A very interesting discussion has broken out at Leaving Scientology. It was prompted by Jeff Hawkins’ provocative post OT Abilities, http://leavingscientology.wordpress.com/2011/03/13/ot-abilities/ . Steve “Thoughtful” Hall has weighed in on the subject too, http://www.scientology-cult.com/flying-teapots-and-parlor-tricks.html
It is a great topic for discussion, particularly in light of the fact that Miscavige’s church, unlike LRH’s, has effectively censored the subject of discussion of OT abilities. Compare current church publications to the ones Jeff recounts editing under LRH’s watch in church publications of the 70′s.
I don’t approach the subject quite like Jeff does. I think he – having not experienced or acknowledged or claimed any OT abilities – approaches it “glass half empty.” Having experienced, acknowledged or claimed otherwise, I approach it “glass half full.”
Admittedly, Jeff is more liberal in his moderation policy than I. I often deny long, rambling posts designed to denigrate and invalidate LRH and the benefits of Scientology; or ones that disclose content of upper level material. That is because – in addition to my concern that the latter in particular could confuse and lengthen a person’s journey up the bridge – I am informed many on-lines, active church of Scientology members frequent my blog because I do respect such concerns. Many who have left the Miscavige’s implant stations have told me it was safe to look, starting with my blog and what they learned here opened their eyes and helped them to break their shackles.
In either case, a complete discussion and view of the subject of OT abilities would entail the whole spectrum of experience and viewpoint. So I am opening the discussion here particularly to those with a “glass half full” viewpoint; and encouraging those who want to see all viewpoints also link over to Jeff’s discussion.
At the outset, I want to make it known that I disagree with what I consider Jeff’s rigid “objectivism” approach.
I think even under non-Scientological standards it is not a reliable approach to getting at TRUTH.
To support that proposition I recommend two non-Scientology works.
First, psychologist/philosopher William James’ The Will To Believe. You can find it by googling the author and title. James argues that to deny the importance of belief and unexplainable or undemonstable spiritual perception and phenomena is as blind as engaging in blind faith. He notes that the most “scientific thinkers” who would deny the existence of the physically undemonstrable are as biased and blind as the most zealous religionists.
Second, Ken Wilbur’s A Brief History of Everything. Wilbur lays out a complete analysis of the subject of logic and scientific thought. A lynchpin of his analysis is that to deny the personal, subjective view is to deny the complete TRUTH from being attained.
Having said that, here is my answer to Jeff’s thoughtful question about the possibility of OT.
My personal experience is that the further I move up the Bridge, the more stable and frequent are my perceptions of my personal abilities to communicate telepathically and to effortlessly cause events to occur through postulate. Can I demonstrate that to prove it? I can and do to those with a similar reality and sufficiently regular communication with me to experience it. Can I get up on a stage and show disbelievers? No. For me it has to be effortless. It occurs when I get into Action and Games on the tone scale for sufficient periods that I begin to transcend to the level of Postulates. Don’t get me wrong – I don’t hang there all the time. I experience a whole panoply of emotion, including below 2.0 just like everybody else. But, when I get focused on possibility, and off of bands closer to effort, succumb and MEST, it just comes. I see a direct corollary to my ability to do so to Scientology training and processing. Which leads to the other “ability” I think is enhanced by Scientology auditing and training. That is the ability to disenturbulate entheta in another and to the degree that occurs to restore more free theta to him or her. And that leads them higher up the tone scale towards Action, Games, Postulates and beyond.
Jeff would apparently argue that perhaps that all I claim to experience is simply random “psychic” coincidence and does not rise to the level of ability. I can’t prove him wrong unless he perceives and agrees to what I perceive and agree with. Nor can he prove me wrong, unless I perceive and agree with what he does.
I do, though, thank Jeff for helping me to clarify for myself what I know and what I believe.
As my friend Jeff says, I yield the floor…