative religious studies for 35 years and I was recently compared to Mark Booth by a Rutgers University professor. That is a huge compliment, but it isn’t helping me save the world, my only goal in life.
Most people cannot make the leap required to enable God to have engrams. Only Scientology has made that leap, and with that realization comes the ability to help God vanquish His engrams.
So, on this blog, I should find ‘basically good people’ with a predisposition to understanding my philosophical point of view.
Can we test this please, Marty?
Can we begin with one idea:
God has engrams and they are ‘spiritually alive’. In this analogy, using Dianetics, humans become the ‘units of life force’ being affected by His engrams.
Humanity, then, is His only means of battling His engrams, therefore, part of the function of humanity in God’s body (the Universe) is to put these engrams (aka demons) in their proper place.
I would put forth the suggestion that Marty Rathbun is qualified to ‘run this’, and in so doing, enable God’s clearing of Earth.
Marty’s got my 8 page essay (single spaced word document) that explains this in detail.
Perhaps if the good people at this blog want to see something quite different, that incorporates the amazing truths of Scientology as part of a much bigger plan devised by God to enable His own health, then you can request to read it here, and offer opinions on how to proceed.
Once again, if you are reading this, thanks, Marty.
I agree Vin. “My” Ethics book was the original, 1971 edition I think it was. Even that had too many”rewards and penalties” in it for my taste.
I think the Ethics materials should be published completely separately from any “Justice” policies and materials.
It could certainly be noted that the Justice policies are based on the understandings in the Ethics materials(if they really are), but it should be made clear that “Justice” are specific applications. I guess we kinda agree on the better apperoach anyway. Hubbard just broadly conflated them in relation to “survival of the CoS”. Or something like that.
Hello Granny.
Very interesting way of looking at God and individuality.
Here is an excerpt from From the Beginning (MNR) which is not completely different as what you described here.
……..But this, also, was the first separation. It appeared as though you were telling this point what to do and telling that point what to do and watching them interact. But a more accurate analogy is standing at one point, saying and doing something, then taking two steps forward, turning around and saying and doing something else and pretending you are separate. A friend once told me that pan determinism is being able to play both sides of chess without cheating. I now realize that that is the origin of no responsibility. That’s not me. I didn’t do that. At the time it was no problem. There was no such thing as a problem. It hadn’t been invented yet. There was nothing above you saying this is how you do it or this is right or this is wrong. But remember, you are not creating something other than yourself and telling it what to do. You are everything that exists and you are learning to pretend to put up walls and dividers within yourself and pretend they are separate entities within you. This was fun and you practiced and practiced and got better and better at it. You got really good at pretending that when you were over here, you didn’t know what you were thinking when you were over there. And thus INDIVIDUALITY was born. Now, it’s not like you were sitting over here and making all these lesser entities and telling them what to do and watching them go at it. That’s what you thought. But in actuality there is the ultimate truth that you are the only thing that exists or ever has existed. Each thing or intention or potential you create is you, 100%. EACH SEPARATION IS THE ENTIRE WHOLE. In the theta realm there are no percentages. Infinity is without numbers. You can be 100% this and 100% that at the same time. A quick glance at Quantum Physics will give you some idea of the unreality of position and quantity. Particles can be in more than one place and yet no place at the same time. Their quantity can only be measured in averages since individual particles don’t actually exist. Such as is with theta. EACH PORTION IS EQUAL TO THE WHOLE……….
The central idea of this portion of the article is that if God creates (mocks up) an individual, then which one is the original and which is the created one. The answer is both, neither.
If you would like the entire article, or would like to send me your paper, I’m at:
marknr@hushmail.com.
That was a good and thoughtful post, 2ndxmr.
The peak experience that my psychology professor said was sticking me was my 14 month backpacking trip through Egypt, Israel, Greece and Morocco. After I got back, things in the cornfields just weren’t the same for me any more. And that was bothering me. I wanted to take off again and go to South America and study monkeys in the rain forests with a local anthropology professor.
I ended up getting involved in Scientology instead.
I think peak experiences keep you coming back for more.
I don’t know that you can make such a cut and dried re-definition of a peak experience into an “ability gained”, and therefore avoid the data that psychology has amassed about human behavior and peak experiences.
I think Scientology “wins” are peak experiences, and they are the primary item that sticks a Scientologist into Scientology, even after clear and obvious harm is being done.
Here’s more on Peak experiences.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/201009/big-moments
Alanzo
Alanzo said..
” This is very clear to me, Baby.
When you have taken care of people who Scientology would target for destruction, and even those it would try to “help” (and know how they would “help” them), you can see exactly how dangerous Scientology is.
Thank you for what you have done and continue to do.
Valkov has seen and heard everything about the damage that Scientology and L Ron Hubbard have done to people, and he continues to dismiss this damage and to promote Scientology. I don’t know how any responsible human being can behave this way, but…
There ya go.”
……………………………………………………………………………
Thank you Alanzo.
” Dispose of them quietly and without sorrow.”
Who can read these words ..Hubbard’s words and modify them to make them ” OK ?”
That quote is pretty much of a deal breaker for me.
Hi Mark. Don’t you think God would be able to create anything – including other completely independent and eternal Gods?
I think that the largest amount of aberration lies in the area of ethics and justice. This is so with Hubbard and Scientology too.
My opinion is that just as the body decays after death, the self decays too. It does not survive in one piece.
The life after death is very different from what he have been led to believe through the ages.
Can God as-is himself or herself?
I suppose. That would be a decision to “not be.”
Al, if you would clear all the definitions of “Scientology” that are in broad use, you and I might be able to communicate in the same spoken language.
Grannydeepsea, Here are some definitions.
GOD (Christianity) – A Supreme self that is postulated to explain the appearance of existence
STATIC (Scientology) – A concept that seems to describe the essence of God as Unmoved Mover.
God is postulated by humans as omnipotent. Since God is omnipotent he can vanquish his engrams easily. If he is not doing so then he wants to keep them and no one can do anything about it.
However, God would not exist in the absence of humans, So, one way to vanquish God and his engrams, would be to vanquish all humans. Xenu, once tried to do that and failed.
Anyway, what is your concern really? (TR3 yourself on it until you get something realistic.)
Right, but Edith was much more all-suffering than Alice. Edith basically knew what she was doing, though. She understood Archie, in many ways, and loved him unconditionally. It wasn’t that she was subservient to him, in actuality – it was her own knowing choice to do what she was doing.
Funny cartoon. 🙂
Hello Alanzo.
You said:
“If the teachings on eating meat or drinking alcohol lead to greater suffering for me, then I will keep those teachings in mind for myself. I retain my own control of my own mind and life that way, and remain free to practice Buddhism as I see fit.”
Excellent. Very close to my operating mode.
You wrote: “… it seems to me that you just ignore and forget about those parts of Scientology so you can continue to pursue what you like.”
Close, but not exactly. More like recognize and continue without getting stuck. But add this:
You wrote “,,,,,do you warn people that there are actual brainwashing techniques in Scientology and show people how to avoid them?”
That’s what I’m doing, just in a different manner than you. My papers on Beginning, Control, Affinity, Ethics, etc. can make a marked difference in an individual, even when they are considered only as metaphors. If the principles of these papers are understood, one would never be brainwashed by the CoS afterwards. My tips related to auditing may fill in SOME of the holes left by Ron, and prevent SOME of the foibles caused by current tech.
I don’t agree with everything Vin has to say, but I find much of his work very valuable. His work in education is stellar. It only needs to be applied by a large number of people under his charge and perfected. His writings on mindfulness may cause the concept to ‘click’ with some individuals when it would not otherwise, by reading other descriptions. We are each saving the world in our own way. Marty too. And many others.
I knew there was good in you,Alanzo, the Force is strong within you. You are on a mission to prevent harm. There are few more worthwhile missions.
Mark.
In my opinion, this kind of thinking about life after death is a neat bit of conditioning.
It is funny what all things humans postulate.
Let’s define this word instead:
QUIBBLE:
Note that definition 3 suggests that you have overts and withholds towards me.
That explains a LOT!
I’ll be needing your OW write up, stat.
Alanzo
Alanzo.
PS: I wrote a comment a few months ago stating that I evaluate every book as a whole, every chapter as itself, every paragraph on it’s own, every sentence and word in it’s own space and time. I retain the right and ability to change my evaluations instantly as new info is received or old info is found to be false or stuck. I still stand by that.
Working for me so far. Mark.
Al.
If I sent you a copy of some of my O/Ws, you would become physically ill, I know I did. You’d possibly do a bunk. Certainly need some auditing.
You would be surprised what a person can do when he thinks of degrading himself as an ability, an accomplishment.
“I can do this because I’m tough and unrepressed. You can’t because you are weak and squeamish.” This ‘think’ can lead down some horrifying roads that we have all traveled.
Mark
Oracle: “Nature provides for distancing all people from their identity and “self”.”
I agree in part. but the self takes care of his body best he can, tho nature wins out eventually and the individual spirit or entity moves on, I believe. So it’s important to some, to grow and advance on the spiritual side since one will no longer have a body to control or take care of.