Time and Space

Time_and_space_Wallpaper__yvt2[1]

Studies in science and consciousness (e.g. Tao of Physics by Fritjof Capra, Biocentrism by Robert Lanza, The Field by Lynne McTaggart, My Big T.O.E by Thomas Campbell, etc.) have demonstrated through a variety of means that time and space are constructs of  human and animal minds.  They have no independent, observed or tangible reality in and of themselves.  We create them in order to establish dimensions within which to survive amongst and with other organisms and to play games.

Transcendent experiences, such as enlightenments, peak-experiences, even Scientology releases, are instances where the automaticity of creating time/space constructs are ceased – even if for the briefest of spans.  At those moments we experience more of the true nature of the universe and its interconnectedness. Here is the realm where psi (psychic phenomena – or theta perceptics – such as clairvoyance, precognition, psychokinesis, and telepathy) activities are observed and exercised. That reality only appears perceivable and achievable outside of our mental time and space constructs, which by their very purpose and definitions create the apparency of separateness.  Those transcendent experiences are often far and few between for folks because they have so permanently implanted upon themselves – and begun to mistake for ultimate reality – the reality of the time and space constructs they create. But, the more frequent a practice makes their experience possible, the more chance we have of, as Ken Wilber put it, converting temporary states more toward more permanent traits.

L. Ron Hubbard’s Dianetics and Scientology processes are exercises in restoring the ability to cease the automaticity of creation of time and space.  Understood in this context, it is very easy to run processes, to run groups of them (grades/levels), or even the complete program (or Bridge), to their fullest potential gain.  Not a lot of duress and dogma designed to instill unswerving devotion and surrender is required to bring about ability when that simple, if all-encompassing, framework is kept in mind. When viewed against this scientific/consciousness field of evolving, tested context Hubbard processes can become as natural and simple to deliver as driving an automobile.

I think the more a practitioner appreciates these facts, and our increasing objective (scientific) understandings and how they relate to consciousness, the more proficient, effective, and empowering his or her practice becomes.

This ability can become unachievable in Scientology; much in the way it has in many other practices.  There are a number of reasons for this.  However, all of those factors can be recognized and understood to one degree or another as invitations or commands to build further time/space constructs, and to believe so implicitly in them that one – once again – puts the process on automatic.  Whatever titillating or inviting backdrops against, or foundations upon, which one presents such enticements to build new mental constructs, they still have the same regressive effect ultimately.  They send one back down the rabbit hole of time/space construction, which after enough practice ultimately to one degree or another goes back onto automatic.

Consequently, a simple axiom evolved for me that I have found useful in studying and applying any work in the fields of spirit, philosophy and psychotherapy.  To those cemented into the permanent constructs some paths tends to embed one in, this will sound like the most rank heresy.  To those not so embedded, it might help keep you from falling into the wet concrete looming along certain paths.  It is simply this, to the degree data assists with relieving additives to the mind that enforce automatic time/space construction it is valuable; conversely, to the degree data invites introduction of additives that further automatic time/space construction it is destructive of higher awareness and states of consciousness.

99 responses to “Time and Space

  1. Yes, and succinctly and beautifully stated Marty,
    One other factor could be looked at and that is the mental construct we term “self”
    Whenever an epiphany is had, due to the absence of “self”, the mind immediately claims that epiphany. LOL – The “self” is claiming success due to its own absence. – Being told to then write a success story reinforces the “self” construct. The idea that we are “Thetans” (a noun) also reinforces this construct. We may be thetaning (verbing) but in fact we are indefinable!

    • martyrathbun09

      Martin,
      Nice observation. That is another construct – for me, for another day – that definitely puts a ceiling on progress. Interestingly, some observers have note that it sure helps to straighten out ego before attempting to transcend it. Dianetics and Scientology – sanely practiced – can be real effective in that regard.

    • You should get a kick out of reading Spinoza.

      ” The God of Einstein and Spinoza

      From a letter to Eduard Büsching, Oct. 25, 1929, Einstein Archive, reel 33-275, quoted in Jammer, p. 51:

      When its author sent a book There Is No God to Einstein, Einstein replied that the book did not deal with the notion of God, but only with that of a personal God. He suggested that the book should be titled There Is No Personal God. He added further:

      “” We followers of Spinoza see out God in the wonderful order and lawfulness of all that exists and in its soul as it reveals itself in man and animal.It is a different question whether belief in a personal God should be contested. Freud endorsed this view in his latest publication. I myself would never engage in such a task. For such a belief seems to me to the lack of any transcendental outlook of life, and I wonder whether on can ever successfully render to the majority of mankind a more sublime means in order to satisfy its metaphysical needs.””

      • Cat Daddy, what does this quote mean to you personally?

        • That God is a construct thought up by man, For Einstein and Spinoza God is equal to nature itself. To me it brings it back to the book Robison Crusoe where Friday answered the question what God was to him. He repleied by God is in this rock , this three and the fruit that I eat. Something along that lines. God is in your quantumphysics haha. What it means to me that we are all part of the divine. Part of the universe itself wich is objectively thrue, but in return the universe is part of us.

          Spinoza followed reason in the 17th century I believe to rerach his conclusions. He was a Jew that fled to the Netherlands from Portugal and ironicly was cast out by his group for his findings.

          He embodies freethinking to me, reason and courage to think for himself.

          • Thanks!

          • I do not think that for Einstein God is Nature. I think that Einstein looked at the beauty and organization of Nature as the result of God’s work. In his time statistical mechanics was the order of the day. He on the other hand, was able to see order and determinism where others saw a stochastic universe. This was for him a sign that there is god.

            This is why he could not accept Quantum Mechanics. In his words “God does not throw a dice.”

            • To understand Einsteins notion of what God is you have to understand Baruch Spinoza;’s God. And it is indeed simular to your observation altough if Einstein had lived he would embrace Quantum Mechanics in the end as ,oh my what am I saying, Hubbard did in his own particular way. Mankand tends to move forward. first the Earth was flat now it’s round. Even Einstein is not exempt from scrutiny as it comes to science. And rightly so.

              “I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.”

              • Even though Einstein was very ambivalent about Quantum Mechanics, he contributed plenty to it. In reality quantum mechanics is not about the stochastic nature of the universe, but rather about how a consciense mind interacts with it.

                As for LRH he never agreed with it, nor did he with relativity because of a simple reason; he did not have the foggiest idea what it was all about. Because he thought of himself as the smartest person on earth he had to say it was wrong, and ridicule it.

                • My bad, I confused Quantum Physics with Quantum mechanics, English is not my native language. I think he rather propped himself up as the smartest person to maximize effect on his enviroment I am sure he had plenty of insecurities felt in private like any of us.

                  • ” … I am sure he had plenty of insecurities felt in private like any of us.”

                    I agree with you. I believe that unlike most of us, his insecurities defined and motivated him.

                    • “I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.”

                      -Albert Einstein

  2. Tom Gallagher

    One of the most mind blowing realizations I encountered as a result of encountering Scientology and the time/space construct is that considerations screw up us thetans more than anything else.

    What we view, as in this physical universe, is simply another consideration. This universe is a friend or a foe. It is relative to one’s viewpoint and considerations.

    That’s my knee jerk to your write-up Marty.

    I’ll have to read it a few more times for a full digestion. Thanks for some more “thought starting” stuff.

  3. Marty,
    Nice post. Very wise, very deep. And well presented.
    Because of certain events and experiences, I have known before starting Scientology, that I am a spirit, out of time, out of space, out of Mest. But that knowing was limited in span, and kept having tendency to be forgotten in due “time” and fall prey to the deep rooted automaticities you mention. And that is of course, going back to “not knowing”. So, another game got into play, with the dichotomies: remember – forget. Tat led to Spiritual practice. Scientology, in my case. I often pondered what is the end game on this. I mean if one goes all the way to remembering, and cancels all automaticities and the elements causing them – one will just leave this place, this game, this universe. He will have nothing to do here, because “doing” itself will have no meaning.
    The funny thing is, all these wise thoughts, are products of us being still inside the game… Suppose we both get out at the same time, or actually “no time”, we might just smile at this, at each other and at everything else, and be very happy to go absolutely nowhere. Or everywhere…
    I said, nice post, got me going…
    Hemi

  4. Aha, cool. I did not understand it. I did construct space ships, did invent things elsewhere here on Earth no Science Fiction writer wrote about it to date. But this is way too much above my reality level. Funny, since some month I work on the Axioms and Laws about time travel. It is quite a task. For me time exists. Maybe some day I have a better understanding. But currently not.

    • Hi Schorsch. You are only expected to be able to understand the concepts Marty writes about in this blog. Full understanding and realisations come about by the application of scientology processes. No one will go clear by studying the theory or scientology, or any other philosophy for that matter. That is why Ron Hubbard is so revered by scientologists. He developed the processes and auditing techniques of scientology to gradually bring about the cognitions which lead to the experience of time/space as a mind construct and the ultimate freedom from the physical universe as a being.

  5. gretchen dewire

    That is what I see the lower grades doing. I dont know about the ot levels. I see now that my meditation would be going much better if I had done all my lower grades.

  6. “…to the degree data assists with relieving additives to the mind that enforce automatic time/space construction it is valuable; conversely, to the degree data invites introduction of additives that further automatic time/space construction it is destructive of higher awareness and states of consciousness…”

    Higher awareness and or higher states of consciousness are not ‘destructible’. Inhibited yes. Destructible, no. Occluded yes. Destructible no. To say higher awareness and or higher states of consciousness are destructible is akin to saying when one cannot see above the clouds (constructs) the sun has been destroyed. Lol. Not the case.

    • Daniel O'Connell

      Larry, Marty’s use of the word destructive was synonomous with inhibits and occludes, as you agree with. Your adding the word destructible and relating it to states of higher conciousness. That was never said. Your rush to criticize the point he makes led to misrepresent it. You need to take a deep breath, find the truth, and get the hell out of there. If LRH is going to have a lasting beneficial legacy it will only be through the work being done outside the organization . No need to be loyal to an organization that misled you. Folks don’t look foolish or wrong by leaving. Only by staying. Your not leaving LRH.

  7. “the automaticity of creating time/space constructs are ceased – even if for the briefest of spans”

    Marty, Thank you for the post.
    Yes, this is exactly the control I want to master. In this state one can not only simply not be at effect or overwhelm but seems can study and understand much better – conceptually to learn more and gain control from understanding & to then master this state.

    It’s how you went in the basketball game ~ as if in another dimension yet perhaps it was simply you being in present time and the exhilaration of competence which is really good control. The lack of ‘bank’ at the time would leave you open to more perceptions? Is this ‘another dimension’?

    It was how I have gone several times. Each, time seemed to ‘stand still’ and I had unlimited time to make the changes needed in the environment to
    have the outcome I postulated occur. This ability saves lives (meat bodies).
    Is this another dimension or simply being without bank (in restim) and thereby PT? PT is not an automaticity. I have even found drills so that one can control the body functions which are normally automatic. These are being studied by scientists and doable.

    It (that dimension) is certainly a state worth achieving and worth practicing. TRs is a good start I think. Long hikes help. Proper nutrition helps.
    Anything you come up with that we can practice as you mention would be admirable. Thank you for your studies.
    Cece

  8. Warren Marston

    Very well said, Marty. The next step would be to consider how “deep” into Scientology one could go belief-wise before triggering negative consequences. Relative to that, two things come to mind.

    The first is that LRH said “auditing is a game of freedom vs. havingness.” Auditing takes apart case-based games and dissolves the negative havingness associated with them. This creates a vacuum into which other case can be pulled, if the pc doesn’t first pull in some positive havingness instead. This is the reason for havingness processes at the end of auditing sessions and grades.. It also applies to the bigger picture of one’s involvement in Scientology. As one gets rid of old, aberrated games, he has to acquire new, sane games in which to involve himself. The question becomes, WHAT new games?

    One of the new games most people get involved in is the third dynamic of being a Scientologist. But there isn’t, and never was, just ONE version of that third dynamic. There are actually quite a few versions combining various different elements — staff and public — at missions, orgs, and the Sea Org — in the Church and Independent. The various combinations could be arranged on a linear scale. If one becomes involved in the Church / Sea Org / staff version, one’s new game and havingness are going to pretty much require becoming a cultist. At the other end of the scale — Independent / mission / public — the new game and havingness are totally different, and need not include any cultishness at all.

    Independent Scientologists who entered the Sea Org as teenagers, and then spent 20 years in that cult environment, going through the building of havingness, automatic thinking, and overt-motivator accumulation that it provides, and without the opportunity to really do much of the Bridge themselves, at least during their first 10 years or so, might require quite a bit of “decompression” before being able to conceive of a loyalty to Scientology based on relaxed, sane use of the tech in the context of normal human life. They might A=A that other Indies promoting KSW and organized auditor training are just dramatizing the Sea Org cult, when those other Indies aren’t doing that at all, because they never got heavily grooved in to the cult game and havingness, but rather remained more towards the mission / public end of the scale.

    It’s understandable that the idea of “integrate, evolve, and transcend” would appeal to someone coming out of 20 or 30 years of the cult meat grinder. But many of us who avoided that environment and its thought-stopping demands have actually BEEN “integrating, evolving, and transcending” out here all along, WITHOUT feeling any need to reject LRH standard tech or the philosophy it sprang from. I for one would be considered a “fundy” by many readers of this blog, but I have in my personal library literally HUNDREDS of books on other philosophies, paths, and practices, including many of those on Marty’s suggested reading list. I’ve always understood LRH’s writings in that context. And I’m far from alone in this.

    What I like best about Marty’s article today is his suggestion that LRH processes be run simply as themselves, in the absence of philosophical constructs that act as “know about” blocking one’s rising to “not know” on the Know to Mystery Scale. “Not Know” is where all the gains are to be found, along with all the life and all the fun. The more one thinks he knows already, the less he can learn by looking, because he looks at his ideas, not at what actually is. That applies to “believing in Scientology” and to disbelieving in it, too Belief should have no part in it one way or the other. Just LOOK.

    I think the essence of “decompression” is regaining one’s own “control center.” In DMSMH, LRH defined hypnotism as giving over control of one’s mind to an exterior control center. This happens in the receipt of an engram, and during formal hypnotism, and as the result of assimilation into a quasi-military cult like the Sea Org, where following “command intention” is more required than actually understanding the policy and tech that “command intention” is supposed to be implementing. There is no room there for doing anything but complying to orders, regardless of what policy says. That is quite literally a hypnotic environment, especially when sleep deprivation and physical violence are included in the mix.

    When a person leaves such an environment after decades of hypnotic abuse, it’s natural that he or she will reject anything even remotely similar to it. Thus we have the Indie field full of ex-Sea-Org-members studiously avoiding getting really organized for large-scale, effective delivery, as though it were the bubonic plague. And we have seriously opposed political factions within our community.

    To use Marty’s terms, it’s a “construct” and an “additive to the mind” to hold in place the idea that organized Scientology means the Sea Org. It’s also a symptom of charge accumulated during the “compression” phase of one’s Scientology career. Scientology was organized and operating before the Sea Org was established, and before it outgrew its original valid functional niche to rise up and consume the whole Church, it’s parent.

    The Church was NOT a cult before the Sea Org. A new version of it CAN be rebuilt in a way that avoids the problems that occurred in the Sea Org version. All we have to do is update a few key policies, as the Danger Formula actually directs us to do. I’ve made some suggestions along those lines in my comments of a couple of days ago to Marty’s “Scientology and Sociopaths” article.

    Meanwhile, while I sometimes disagree with Marty, I’m with him on his main point today: The whole Bridge works, IF done in a relaxed fashion, without the auditor or pc holding on too tightly to thoughts or environmental pressures that block actually looking.

    • “The Church was NOT a cult before the Sea Org.”

      Maybe not, but a certain “cult of Hubbard” was present right from the start, according to some who walked away in the early 50s. Dr. Joseph Winter, for example, observed the forming of a “closed system”, witnessing Hubbard become increasingly “absolutistic and authoritarian”, dismissing the value of scientific method and valid research, creating an “overenthusiastic” and “uncritical” attitude to therapy.

      In “A Doctor’s Report on Dianetics”, Winter praises many aspects of Hubbard’s early therapy recommending an intelligent, integral approach to its use. An important book, imho,.from one of the first ever Indies.

    • Thanks for your intelligent points Warren. I have been quite surprised at the degree of abuse and degradation in the SO. In my 10 years CL IV org staff, I did not experience a lot of this. I was also an auditor most of that time, so I was able to vigorously study the tech and enjoy the beautiful beings that I helped. It was a very rigorous but special time in my life, that I treasure. I also had a moonlight job, lots of philosophy books and my auditing room had plants and art.
      When I started in 1974, there were strong stable datums like, what was true for you, was true for you, and the code of honor were in every day discussion. The personal point of view was respected as an important channel to achieving OT. The ONLY way. The first confessional course I did was the Integrity Processing Specialist Course, which I thought put o/w case in the correct light, against the code of honor. I am horrified to see, that so many people were mistreated with this tech and that the most basic right, of point of view has been pretty much disappeared in the corp. church. I know an OT VIII who despises Flag because she went out code of honor 1000 times. (under heavy pressure of course) Her decompression will involve her coming to terms with violating her own code of honor, whereas, someone who fought for theirs would feel differently.
      One the most basic datums is that we are completely unique and special, have out own tracks, our own point of view and our own priorities. The code of honor, the conditions, o/ws have to be applied against that particular being’s point of view, of his own dynamics and his own universe. Anything else is just eval and more lies on the pile of a persons case. Marty’s datum of not adding to the pile is Scientological and correct if you want the individual to be more himself and to run his own dynamics from his own point of view. These ideas are expressed in the axioms. This is what Scn is for.
      I actually saw a woman on a plane shift valence, and give me a half hour of wins, because I helped her to understand a wrong indication she was stuck in…..a total stranger could not help herself, to tell me her life’s difficulties. She hugged me with gusto when we got off the plane. This is pre gag training where there is no other agenda, but for the person to be THEMSELVES…..to rcover their own point of view and to live their lives as they wish and do things in their own time. The compressed time situation, the very definition of a 3D engram, has been a very destructive force in Scn and especially the SO. I wish everyone feeling snarky and bitter, a kind, standard auditor who audits only for them.
      Thanks Marty, for your unique perspective and all these thoughtful posts and discussions.

      • Wonderful comment Hallie Jane! Thank you.

      • Hi Hallie,

        I have come to expect that while reading Marty’s blog posts and/or through the comments contributed, there will be items pushed into view for me to have a look at. Even though I expect this to occur I am still always surprised at what items are pushed, pulled or placed in view. Too, I am often surprised how I am looking at the item and the exploration within, without and, inevitably, back within that I am consequently launched upon. Unfortunately, if I do manage to address the experience via posting a comment, I suspect that it can easily be construed to be a non sequitur. Of course, not being able to view it from my viewpoint, that would be true interpretation.

        Okay, all that said, your comment pushed several items into view and I want to address at least one of them. Hallie, in your comment you included the statement, “…there were strong stable datums like, what was true for you, was true for you…” How many times has some version of that statement been included in a comment on one of Marty’s blog posts? How many times have I uttered some form of that statement to another? Well…Plenty! This time, though, it snagged my attention and I found myself asking why is that so. Why is it exactly that what is true for me is true for me and not true for others?

        The answer that came into view was that creation rests on belief and that the belief in creation is what brings it into existence. I think that this is why it is possible for me to believe what is not true for anyone else. It is true for me because it was made BY me. It was my belief that brought it into existence. And, because I am a unique point of view, my belief may be very different from anyone else. How could it not be?

        Side note: When I was a scientologist I didn’t have much use for any form of the word believe. As a scientologist and desiring to emulate LRH I learned to prefer and use the word ‘consider’ instead of believe. However, since leaving SC, I have come to like and use the word believe. And, I have experienced that in speaking with others who did not experience the SC indoctrination, that the word believe is readily understood and accepted. That said, I still frequently use the word consider but not because I desire to emulate LRH.

        • Monte

          I was looking at the considerations of what constitutes “truth” just the other day, in response to something said on a previous blog post. I came to the opinion that pretty much all truth is actually personal truth.

          There does not seem to actually be any “universal truth”. I discovered that the word “truth” could be exchanged for the word “universes” in the concept of “the three universes”. You know, the one about “there is your universe, the universe of another, and the agreed upon universe”. So basically that translates as “your own truth” (basically the entire content of your existing postulates that make up the universe that you experience), the truths of others ( the postulates that others hold to be true in their universes) , and agreed upon truths ( the postulate that there are things that others apparently hold as postulates that you postulate as being the same as your own).

          So basically, all truth, and thereby reality itself, as experienced by any individual being, is simply the result of that individual being’s postulates.

          As a final thought, I “believe” that in some interpretations, one could replace the word “postulate” for the word “believe”, and have the same meaning.

          Eric

          • Eric, thak you very much for sharing your perspective. In this morning’s contemplation what you had to say prompted some wonderful exploration into the subject of truth, knowledge, universes, perception and much more.

            The words Truth, Knowledge and Cause, just to pick three, are symbols for which I have meanings for that are somewhat elusive. But I do have this “knowing” that what these three symbols actually represent is something that I cannot begin to conceive of from my point of view from within a universe based on perception. I do suspect that ACTUAL Truth, Knowledge and Cause are beyond universes, beyond existence, beyond perception and certainly beyond time and space. I have come to refer to this ‘beyond’ as being Home. And, it is my desire to return Home. However, having assigned all my creations in the universe of perception great meaning and value, I have become incredibly attached to this universe I have made. Nevertheless, a ‘Home’, which I cannot even conceive of, calls to me within my dreams (my creations) to return. And I am assured that there is a viable bridge that I can travel from existence back to the beyond.

            • Monte

              Good stuff.

              Yes, A Home Universe… Ahhh the stuff of dreams. Beyond perception, beyond the veil…or as you so succinctly put it, simply “Beyond”. Lovely coincept.

              Eric

            • Eric, I was in a rush this morning and didn’t take the time to elaborate on a statement I made in my reply to you. This was the statement: “I am assured that there is a viable bridge that I can travel from existence back to the beyond.” I would like to say a bit more about this ‘viable bridge’ that I refer to. This bridge that I believe is a way back “Home” is not a bridge that exists in form. It is not a structure. Content, purpose or intention might possibly be words that I could use to describe this bridge but I really don’t think they’re the most accurate words I could use. But, being that I don’t know of a word that would be more accurate, I use one or all of the three mentioned.

              Also, there are countless tributaries that feed into this bridge that does not exist in form. These tributaries are viable bridges of form and structure but they are not viable because of their form. They are viable because of their content, their purpose, their intention. The phenomenal ‘bridge’ that LRH built is just one of many such bridges. The inherent liability in structural bridges is that folks have a propensity for fixating on the structure and making structure more valuable and meaningful than the content, the purpose or the intention.

              • Monte

                Thank you for the added clarification.

                I actually had no problem getting that concept from your response and from your original post.

                Thanks for sharing your concept.

                Eric

        • Cool, insightful comments Monte, thank you! I know what you mean about feeling non sequitur, sometimes I feel that way too. The main post thread can turn into as many thoughts as there are people, then we have thoughts on our thoughts and…….oi vey! Communicating in clear form is not always easy. The various blogs are doing a great job of being evocative, allowing freedom of thought and discourse…….the tone arm is moving!
          For me Scn has always been about freedom. Freedom of thought, action, choice, perspective, priority and time. The sole purpose of auditing is to remove charge from the individual, so he can have whatever cog he wants and do with it, whatever he pleases. The sole purpose of ethics is to help the individual survive better, from his own perspective, against his own viewpoint, his own integrity and in his own time. Ideally a growth of confidence, certainty, honor and theta should occur and if not, then the basic reasons for Scn to exist are not present.
          Because I believe these principles, I choose to create my life around them and treat others with dignity, respect and appreciation for their special and unique perspectives, regardless of whether it’s a formal scn environment or not. It is truly tragic that so many scngsts, SO etc. had to endure what can only be described as, the exact antithesis to what scn should be doing.
          The full quote “what’s true for you is what’s true for you. When you’ve lost that you’ve lost everything”……..The word choice “everything” made this a very senior datum for me.
          I agree with Marty’s datum because it aligns with what I believe, that we are all totally unique, sentient beings, no two alike. So in whatever type of religious/spiritual/psychological practice, if this is respected, perhaps good will be done, if the practitioner has that intention.

          • Another beautiful comment Hallie! You are a very sane being. Again, your comment has brought items into view for me. Perhaps I can return later and attempt to address some of what rose to the surface. Thank you Hallie.

      • Okay Hallie, I’m back to relay at least some of the results of an exploration that your comment prompted me to engage. This particular excursion was initiated by your anecdote regarding your experience with the woman on the plane. Warning, what follows might be non sequitur. :)

        I always really found the story of Johnny Appleseed appealing. The idea of a guy travelling around the country planting apple seeds just seemed very cool! Then when I was teenager (back in the late sixties), there was a one season TV series called Then Came Bronson. Bronson was a guy travelling around the country on a motorcycle getting involved in peoples lives and helping them out. Bronson had no special abilities to speak of, he was just a guy that cared and was willing to get involved. One of my favorite mock-ups (fantasies) that I had as a scientologist was that of going up the Bridge, regaining all these OT abilities I had withdrawn from myself because of my sinful ways, and then hitting the road to go out and get involved and do what I could do to help. As I was reviewing this I had a big laugh when I realized that what I was mocking up very much resemble a common description of an angel (Oh yeah, I also always immensely enjoyed that TV show, Touched by an Angel. LOL!. I had another good laugh when I realized that I had pretty much lived up to my mock-up both while in SC and especially since I’ve been out of SC. But being out of SC doesn’t mean that I discarded all those wonderful tools and learning experiences I gained throughout my three decades plus while being a scientologist.

        While I was a scientologist the datum I seemed to find most useful was, “purpose is senior to policy.” That said, I observed and experienced some of my fellow scios take that datum and corrupt it into something like “the end justifies the means.” Oh well, what can I say …they were pretty insane at the time and besides, that’s water under the bridge. Anyway, now I don’t think so much in terms of purpose being senior to policy, I think more along the lines of…purpose being senior to form/structure. In other words, I don’t care where the tools come from or what they’re called if I can make them work to serve the purpose. And for me, there is only one purpose to achieve in this world based on perception (an illusory world) and that is: FIND OUT WHO YOU REALLY ARE. I believe that when one actually discovers who they REALLY are, that everything else (the what, where and how, etc.) will instantly fall into place.

        • Hi Monte! It’s great to hear more thoughts! It’s funny because I loved Johnny Appleseed also. I was a bit of a ragamuffin, as a child and subsisted on apples off trees. So Johnny was my hero. haha!
          I think the datum of purpose being senior to policy, was just one of many quotes that have been perverted probably for stats or money or both. i agree that finding out who you really are, is a very important milestone in one’s spiritual growth. I think it can be looked at as point A…ie: a person just figured out for the first time who they are, or, B…a person has developed himself spiritually over time and experience, and KNOWS who he really is. I think living intentionally, from your own point of view is the only way to fly. I’ve used this conditions formula many times, to help people who fell off the wagon, of being who they really were and helped them to reorient themselves, and everything falls into place again. Eventually if one is trying and perceiving, we get better at maintaining and it gets very stable. That’s my experience anyway.
          I know a lot of people look at OT as various high abilities, like flying or having gobs of money or being a star, or whatever, but to me it’s more like “thetans….operating”. That is, from that viewpoint, of being who you really are, and actually being who you really are, and contributing and interacting with life on all dynamics, from that unique, special, sentient, aware, uncluttered and the key….INTENTIONAL…perspective. Then you’ve gotten to a very good place IMHO.
          This is the exact reason that the corp. church is such a mess because great datums like the greatest good or make it go right, have been usurped and given a prescribed definition by some ignorant asshole. Instead of the individual deciding what the greatest good is, from their point of view, of their dynamics and their priorities, it’s “do what I say or else”, which is, of course, evil and stupid. Maintaining our own valence, our unique perspective, is absolutely the most vital subproduct that should be respected in any spiritual journey. It’s a personal journey, about & for yourself, from your personal viewpoint, that can only be experienced AS YOURSELF & in your own time.
          I basically agree that anything that aids the being, in being less encumbered with charge, clutter, falsehoods etc. is probably helpful, because he’s a step closer to being his full self and he’ll make better decisions and move on up a little higher.
          I remember an LRH quote (pardon the paraphrase) that an aberated person adds restimulation to the environment, a clear does not add or subtract and an OT destimulates the environment, So the OT, with his space, actions, intentions, postulates, destimulates…….sounds like an angel to me. You seem like a very special person Monte, I think you may have your wings!

          • Hallie, great input! I especially liked this that you wrote: “Maintaining our own valence, our unique perspective, is absolutely the most vital subproduct that should be respected in any spiritual journey. It’s a personal journey, about & for yourself, from your personal viewpoint, that can only be experienced AS YOURSELF & in your own time.”

            I think that folks often err in trying to walk in or on the exact same path as another not realizing or recognizing that they have their own unique path on which to make their journey. There was a time when I wanted and tried to walk in or on the exact same path as another. It didn’t go well and, fortunately, I eventually evolved past the erroneous consideration I had about that.

            The path I take on my spiritual journey, although peculiar to me, is built through integration. I have no need to try to walk in another’s path but I will not hesitate to integrate something from another’s path that I find useful and workable for me.

            I agree Hallie, a spiritual journey is definitely a personal journey about and for one’s self. Speaking of ‘self’….I think there’s a whole lot more to that story!

            It has been such a pleasure exchanging perspectives with you. Thank you.

  9. Brilliant OP!

    I had some thoughts while reading this OP.

    OP: “invitations or commands to build further time/space constructs, and to belief so implicitly in them that one – once again – puts the process on automatic.”

    Just putting a construct/process in automatic is not a trap in itself.

    An automatic construct/process becomes a trap when the creator-being losses the ability to deconstruct/erase the automaticity. (E.g.: it may become a trap when the creator-being postulates not knowingness about – some part – of the automaticity, and then postulates not knowingness about the not knowingness, and then postulates not knowingness about the not knowingness about the not knowingness, etc.).

    OP: “to the degree data assists with relieving additives to the mind that enforce automatic time/space construction it is valuable; conversely, to the degree data invites introduction of additives that further automatic time/space construction it is destructive of higher awareness and states of consciousness.”

    Unwisely/unethical relieve of additives to the mind that enforce automatic time/space construction may be harmful. E.g.: Deactivating/erasing the automatic breathing of the body.

    Also, wise/ethical introduction of additives that further automatic time/space construction is not harmful. (Not becoming a trap belongs to wise/ethical.)

    So, I would rephrase it as:

    To the degree data assists with wise/ethical relieving additives to the mind that enforce automatic time/space construction it is valuable; conversely, to the degree data invites introduction of unwise/unethical additives that further automatic time/space construction it is destructive of higher awareness and states of consciousness.

    Unfortunately, in the above rephrasing “wise/ethical” and “unwise/unethical” could be interpreted/implemented unwisely/unethically, like nowadays happens in the Co$.

  10. Occasionally, but rarely, I have experienced brief moments where the construct of self has vanished, and the construct of the MEST universe vanished. Maybe a better way to put my experience is that those “things” did not vanish — just the mental constructs of them, and thus they appeared entirely clear and unvarnished.

    I hit some of those rare (for me) states in auditing, some in TRs. None in training or in the organizational vicissitudes of staff targets or other goals.

    In my opinion, CoS, Inc. failed when its own construct of itself (its rules, image, etc.) became the reality rather than transcendency being sought.

    One rule that strikes me as particularly debilitating with the wisdom of hindsight is the prohibition against talking about “case.” That left a number of people not knowing that this or that heavily charged instance that they had gone through, such as say being raped, was amenable to support, support groups, and the insights and empathy of those with shared experience. In fact, the prohibition flew directly against (in my opinion) one of the basic grades — the ability to communicate with anyone about anything. It left some people trapped — unable to transcend — a misbegotten sense that they might have been the only person to have gone through a certain experience, when they could have found great relief in knowing that many people have (fortunately or unfortunately) gone through similar experiences.

    So from where I sit, some of the rules and culture and group “think” of Scientology actively suppress its members and prevent them from transcending in every meaning of that word.

    When Scientology can be used to transcend even itself, it can become very valuable. When it remains dogma, well, dogma by definition demands a refusal to brook any criticism, improvement, change, or critical thinking. Those things flatly block transcendence.

    Having thus reflected on my own past experience, I now adjourn to a balcony in the sunshine to see if I may touch that transcendental state again, even if ever so briefly.

  11. ……………….WOW!…………….

  12. Marty. I think I just got a taste of your last book and I like it. A lot. It took someone with your experiences and understanding to integrate what is valuable in scientology with what is valuable overall. This is what LRH needed to have done with his breakthroughs. This is what we all need to get our wits around and understand. Nice, nice job. Thanks for laying it out so it can be understand by those who are willing to see. Fiat lux.

  13. It’s been a long time. Thanks for this wonderful post. Am trying to update myself since last visiting your blog, and your last many posts prove again to me that you aspire and are achieving the namesake of your blog – moving up a little higher. Very refreshing.

  14. So when you for example sit down and look at tons
    of experiences from your life in ARC Straight Wire
    and as-is each (duplicate them as exactly as they
    occured) you essentially blow any additives and so
    clean off the mind and should be able come off the
    automatic and create space and time yourself. This
    does work which I can attest to. For me it took quite
    some time but boy was it worth it. Just do not tell DM
    as he will have everybody redo ARC S/W.
    This goes along with the whole grade chart BUT it
    needs to be done totally self determinedly and in an
    environment that corresponds to this development.
    Spiritual, with no additives. You can tell DM that!

  15. Wow, I’m blown out. Your post reminded me of instances where I had what I now think could be termed as a “transcendent experience”, and at such times I knew that in order to talk about it I would have to come “down” (and it always took some effort to do so). This is why I often wished to say nothing when I went to the Examiner after a session (with F/N VGI’s).

    You wrote: “But, the more frequent a practice makes their experience possible, the more chance we have of, as Ken Wilber put it, converting temporary states more toward more permanent traits.”

    My win today is getting a sense that it may be better to not “talk about it” or even “think about it” and that (at least some or even most of the time, depending) I should just “have it”, and allow the more permanent trait to develop. Thank you, Marty. :)

  16. Martin and Marty, you two just blew ‘my’ mind. Thanks.

    This fits perfectly after having just finished ‘Memoirs’. I can finally just let go of Scientology, and thus use it to whomatever degree I wish.

  17. I like your analysis here, Marty. It’s a very simple concept, and it allows the alignment of a truckload of data.

  18. The time space mind is likened to a solid ice cube. The soul or pure unconditioned consciousness is likened to boiling water.
    The solidity postulated habitually, and automatically, by human/body identified consciousness is slowly melted by the very act of meditation because soul consciousness is the source of postulated solidity. This experience then instructs the mind on a new level of understanding of matter and space as a sort of dream projection that is “real.”
    There is a state whereby all external form is melted into its essential nature of light/energy.
    This is not a theoretical state but very experiential. The perception is that of golden bliss, an ecstasy hard to contain and recognition that this state is the Static/Pure Spirit/Undifferentiated and perfect: the spawning ground of infinitely expanding universes teeming with sentient life, animate and inanimate.
    Jesus said,”when thy eye be single therefore thy whole body is full of light.”

    Jesus being a Yogi who studied in India knew this truth. I have experienced it myself. This was the experience: I was concentrated on the point between the eyebrows in a very deep meditation, then my entire body disappeared, then the whole universe disappeared and I was swimming in pure ecstatic light. I understood my body and all matter to be essential unreducible light.

    It was an ecstasy hard to describe. I was not sure if it lasted two minutes or two hours.

    I was not the same person after the veil of time and space was lifted.

    The state is indescribable, and made any experience of pleasure I have ever had, anytime or anywhere, pale in stark insignificance.

    Immortal bliss, the dream of the Buddha and every wiseman or women is our own very nature available to be experienced through spiritual adventurousness and disciplined experimentation.
    The Bridge exists and a has been crossed my countless disciples of truth.

  19. The MEST universe is a automaticity -like the birth, life, death cycle.
    You can be in the MEST universe or you can be out of it.
    The bottom of the tone scale is MEST. The top of the tone scale is theta.
    There are gradients in between.
    I think this is wonderfully explained by LRH in the PDC’s.
    Many religions have observed the same phenomenon and have sought the same truths.

  20. Marty,
    I think I may see things a bit differently, but I think we are on the same page in one very important regard.

    To progress, to move on up a little higher, the first step is for us to truly come to grips with the fact that we have the power, the gift, the ability (whatever you want to call it) to interpret the world around us and to respond to it in a beneficial way.

    As I see it, many spiritual practices, like Scientology, can really help open someone’s mind to this power/gift/ability. That’s the basic philosophy behind auditing, really, right? You have the power to go back to events/stimuli/problems that have you tied up in knots, you can confront them, you can reinterpret them, you can break free.

    On the flip side, when we become involved with a group, when we start to create hardline rules and policies and regulations, when we start to box in our actions and thoughts and behaviors, we start to lose track of our power to interpret and react. We become stimulus/response. We act without thinking. We let external voices and factors tell us exactly what to do and exactly how to interpret the time and space around us. In short, we become robots and machines, really.

    To me, that seems to be the point you are making. Recently, I’ve been studying a lot of Stoicism (reading Marcus Aurelius, Seneca, and Epictetus in particular). Some parts of what I’m reading are a little too dogmatic. Other parts have been very helpful though… when they help me, they open my eyes to show me the power I have to guide my own responses, thoughts, ideas, and perceptions.

    Thanks for the thoughtful post!

  21. Hi Marty.

    This is my first post on your blog. I have enjoyed reading many of your articles, and have found them informative. Thank you for all that. My favorite article of yours is: http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2013/05/07/can-i-get-a-witness/

    Especially the last paragraph which reads:

    “Do yourself a favor. Try to consider that someone who has spent time in other similar practices has spent time witnessing just as you did in Scientology. See if that doesn’t open up an interesting world of increased affinity, reality and communication. Just as importantly, validate the time and effort you put in likewise. You might find you are in better shape than you have previously permitted yourself to believe.”

    In addition to the above quote, the last sentence of this recent post of yours really indicates: “It is simply this, to the degree data assists with relieving additives to the mind that enforce automatic time/space construction it is valuable; conversely, to the degree data invites introduction of additives that further automatic time/space construction it is destructive of higher awareness and states of consciousness.”

    With the above two quotes in mind, and your purpose of “Moving on Up A Little Higher”, might I suggest you have a look at this article, as I think you may find it interesting and informative as well: http://idenics.com/additives.html

    All the Best to you and Mosey!

    Take A Look

    • TAL, nice job spotting and sharing some gems. I had missed that article of Marty’s that you shared, and I really enjoyed reading it just now.

      I had a few really great sessions with Mike Goldstein last summer. He is a peach of a guy, and I felt really good about our sessions. :-)

      Nancy

  22. gretchen dewire

    Brian, this is what I am starting to approach in my meditation. I am not quite there yet but the veils are getting thinner. With more disciplined experimentation I am sure to experience this. Thanks so much for your post.

    • Your welcome Gretchen! I am happy for you!

      When I read Marty’s post I got excited I could not resist. I was sitting in a gelato store eating icecream. My wife and friend finished theirs and mine was abused and melting as I bang out my experience on my iPhone.

      These type of posts and ideas about the dubious solid nature of matter played out metaphorically in my icecream dish. I just had to share my experiences as my gelato’s solid nature was becoming mush.

      BTW, I also had a similar experience in the Sea Org, in session. It was not quite the same singular intensity but nonetheless was instructive on the nature of the material universe being essentially light.

      And always concomitant with this perception was an indescribable intense joy or ecstacy. Perception of truth and joy always occur along side of each others. At least that has been my experience.

      • Another interesting thing that happens to me after after experiencing all creation as light: when I open my eyes and come back to “normal consciousness” I actually watch considerations and whole chuncks of mind start to reform themselves. It feels like the bricks of a prison wall rebuilding themselves after being knocked down and my perception of 360 degree pure liberating freedom leaves my awareness.
        But what stays is the conscious recognition of what I learned about the nature of consciousness and it’s inextricable relation to the existence of matter.
        What is left is knowledge and an intense inspiration to forge ahead on this priceless path of spiritual liberation: the goal of life itself!

  23. Excellent Marty

    I definitely like your “axiom” regarding how to assess the usefulness of data. The same principle also applies to any “truth” one may have adopted.

    The whole challenge of moving beyond the constructs one has for the physical universe can get a tad tricky. Often I find that somehow those sneaky little constructs tend to slip in there soooo easily.

    To simply let go of everything, and then to also be able to let go of having let go… a very interesting quest.

    My recent look into Tibetan Buddhism turned up this very subject… the achievement of totally letting go of the constructs one has invested in, and then also being able to let go of having let go.

    I consider that, although Scientology can assist one in unlocking various stuck points and fixations, the attainment of such a transcendence as this, at some point, is best approached by deliberately allowing oneself to “let go” at every opportunity. It is very unlikely that one will reach a fully transcendent state while you are actively “letting go”, because that, in itself, requires the adherence to some construct or another, but I think that by opening the door as wide and as often as possible, one approaches states where its likelihood increases markedly.

    Here is something that came to mind while considering this. Within the realm of Scientology processes there is a very useful tool called “Havingness processes”. It seems that when a being “as-ises” large quantities of his constructs suddenly, as in some processing, he can be left feeling “empty”. Havingness, as I understand it, is partly used to remedy this “loss”, or to help him re-establish his place in, and his relationship with, the physical universe.

    There appears to be a craving for constructs in order for a being to feel “safe” or “here” or “himself”, or a number of other things. Havingness seems to be directing the person to his present time environment, seemingly to create “replacement constructs”, rather than leaving him to ransack his case for something “suitable”. Seems valuable on the short term, but If one’s transcendence is in the direction of fewer constructs, would it not be better, at some point, to work more directly in the direction of resolving the being’s apparent need to cling to constructs.

    Thanks for “shaking the trees” a bit…

    Eric

  24. They used to tell me to fear Satan

    Then, they said I was a Thetan,

    The “bee” said, happily buzzing out my window,

    I don’t NEED no stinkin’ badges!

    I am ME!

  25. Nice interpretations, and marriage with other philosophies and sciences. Some SCNists, claimed to me that we had ‘the way’, and implied we have the copyrights over truth –proudly owned by you-know-whom. As far as I’m aware, Hubbard didn’t do that. He said that past efforts got booby-trapped and led man further down, and that we should be careful so that wouldn’t happen to SCN. But that eventually happened with SCN as well, on a large scale, in the universes of many I’ve known.

    Truth will never be lost :) …unless we think so

  26. Marty,

    What a wonderful write up. You communicate your insights masterfully.

    “This ability can become unachievable in Scientology; much in the way it has in many other practices. There are a number of reasons for this. However, all of those factors can be recognized and understood to one degree or another as invitations or commands to build further time/space constructs, and to belief so implicitly in them that one – once again – puts the process on automatic. Whatever titillating or inviting backdrops against, or foundations upon, which one presents such enticements to build new mental constructs, they still have the same regressive effect ultimately. They send one back down the rabbit hole of time/space construction, which after enough practice ultimately to one degree or another goes back onto automatic.”

    Yes, Yes, absolutely. That is what I resisted for 30 years, not only from the Scientology BORGS (they seem to replicate continuously) but from Hubbard; who I feel took upon himself, to bait and switch his workable counseling methodology, into an All-encompassing, All-life fixating new Universe, were one has no choice but to follow his every words, and viewpoint, and ultimately to agree with his weird construct that is Scientology: a religious-scientific-paramilitary-business-occult-totalitarian maze?

    Yes, it has been extremely frustrating for me to deal with this duplicity. Since my approach to the mind is personal, direct and a self owned activity.

    I don’t need nor did I ever want a Church, a Big Being nor a new Mythological Belief System for the space age to contain me.

    I can observe psychic phenomena, exteriorize, and own my perceptions of Time/Space As Is, without a Big Brother organization corralling me back into their crazy universal view.

    My old roots from Zen served me well. I can experience Mind and Reality directly; no newly constructed belief system is needed.

    I can also use the workable Scientology methodology as a tool to me and to others, and I do not wish to make it into anymore than that.

    Thanks but no thanks. I will continue my journey into life and beyond without the imposed Scientology insanity.

  27. Well…

    *Some* L. Ron Hubbard processes install automaticity.

    That’s part of the problem with Scientology.

    1) Remove some “human-oid” automaticity.

    2) Add install some “L. Ron Hubbard-oid” automaticity.

  28. Beautifully put Randy!

  29. gretchen dewire

    Take a look, that reference you reccomended was on an Identics web site. I believe it is one of the groups reccomended in the back of The biology of belief by Bruce Lipton that ias on Martys recomended reading list. Interesting stuff thanks

  30. You’re very welcome.

  31. maxim46zbitnoff

    Marty, you seem to be right in sync with Steven Greer, the guy who is dedicated to disclosing the presence of extraterrestrial intelignece. Just got this by email from him. His last sentence says it all.

    “Cosmological Confusion. This term best describes what happens when 20th century humans are confronted with the existence of advanced extraterrestrial life forms. For not only are these beings not human, they possess technologies which are inherently mystifying to us. It is unlikely that a people capable of interstellar travel will be using microwave signals for communication, or fossil or nuclear fuels for propulsion. Since a hologram or laser would appear magical to a human 200 years ago, a large measure of scientific and cosmological humility and patience will be needed for us to begin to understand these civilizations, their technology, and most importantly, the lessons on the nature of reality we may learn from them. Moreover, the co-existence of a non-linear, non-local and transcendental universe with the so-called ‘physical universe’ must not only be factored into our understanding of cosmology in general, but of the manifestations of advanced extraterrestrial people in particular.”

    • martyrathbun09

      Actually, we’re in entirely different lines of endeavor.

      • maxim46zbitnoff

        Oh well. I found the synchronisity interesting. I had a friend who was an “experiencer” of ET phenomena and beings. She had one time of it trying to explain her reality to her peers. I was able to facilitate a connection with the Harvard psychiatrist John Mack who made a study of experiencers almost losing his faculty position because of it. He wrote Passport to the Cosmos: Human Transformation and Alien Encounters.
        From what you have written I see a high degree of correspondence between that and those who search for meaning in contact with non human intelligence.

    • For the record that’s an excerpt from a paper Extraterrestrials and the New Cosmology, which Dr. Greer published in 1995.

  32. Interesting. Thanks for publishing notes from your journey, I find them most thought provoking.

  33. Great statement, Marty. You said,
    “To those cemented into the permanent constructs some paths tends to embed one in, this will sound like the most rank heresy.”
    But I see your axiom as a statement of truth, revelation, goodness, and faith for any spiritual or self-improvement path that one might follow, including Scientology. When the day comes that all faiths and practices apply this axiom, this world will be a much better place.
    In my opinion L. Ron Hubbard was actually a great physicist (whether he “studied nuclear physics at Georgetown” or not) because his axioms were logical statements of a link between the physical universe and the realm of spirit or whatever you want to call it. They do give at least one coherent answer to the question any little kid would ask about the Big Bang theory – “So, what made the big bang?” Until fairly recently, that question has been “verboten” among physicists.
    Thanks for communicating these “verboten” thoughts.

  34. Hi Marty,
    Just finished Memoirs and have to say, this book has helped me tremendously. My Scn experience started so well and ended so badly that I was left in a disoriented state, for years. Your books and blog have helped me to locate and orient myself towards some possibility of moving up, again.
    Incidentally, another great book on the ‘time as apparency’ issue that you might like, is Julian Barbour’s, The End of Time.

  35. Another really good post Marty. Thank you.

    Throughout my life I have wondered much about time and space and have always been immensely interested in any media that addresses time and/or the possibility of time travel. The subject has always seemed to be both fascinating and elusive for me. I know, through the years, inspecting my own interpretation and perception of time and space as it occurred in my dreams and then all the wild variations of how time “feels” in my seeming existence in time….well, for me, the mechanics of time and space has been a difficult thing to pin down. LRH did help me some in getting a better grasp of the understanding of time but Tom Campbell’s interpretation of time I found to be somehow more viable for me. I can’t really articulate that though.

    One time I was talking with a friend of mine who had been listening to the PDC lectures. Whether what he told me was straight from LRH or his interpretation of something LRH said, I don’t know, but what he told me I found to be incredibly useful and continue to find it useful. Basically, what my friend told me was that if I thought something in the future was coming at me too fast (I needed more time), the way I could create more time was to take whatever was coming and throw it out into the future making it have to travel across more space to get to me, thus, giving me more time. Well, this little trick is incredible! In fact, there was a situation where I really needed some more time and I don’t know exactly what I did but, using this technique, I instantly added two hours to my day. It was as if two hours got inserted between 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m.. It was a very weird and almost unbelievable experience. And while I have not pulled something that extraordinary since, the technique continues to be viable in adjusting time. The only problem I have is that just have to remember to use it when I need it.

    I have also done other experiments with time and space using this technique. Especially while driving to a destination where there seems to be a great deal of space between point A and point B. Most of the time I wanted to arrive at point B quickly so while driving I would work at shortening the space between the points so the distance to travel would be much less, therefore, I would reach my destination more rapidly. While I was shortening the space I would be throwing my normally estimated arrival time farther out into the future. I did have some success with these experiments but nothing particularly fantastic.

  36. Marty, this is a wonderful statement: “…time and space are constructs of human and animal minds. They have no independent, observed or tangible reality in and of themselves. We create them in order to establish dimensions within which to survive amongst and with other organisms and to play games.”

    The reason I consider this to be a ‘wonderful’ statement is that it is an answer to the implied question i.e., “Why is there time and space?” This question, from my experience, is an extremely rare question to find someone asking. But, IMO, this is a profound question that opens the door between a physical universe and an ‘IS’ that is beyond words, beyond time, space, matter and energy.

  37. Again…proving that less is always more :)

  38. Amen to that, Marty.

  39. Tom Gallagher

    Totally off topic Marty, but worthy of mention…….

    You set the stage for the hell storm unleashed regards the Lunatic i/c and all of the flaws and grievances with the RCS. Ortega and others make news.

    You heal. Thanks!

  40. Marty, I’ve really enjoyed kicking this around the last few days. I guess it’s that comparable magnitude thing, i.e. finding something to compare this to. I don’t know if I found it, but my big takeaway seems to be that the star will never be reached. This does not negate the necessity of the journey for those seek a higher plane; however, those of who do had best be prepared to maintain the quest indefinitely in order to avoid replacing the automatic constructs. At least for me this is true…and I’m kinda looking forward to it. Doug

  41. Another good call, Marty.
    I’m curious if you’re looking at creative processing circa 52-53 once a person is quite exterior (outside of the space/time construct)?
    That’s the direction original OT IV takes. It’s where I’m heading once done with the orig. OT levels.
    Les

    • martyrathbun09

      That material is certainly effective for certain individuals. Depends on the person. But, I think Ron’s later warnings on that score are sage; if an individual is on auto in any regard, that route is gonna put it into hyper drive.

  42. My personal belief and experience is that theta can generate space. I mean a real space, not just an idea of space.

    I am probably not alone in having experienced being in contact with a large volume of space as the result of auditing or even TRs. Does that imply we just permeate the space or does it imply we create the space volume that we occupy? It should be noted that creating a space does not imply that that space has to change the physical universe space or particles it co-occupies. If it did, every time someone went exterior there’d be an explosion.

    LRH wrote in Scn 8-80:
    “If Life—or theta, as it is called in Scientology (q )—is a mirror and a creator of motion which can be mirrored, it follows then that mirror-wise, the whole of the laws of motion, magnetism, energy, matter, space and time can be found in thought, and behavior and even thinking partake of the physical universe laws regarding matter, energy, space and time.”

    If theta can create space then theta can also create the basis of time (motion) by repetitively creating and un-creating a space, or by repetitively enlarging a space and then contracting it.

    The physical universe has been shown by quantum mechanics to behave in a manner that demonstrates both the presence of time and the absence of time.

    Theta, as static, is defined by an absence of time. If theta can create time by creating space, then theta bears a strong resemblance to the physical universe.

    Probably more accurate, the physical universe bears a strong resemblance to theta. Of course, it would – if theta created the physical universe.

    • “If it did, every time someone went exterior there’d be an explosion.”

      From what I’ve seen, what most people think of as exterior is simply being at a different point in space than their body. Out of body, but still in a space/time construct not native to a being.

      The physical universe is the shared considerations of all its inhabitants, sort of a fractal/holographic morphogenic field. It has the characteristics of thought.

      LRH said that one key to winning in the game with it, is to view the physical universe as the smallest particle of it, which is the whole of it.

      I think that done, it would be very hard to stay in it!

      I suspect it IS very hard to stay in it and all our theta energy goes into doing just that! We have what we put energy into.

      It is possible to direct ones attention to a state of singularity though, and to the degree no energy is used perceiving the physical universe, one is outside it.

      My thoughts at least.
      :)

      http://www.dhamma.org/

      • Dave: I suspect it IS very hard to stay in it and all our theta energy goes into doing just that! We have what we put energy into.

        Spyros: Great, I think so too. I think it has much to do with taking a MEST point of perception, then fooling self that “I am myself” (the point). Then self -considering that it is located in space and time- can also -apparently- be effect (of it’s own cause :P )

      • Dave95694

        My thoughts on exteriorization, in a nutshell, are that there are infinite qualities of “exterior”. For instance, there are lots of things that any given being would not consider himself “in” at any given moment. I consider that you are exterior to those things. Anything that you are confronting is something that you are exterior to. Ron has said that, “Confronting” is the ability to “be other than” something. I would call this state of being “other than” “exterior to”.

        It has many gradients.

        Eric

    • 2ndxmr

      I was considering this statement…”It should be noted that creating a space does not imply that that space has to change the physical universe space or particles it co-occupies. If it did, every time someone went exterior there’d be an explosion.”

      If one considers that space is created (in one construct) by placing dimension points in different locations. One can create more space by simply moving the dimension points farther apart. One can selectively move dimension points in selected locations, creating a different “local space” (or perhaps density of mest) in that area.

      Got me to thinking that all any explosion really is is the rapid expansion of one space inside another. The “disruption” of the larger space is experienced as an “explosion”.

      It would seem “energy” is a function of rapidity of change space.

      Perhaps Time, Space, and Energy are not three separate things at all, but rather three aspects of the same thing.

      Food for thought…

      Eric

  43. Marty: Consequently, a simple axiom evolved for me that I have found useful in studying and applying any work in the fields of spirit, philosophy and psychotherapy. To those cemented into the permanent constructs some paths tends to embed one in, this will sound like the most rank heresy. To those not so embedded, it might help keep you from falling into the wet concrete looming along certain paths. It is as simple this, to the degree data assists with relieving additives to the mind that enforce automatic time/space construction it is valuable; conversely, to the degree data invites introduction of additives that further automatic time/space construction it is destructive of higher awareness and states of consciousness.

    Chris: Now make it shorter.

  44. Lost moon, dark of night
    Takes the vision from our sight
    To see only dreams

  45. Thank you Marty for pointing out that transcendent experiences can and/or do put one outside of the time/space phenomena. I had never thought about that aspect of the cognition process before, but I think you are right. I, too, as one of the commenters above related, have felt like “time stopped” after certain cognitions in auditing. There are times lately where I felt like I was “above the time stream”, but never really looked at the way I did after I read your article above. Maybe this is why auditing was so addictive for me; I kept wanting to re-experience those feelings but didn’t relate them to the absence of time and/or space! Wow! This is bringing on all kinds of new thoughts and ideas about the value of auditing.

    During my decompression period, (which is still going on,) I purchased and started listening to lots of LRH lectures (yes, Flag allowed me to purchase them off of my account because I was considered a “Good SP”, (LOL), and so even though cut off from the Church, I had the consideration that LRH was auditing me directly, especially when I would listen to and participate in the group auditing lectures. I started to feel like more people should get declared and get their auditing directly from Ron! I experienced all kinds of case gain and produced real miracles in real life, one of them being the purchase of a half million dollar office building on IH 35 in two weeks with no money or no credit, actually receiving a letter of approval in my own name, from a private lender for a $500,000 loan. I was really proud of that because I was so bummed out before that, and hadn’t produced much in the way of products in real estate,(my profession of many years), due to being so bummed out by the enforced disconnection of my son. I was actually working as a security officer at night in office buildings and would spend most of the night listening to LRH lectures. The only change in my otherwise dull life and routine,(at the time), was listening to the lectures. I got so blown out I was able to reconnect with my buddies in a real estate investment club and get some investors and some help, and closed the deal in two weeks! After that I was back in business! My life has never been dull or routine since! It is true that when one is in that transcendent state one’s postulates have the ability “to work” and to work quickly, another thing I was not quite aware of until I read your post above. I had never put that together. All I knew is that when I listened to LRH lectures, magic would happen! In fact I would call these time periods in my life where everything was going right, “having the magic wand in my hand, where everything I want to happen, happens”. I think athletes call it “Being in the Zone”. Well, I am now having the realization that the magic wand occurs being in the Zone of no time and/or no space, where one’s considerations can manifest (in the physical universe) with lightning speed!

    Thanks for session, Marty, it was great!

    • Hi Lady Min! That’s awesome news! :)

      • Hey Tara, thanks for the acknowledgement! This has been a big win, (my realizations about time and space, or the lack thereof, LOL) and it is always nice when someone gives you a good ack! I miss auditing!

        Hope you’re doing well, and would love to see you soon!

  46. Thank you for this post.
    After I left $cientology, I began to investigate the Eastern philosophies and have experienced for myself that mantra recitation can be very effective at reminding the mind that sensory perception is impermanent, limited and incomplete.
    Whereas , the self or Atma is none of these attributes .
    It is of utmost value and importance to share knowledge and wisdom without a financial motive.
    Again, thank you.
    OM

  47. Posteb bij ze “enemies” you love to hate on the interweb. repost for illustration.

  48. Thank you for this post.
    I study the an ancient teaching from India known as Vedanta and have experienced for myself that mantra recitation is a very effective method for reminding the mind, that sensory perception is impermanent, limited and incomplete.
    Whereas; the Self or Atma is none of these attributes.
    Isn’t it nice to be able to give and receive knowledge and wisdom without
    having a financial motive.
    Again, thank you. OM

  49. Joe van Staden

    Joe van Staden: AS I SEE IT

    It will require several chapters, to respond and do justice to the many insightful comments regarding this particular post. Nonetheless, I will attempt to do so as concisely and directly as possible.

    I believe two issues are essentially at the core of what is being discussed here. One is mindset and two is consciousness.

    ONE; MINDSET

    Nothing is as it seems – nothing. What we perceive and experience are the labels we have stuck to everything we encounter in an attempt to become or remain oriented in an ever changing “world”. We evaluate all we observe in accordance with the benchmarks – beliefs, values and assumptions, which constitute our mindset. In other words, the existence we experience and respond to is our creation.

    Two types of benchmarks in particular constitute mindset – those which are predominantly information based – defined in terms of thinking and logic, and those which are predominantly intuition based – defined in terms of feelings such as empathy.

    A functional mindset is a mindset in touch – the balance between info and intuition based benchmarks is appropriate to the prevailing circumstances. A dysfunctional mindset is out of touch – the balance between info and intuition based benchmarks is out. In the simplest of terms; where there is too much “head” and too little “heart” or too much heart and too little head we loose touch.

    (By the way, this is the state of the world today – too much head and too little heart. It is after all the information age. Regardless of humanities amazing technological advances, we are out of touch with our world).

    There is no such thing as an unprejudiced point of view or perspective. We are often told to think out the box which is generally seen as good advice. Yet this isn’t possible. We may shift to a different box – a bigger or more comfortable box, but a box – a frame of reference – a mindset of some kind can not be avoided.

    We rely on mindset – a frame of reference – to filter, contextualize, categorize, reject and/or channel the vast amount of information and feelings we are constantly exposed to in an immense ocean of omni present consciousness. In other words, mindset provides the orientation which makes it possible for us to focus and function. Without such a filter – without our beliefs and values, our assumptions and “truths”, we are likely to become completely disoriented and overwhelmed by mental and emotional stimulation.

    In the following scenario, simple as it is, can be seen the role of mindset as it applies to our daily lives as well as every facet of existence.

    Imagine being given the choice to live anywhere in the world with an allowance that will ensure a very comfortable lifestyle. Let us assume you accepted the offer, and after going down a list of a thousand possibilities, you made your decision. In narrowing down the list, certain criteria will have been used in the process of elimination. Undoubtedly, you will have had benchmarks which immediately eliminated most possibilities, leaving you with a few probabilities. Those left on the list will reflect your idea of an ideal place to live. In the end, your final choice of the ideal spot would not have been possible without a frame of reference to filter the vast number of choices at your disposal. Without the benchmarks, which constitutes your mindset, you would simply have remained overwhelmed and unable to make the “best” choice. Under pressure, and out of desperation, you may have closed your eyes and blindly placed your finger on the list, allowing for the possibility of winding-up with an igloo inside the Arctic Circle!

    In the absence of relevant benchmarks, the thousand possibilities you had to choose from amounted to more information than you could effectively process. Not having the appropriate means of evaluation will invariable put you out of touch. This is where mindset comes in. It provides the criteria from which you can make a choice. It provides the benchmarks, context, frame of reference, setting, in which life can happen. Mindset provides the required orientation (the context) within which life can be sustained and have meaning—a basis for self-expression in a world of constant change. The more appropriate the criteria – the beliefs and values, we use to make choices, the more functional the mindset.

    TWO; CONSCIOUSNESS

    The quest for an answer to what consciousness actually is goes back millennia. In order to gauge success in this age-old endeavor, we need only Google consciousness studies. What we will find is an overwhelming amount of data which will take us more than a lifetime to work our way through. Even so, there seems to be no explicit simple answer to the question.

    Generally speaking this quest can be broken down into three approaches. Firstly there is the approach predominantly driven by a mindset based on information based benchmarks – the scientific and academic approach – logic and “facts”. Secondly there is the approach predominantly driven by a mindset based on intuition, subjective insights – the esoteric and metaphysical approach – a “sixth sense”. Thirdly we have the approach driven by a mindset which seems to run between one and two. Although this third approach has been around for more than two or three centuries, it is only in recent years that authors like Fritjof Capra (The Tao of Physics), Gary Zukav (The Dancing Wu li Masters), Amit Goswami (The Self-Aware Universe), Lynne McTaggart.(The Field) and others have brought some fascinating material into the public domain.

    (L Ron Hubbard and Scientology I believe fits in the third approach. However, my personal preference is to use the word consciousness rather than Theta). .

    Whatever approach one favors, each will reflect the prevailing mindset behind the approach, which is also reflected in the “language” used. It has been my experience that in most cases this “designer” language tends to be over the heads of all but initiates. Probably the worst of the three are those involved in the first approach. The mind-numbing complexity of the strictly academic approach to the consciousness question could be forgiven had it come up with the answer, but it hasn’t. And it doesn’t look as if it will anytime soon.

    In my attempt here to answer the question of what consciousness is I have tried to the best of my ability to do so in “user friendly” language.

    THE NATURE OF CONSCIOUSNESS

    It could be said that consciousness from the human perspective is synonymous with our sense of existence. Unless we are aware of something – unless it has entered our sphere of consciousness, as far as we are concerned, it does not exist – it isn’t real. Yes, this is a fundamental aspect of consciousness, but it doesn’t really tell us what consciousness is; so what is it?

    Consciousness is an experience – the experience and perception of variation, change and difference, diversity and transformation. In the complete absence of variation, change and/or difference of any kind, whatsoever, of what would you be aware – of what would you be conscious?

    According to this hypothesis on the nature of consciousness; the catalyst for awareness and consciousness is the inherent ever changing, always different, nature of “nature”.

    The existence we know – the reality we respond to is sustained from one instant to the next by constant variation, change and difference (VCD). The common denominator in all we are aware of is perpetual VCD. It is this ever-present diversity and transformation which the mind (mindset) endows with meaning, relevance and value, which is then interpreted as the reality we perceive and experience. The only constant in life is variation, change and difference.

    Our sense of existence – our sense of self, is dependent on VCD. For instance, your perception that something is too big, ugly, of no use or too expensive, is in each case due to a comparison of some kind being made – a comparison indicative of variation, change and/or difference. Store A is seen as expensive when its products cost far more compared with those in store B. It is the difference in what stores A and B charge that makes store A expensive.

    When we look at our immediate environment, what do we see? No matter how we describe what we are looking at, awareness of what is being observed is possible only because of the variation, change and difference inherent in what we are looking at. It is the fluctuation and diversity in terms of shape, size, color, location, velocity, purpose, value, temperature, texture and so on, that distinguishes one thing from the next, making it possible to see and experience anything.

    Whatever is being defined or described, variation, change and difference, in terms of something comparable, is inherent in that description. It does not matter whether the comparison is specifically referred to or not, or whether it is obvious or obscure, it is always there. One could say that the raw material of existence (reality) is VCD.

    Time: a key component of reality is, in the final analysis, a manifestation of change. Time is not the background against which variation, change and difference takes place. VCD happens—and we have time. From the human perspective we measure, describe and experience time in terms of the variations and changes we encounter daily. Things vary, change and become different—which is then perceived and experienced as time.

    Space: another key component of reality is invariably perceived and experienced in terms of two or more dimension points. For us to experience space there is always at least a point A and a point B in a relationship of some kind. Point A and point B could be anything as long as point A is different from point B in terms of location, meaning, relevance and/or value. One could say that space is the product of the relationship between two or more points separated by variations and differences. In the complete absence of difference between A and B of any kind whatsoever we have complete sameness, making interaction (relationship and relativity) of any kind impossible. Complete sameness also renders meaningless and irrelevant the designation of points A and B.

    Energy: the basis of this key component of reality is that where there is a point A and a point B, there is the probability of interaction and flow. And where there is interaction or flow, there is energy in some form. However, the nature of interaction or flow between A and B is entirely dependent on the variation and difference separating the two.

    Our ability to manage our existence diminishes to the degree that variation, change and difference, fluctuation and diversity is perceived as unacceptable and experienced as beyond tolerance.

    THE BRAIN

    The supposition here is that brain activity and neurological phenomena, any biological sensor – the 5 senses – such as the visual system, only kick-in once variation, change and difference is detected.

    Nonetheless, there is considerable support for the idea that the brain is ultimately the source of consciousness (the first approach). It can be argued that it is the brain – our biological receptors, which make it possible for us to perceive and experience VCD in the first place. Based on this supposition it must then be concluded that the concept of consciousness only applies to “living” entities in possession of a brain or some form of neurological system. For such an argument to be sustainable the exploration of consciousness must remain introspective – limited to a world defined in terms of brain activity and/or neurological phenomena – a world contained within a skull, so to speak. This assumption is unacceptable to those who favor the second and third approaches to the exploration of consciousness.

    The second and third approaches to the nature of consciousness imply that there is more to it than that which is defined in terms of our physical anatomy. Even so, due to the compelling material (physical) orientation, in which humanity find itself, the average individual is inclined to give more credence to institutions and people who represent and promote the first approach – the scientific and academic approach to finding answers to the nature of consciousness. Consequently most of humanity see and experience consciousness only in terms of a sense of self – a sense of me – I – an ego – a point located inside the skull. .

    The position taken here is that consciousness is not limited to the human sense of self. It pervades all of existence – existence beyond the reach of the 5 senses. In other words, we exist in an “ocean” of consciousness, whether we are aware of it or not.

    There seems to be consensus amongst inquiring minds throughout the ages that a “connectedness” exists between all in existence. The supposition here is that this “universal” connectedness may just as well be described as an all pervasive omni present consciousness.

    To get closer to the true nature of consciousness we need to look beyond the mindsets and language used in the different approaches to the exploration of consciousness.

    Looking at this all-encompassing consciousness from a “birds eye-view” we see it reflected in every aspect of existence. For instance, it is present in the “awareness” existing between sub-atomic particles and a rock “knowing” to fall toward the center of the Earth. The latter is clearly not stated in the language of physics. The scientist will use words like entanglement and gravity instead of awareness and knowing. Nonetheless, whatever the words used to describe an aspect of existence, a “connectedness” between all in existence seems to be conventional wisdom, be it from the perspective of science or mysticism.

    Postulating consciousness as the determining factor in the “setting” for all of existence is likely to be problematic for some. Here is the thing; whatever description is preferred for the “backdrop” against which existence is realized, be it; The Quantum Field, Heaven, The Ether or Blank Canvas, inherent in any such label are characteristics indicative of “consciousness”.

    IN CONCLUSION

    Although there is a great deal more I could say, the following analogy is intended to provide some insight in how what has been said relates to our daily lives.

    Imagine being in a large art museum hall filled with a multitude of art works hidden from view in darkness. All we have is a tiny narrow-beam torch. Although it sheds some light on our surroundings, our view will be determined by the width of the beam. In most cases this will be much too narrow to shed light on the complete item in front of us. In some cases, we may have to scan the beam up, down and sideways to make out what is there. Now imagine having a torch with a much wider beam. Using the wider beam it becomes possible to see complete items at one glance. Having a torch with an even wider beam, it is now possible to see several items simultaneously. The wider the torch beam the more we can see. It may be that at some point the beam is wider than what is required – too much is exposed to our view – we can’t take it all in. Now imagine the impact on our senses should the main lights in the hall be switched on. Every item comes into view simultaneously.

    Here is the thing. The multitude of art works in this large museum hall represents every possible possibility – infinite potential. The light beam emanating from the torch indicates the extent of our awareness – the width of our consciousness. The device for adjusting the width of the beam is mindset. The variation, change and difference inherent in the art works we are looking at, at that instant, will be indicative of the width of the beam – the extent of our consciousness at that moment. Should the torch beam be too narrow it means mindset is too closed and we can’t see what is required at that time. The VCD inherent in what we are looking at will be too little. Should the torch beam be too wide it means we are exposed to more data than we need – more than we can effectively assimilate – mindset is too open. The VCD inherent in what we are looking at will be too much. In both cases mindset is dysfunctional. A functional mindset would be a case of what we are looking at and experiencing – where what we are conscious of – where what the torch beam reveals – is what we want to see, can experience and tolerate.

    The most significant aspect of this scenario is the implication that everything possible already exists. All that separates us from this all encompassing omni present consciousness is mindset – a mindset which narrows the torch beam and gives us defined time – past, present and future as well as defined space – here and there. Within the context of a “museum hall” which is all lit up, we have an infinite now and undefined space.

    The consciousness we are familiar with – that which we currently see and experience, is simply a reflection of how wide our torch beam is and how much or how little VCD we can tolerate. In the final analysis, improving conditions amount to raising our tolerance of variation, change and difference. This, in turn, amounts to gaining mastery over that device (mindset), which widens and narrows our focus.

    Joe van Staden.

  50. As to:

    “to the degree data assists with relieving additives to the mind that enforce automatic time/space construction it is valuable; conversely, to the degree data invites introduction of additives that further automatic time/space construction it is destructive of higher awareness and states of consciousness”

    Well said!

    By the way, I think even many or even most physicists today would agree that in some sense, time is an illusion. (I am an avid student of physics and cosmology.)

  51. I found solace in the pre-Socratics.

    Google “The History of Philosophy Without Any Gaps” narrated in over a hundred 20 minute short simple lectures, by Peter Adamson.

    I think the pre-Socratic Greek philosophers (borrowing from Hinduism) had it right.

    https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/history-of-philosophy/id396903391

    (lectures 2 – 12, especially the lecture on the “atomists”), indicate to me.

    The roots of of materialism go way back, the definition of materialism where it means there’s no spirit, it’s all matter (or it’s all whatever it is). Bringing the atomists up to date, I like Lawrence M. Krauss’ 2012 book “A Universe from Nothing”.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s