Dimensions

Here is some interesting food for thought from Thomas Campbell’s My Big TOE (Theory of Everything):

If you have read Flatland, it will be clear that the ordinary residents of a given reality can only observe and understand interactions within their own reality and the interactions of residents of realities that are more highly constrained than their own.  Residents of a more constrained reality cannot comprehend a less constrained reality because it lies beyond the limits of their normal perception.  

Each dimension of reality has its own rules that define its objective science.  Additionally, each dimension of reality experiences the next higher (less limited) dimension as subjective and mystical.  Consequently, your mysticism may be another’s science: It depends on how big a picture you live and work in, and the degree to which restraints limit your perception.  The perspective from the next higher dimension provides a bigger picture with a more complete understanding.  This more comprehensive, complete, and less restrictive knowledge is only accessible to lower dimensional beings (those with a more constrained awareness) through the experience of their individual locally-subjective mind. 

Consequently, a mystic could be a scientist from a higher dimension, or a delusional fool hopelessly caught in a distorted web of belief.  How do you know which is which?  A good question!  

108 responses to “Dimensions

  1. The difference between a madman and a mystic is clear. The subjective madman’s reality does not match the common good, does not reflect accurately on the nature of inner and outer reality.

    The sage/mystic/saint is full of wisdom and understanding, love and joy. The presence of a mystic is magnetic and people enjoy being around him/her and claim that being with that person brings understanding to them.

    The madman fights with shadows of mind and life, the mystic’s light dissolves shadows through conscious inquiry or some such technique.

    • It may not be so clear to the lower dimensional beings on that basis: the lower dimensional beings subjective reality may have a very different estimation of what is the common good.
      For example: an interstellar and inter-dimensional war rages. The leader of the Forces of Light can see the only way to block a fatal incuresion into this galaxy by the Forces of Darkness is to vaporize a certain rock called Earth. To not do this would result in the death of 10 Trillion beings. Obviously, vaporize away. Whats 6 or 7 Billion compared to 10 Trillion?
      But all the poor shelps on Earth would see is the materilzation, as if by magic, of a hostile and unresponsive alien armada intent on our destruction, and even if they were to explain their reasoning, we may not be too inclined to agree.

      • If we not agree, this is because we would not take responsibility for the whole scene, for the totality of any beings, or that we postulate, not an “Optimal Solution”, because the destruction of Earth here is indeed, by the définition of LRH, but an “Ideal Solution”, means a solution which would bring, or at least maintain, happiness for all the Dynamics, including, I shall say, the ones of “The Forces of Darkness”😉

        This solution could consist to make an other plan were “The Forces of Darkness” would be converted in “Force of Light”, and at least, the inhabitants of Earth, evacuatued to avoid any risk.

        What do you think?

        • The problem is that as occupants of the lower order dimension the Earthings are unable to properly understand or effect the higher diminsional beings, therefore they cannot effectuate such a plan.

  2. And a true enlightened mystic can traverse all the various planes of universes: physical/astral and causal worlds. Read the chapter “The Resurrection of Sri Yukeswar” in Autobiography of a Yogi to read about inter dimensional travel and existence. Ha ha ha, I’m laughing because of the potential of this post being seen as loopy.🙂

  3. How do you determine who is a Delusional Fool and who is a true Mystic/Higher Dimentional Scientist?
    Well, I believe it may be somewhat simple: positive results.
    The individual with the truly higher dimensional reality/viewpoint/knowledge will have an easier and more effective ability to cause effects at the lower dimensions, and therefore, though we may not be able to acheive that beings overall scope of viewpoint at our current dimensional thresshold, we can certainly see the results of his actions on this demension.
    The Delusional may talk a good game, but the results simply will not be forthcomming.

    • Good standard. I believe that LRH’s adherence to that same standard is what made what he developed eminently workable.

      • This is a very good book. I should read it.

        Talking about dimensions:
        what about the “mystic” who rose above the need of a “result”.
        (compare chapter 15 in Tao Te Ching.)

      • Moonshot, Marty — I agree.

        I might posit Einstein as an example. At the time he proposed his Special and General Theories of Relativity he may have seemed a mystic to many. The ideas he proposed — .e.g., that space and time are relative — were so counter-intuitive, so “3D” in a “2D” world (metaphorically), that he might have been dismissed as a mystic or mad. But for one thing.

        His theory generated workable, falsifiable hypothesis. It could be empirically tested, and falsified or not, found workable or not, in this “2D” world (again, metaphorically). To my knowledge, to date it has passed every empirical test to date.

        To remedy any MU re: falsifiability, see:
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

        • Interesting. However, scientific standards are quite limited (constrained) by their insistence upon physical matter reality (matter, energy, space, time) means to determine falsifiability or workability. To those working in the realms outside of matter, energy, space and time conforming to scientific standards can be a leash tying them to dimensions below.

          • Fascinating. Marty, your response caused me to really think about this.

            I’m not sure either the scientific method or the concept of falsifiability necessarily require the per-conceived, incontrovertible, fixed idea of, and belief solely in, MEST — even if many scientists falsely believe (and preach) that they do.

            All I’m trying to get at here and in the above example is something that is inherent in Scientology. The test of results. The test of getting an actual product. The purported mystic applying 3D technology either gets a product, or not. The purported mystic applying 3D technology either causes the beneficial effects he asserts the ability to cause, or not. At some point there is a test. We don’t just take his word for it. Conversely, we also don’t discount or invalidate him if he does get results,does get a product.

            I understand that unlike easy MESTy subjects like physics and chemistry, the beneficial product or effects may be subjective, or at least initially so. Someone completes Grade 0. A relevant question is (to over-simplify), can that person communicate better? To find out the answer, we ask him. He says yes, he is happy, he can can communicate much better. We rely, at least initially, on his self-report of his subjective state.

            Now I say “initially” above because, at least at this level, there *might* some objective analysis long term. If an Auditor turned out one-hundred Grade 0 “products,” and we later learned that they all locked themselves in their homes and refused to communicate with anyone on any subject, we might from an exterior, objective perspective suspect that something was amiss.

          • “To those working in the realms outside of matter, energy, space and time conforming to scientific standards can be a leash tying them to dimensions below.”

            Following this argument through to the logical conclusion, the question whether someone is a “fool” or a “scientist from a higher dimension” will not be decidable, and you will have to take anyone at face-value, if they claim to experience “other dimensions”.

            I would also strongly disagree that scientific standards do become a “leash” for someone working in higher dimensions. On the contrary, I am very suspicious of anyone trying to push this argument, because it essentially relieves them of any obligation whatsoever to prove anything to anyone or even to himself. In essence, this argument is pretty good at thought stopping if someone wants to stay in the mindset that he is in higher dimensions. Now don’t get me wrong before you are going to label me as having this point of view because I am “limited”: I’m not saying that other dimensions do not exist, let me explain:

            From the article you cited:
            “If you have read Flatland, it will be clear that the ordinary residents of a given reality can only observe and understand interactions within their own reality and the interactions of residents of realities that are _more highly constrained_ than their own.”

            Yes, in the physics community the concept exists that additional dimensions exist while we are constrained to 4 (space, time). There’s some pretty whacky stuff out there (that’s why mathematicians frequently ridicule physics people) like p-branes, which are higher dimensional plains, and we’re just living on the surface of one plain that is contained in a higher dimensional thing, let’s call it “universe”.
            That doesn’t mean though that effects from events on other/higher plains cannot be observable in our reality, and Flatland doesn’t rule this out either (see highlight). Imagine a two dimensional intelligence is living on a sheet of paper. Now poke a pencil through this sheet of paper, and for this being, miraculously, a new “thing” appears from nothing in its own reality.
            This very fact opens up this discussion to the methods of science:

            Correlate events in “other dimensions” that have an impact on our reality with events therein, and derive testable predictions. Assuming one is cause over MEST on a higher plain of existence with effect on our reality, one could even bring these events about.

            If this higher dimension you are talking about does have no effect on our reality, well then you are personally in a dilemma. Your research is not falsifiable, and thus you will not be able to tell the difference between whether what you experience is real, or is created by your brain. I believe, LRH was calling the latter case “dub-in” in Dianetics.
            Maybe you still find it worthwhile to explore your “mystical perceptions”. But that is an entirely different matter.
            And to arch back to the original question: someone who explores his extradimensional perception without scientific tests may call himself an explorer, or philosopher. He is only a fool if, in doing so, he thinks he’s a scientist.

        • We have clearly advanced in the field of medicine for example, wiping out plague, small pox, syphilis, etc. along the way. Setting bones, delivering babies (as LRH mentioned), life saving oxygen, hydration & diuretics, heart surgery is now routine, long lists of treatments (some quite questionable still) and an even longer list of monitoring apparatuses.

          Certainly brain tumor surger, though still unpredictable at best, I have personally witnessed a miracle in one family member, alive and doing remarkably normal now some 15 years later.

          Most here likely know all drugs, street or medically prescribed have poisonous side effects (just watch TV), and yet in reality certain drugs or surgery are sometimes the best we have to sustain life especially in emergency. That in itself is big advance. Still medical science is at best in an infancy current form. And why is that? I consider because medical and mental science and the red tape of prevailing authority still rely upon the false pretense that the physical body and physical universe is the profit center.

          Funny thing, licensed doctors, nurses and even their assistants, will not give you specific information, even about diagnosis much less cure in most cases, or even exacting information about your prognosis unless it’s clearly fatal, or clearly nothing, and yet, you can sense they actually know more than they will often say.

          When you consult the spiritual dimension, they will usually acknowledge some what. It is unsettling how easy it is to shake a physician’s or surgeon’s stable datum (false data) and be left without a clear answer!

          Indeed the physical sciences are constrained yet moving along compared to where they [medicos] were, say 100 years ago. At best it’s got to be an emergency in their field, but more likely an unhandled condition of doubt. After all, the entire body of medical science, as LRH predicted, is to be taken over by the US Government.

          What we can know is this, modern medical life saving treatment exists, and is a very good thing we have, and there are a lot of good professional and well intentioned folk involved that will save your life at all cost, but think of where modern medicine might go from here, without so much “dimensional” restraint.

    • Agreed Moonshot, accurate results stem from accurate understanding of the nature of the subject to be controlled.

      I see a philips head screw, I use a philips head screw driver. Seeing the screw(accurate perception on the nature of reality), I use my screw driver ( accurate application of truth), the screw is tightened ( correct result)

      This extapolates into the infinite variety of possible knowledge to be known. The wise man has his tool box to decontruct the nature of all Universes and recreate it at will.

    • No offense intended Moonshot, but Positive results today can be nothing more than the “fools gold” of tomorrow. The question of “mystic or madman?” and “positive results” can be more readily observed within the dimension of extended time. This is because hindsight is 20-20. (There are many examples in history of “positive results” turning into nightmares, not the least of which is DM’s tenure at LRH’s Organization)

      To predict or project the probable results of the actions of mystics or madmen through time (and thus discern their true identity) is the realm of OT. The OT sees ahead in time and supports the mystic and foils the madman. Thus spoke the soothsayer…. ha.. just having fun.

      • Robert,

        You’re inference here seems to be to the so called, “Law of unintended consequences”.

        From my observation, that is what LRH endeavored to avoid by meticulously identifying and documenting ideas that had long term value and workability in developing the technology of Dianetics and Scientology.

        After listening to LRH’s lectures on The Factors, I better understood the differences between people who are abstract in thought, introspective, introverted and subjective – as opposed to those who are practical in thought, extrospective, extroverted and objective.

        In this, I have generally found that while subjective types can sometimes sound intelligent, objective people generally grant more beingness and are more able to get pro-survival products.

        My two cents.

        • Thanks Scott,

          Yes I understand your point about “unintended consequences”. Unintended consequences is really about taking one action and getting the opposite or negative result, or even a lucky result, like planting a bush in the back yard and finding gold. That is not exactly what I meant to imply about projecting the actions forward into time.

          An OT predicting the future consequences of the actions of Mystics and Madmen (in order to detect or discern a madman) might be better described as the feeling you get when the hair on the back of your neck stands up…. ha.. I guess that is not very analytical.. is it.

          Competent and incompetent people have evil and good intentions… they are hard to tell apart. Sometimes the best detector for the true intentions is your own knowingness, however you arrive at it. And then you must act on it.

          LRH set up all manner of long term safe-guards to prevent the Church from being taken over by an SP. Those safe guards lasted about 15 minutes. That is NOTthe result of the law of unintended consequences. It is the result of competent evil intentions. Detectable in the first 15 minutes by the hairs on the back of many people’s necks, but not so easy to act on in the middle of a war zone.

          • Yes, Robert. I agree. It’s the difference between KSW being used to keep the tech working and KSW being used in order to invalidate and smash people. Miscavige is the ultimate example of this. He simply reversed KSW to abrogate the structural and organizational safeguards LRH put in place. Once this was done, there was nothing to stop Miscavige’s “Domination by Nullification” method of mismanagement from destroying the entire C of S.

      • No offense intended Robert, but your argument is both specious and dishonest as you are actually trying to invalidate the existense of “positive results” by claiming that the actions and results of every bad actor in history were the “positive results” of their day.

        Nonsense: if the results are positive, they are positive.

        If you say you can cure cancer, either you can or you cant. If you say you can build a better mousetrap, you can or you cant. If you claim you can write a commercially viable novel, you can or you can’t.

        Obviously DM’s results aren’t positive. That’s downright foolishness for you to claim that they are. He may, and his minions may, but that dont make them so.

        I think any reasonable thinking person recognizes you cant take a claimants word for their own actions and results being positive.

  4. One of the most fundamental of philosophical insights here.

    I recall that LRH phrased this similar concept as “being senior to all games below the one you are in” (overheard from a GAT drill on the ship)

    • Similarly, there is the Tech Dictionary definition of Scientolgy:

      “It is the one thing senior to life because it handles all the factors of life. It contains the data necessary to live as a free being. A reality in Scientology is a reality on life.”

      • Also from the Tech Dictionary, a quote about the Q’s (Pre-logics) from PDC 6:

        “… the level from which we are now viewing is a common denominator to all experience which we can now view. The highest level from which we’re operating”.

  5. Sounds like he is saying the higher dimension of understanding is available to the person below it on an individual, but not a group basis. Explains why a thousand staff in the church who “get” the higher teaching, in their case LRH material, are unable to practice it as a group and move higher if the group is controlled by one man who doesn’t “get it”. DM being among a group that gets it does not help him personally. Interesting. The chain is as strong as its weakest link.

  6. Actually we have a perfect example. The Corporate Scientologists look from their reality at the Indies as if they are madmen. It is only as the reality is changing by individuals getting a little bit higher, tha people close to them can see the good results, and so it is a process, and as you, Marty, said, the tipping point already happened and the new, shinning good and beautiful reality is soon to be the reality all most of the Corporate Scientologists.
    The game where everybody wins🙂

  7. TroubleShooter, Gayle

    I believe it’s possible to tell by their statistics or by the outcome of pluspoints versus outpoints on their dynamics in other words use reasoning skills, observe and inspect. I don’t argue with the lady in Long Island who is a medium who talks to those who have passed over. She has high statistics on accurately describing those who have died, what they were like, data and circumstances about both the living relatives, their relationships, circumstances about the death etc. I don’t even try to describe that within the walls of learning I’ve dwelled within Scientology. Why try to. My personal philosophy is that there are many enlightened men and women who have tapped in to the intangible universe and found truths and abilities and information that are just that – truth, real and useful data. None of that by the way alters my personal experience about how to hold the channels technically as far as the tech of Scn goes. For example would I refuse to audit someone who meditated? No but I would get their agreement NOT to meditate during their auditing. Would I endeavor to invent processes or believe someone who had might have found a better way than the Bridge as it’s been laid out? Absolutely not. When you’re dealing with the living lighting that LRH describes in the tech and he says it workable if it’s applied as it is who am I or anyone to say yeah but I think I know better. Why even try? If you do it as it’s been laid out it works so what would the purpose be to alter it? Then again if someone agrees to be a willing guinea pit of which there were many in the development of the tech then have at it. Just do ensure that it’s now not Scn that is being applied but in fact is something else with a new author and a new name for it would need to be given. Is it possible that someone could come along with a higher awareness than LRH and find a new and better road to high planes of awareness? Yes indeed it’s possible in my mind anyway. It would be called something else however – it would not be Scientology.

  8. For me, Carl Sagan’s Cosmos series did more to simplify the subject of “dimensions” than anything else (there was one episode in particular that really explained the subject extremely well). I found it here on youtube:

    Coupled with LRH’s Factors … well, lets just say that life became far simpler. 🙂

  9. I’ve observed this before in the fact that you can observe people in economic levels below you and figure out what they’d need to do to solve their problems (Get a job, you bum!, or Why did you spend so much on that car if you couldn’t pay it off?) and we can see that there IS a level above us, but way up there we don’t see them at all.

    I don’t even know where to look to interact with people who bring in a million or more income each year. I don’t know what their problems are, or how to solve them. That’s part of what makes me content staying where I am (why buy a mink coat when I don’t belong to a country club to wear it to…?)

    I can see that this whole stratification thing would apply to consciousness too. I can see someone who “doesn’t grasp the situation,” as well as I do, but the guy who’s smarter than me is thinking the same thing about me.

  10. Question: is the written works of Scientology infallable?

    Which would translate into this question also, “is Ron’s accuracy of memory on the whole track 100% infallable?”

    This is an honest question and not a piece of covert rhetoric..

    If the answer is no then can you give me some examples from your reality and personal understanding.

    • My question is in response to Gayle suggesting that there will never be an upgrade of understanding save for the present written works.

      It would imply that no man or women will ever come along except Ron and advance human understanding and techniques to free Man.

      • TroubleShooter, Gayle

        I said that as far as Scientology goes, the grade chart is laid out as it is as it’s own body of work. It is entirely possible that there will be another someone who comes along who develops a better technology. It will not be called Scientology unless of course that person believes they need LRH’s coattails to ride upon in order to get their technology out. That won’t work. I believe Michelangelo’s “DAVID” is a brilliant piece of work that stands alone never to be redone by another artist as long as there are those who will prevent if from being altered. That doesn’t mean that there will never be another artist as who can produce a piece so beautiful, right?

    • Brian: “Not a piece of covert rhetoric?” Seems like it is, but you don’t need to be covert here… you can just say what’s on your mind. Marty will probably post your comment anyway? I don’t know, just try it.

      • Covert rhetoric, Robert, from the stand point of being a hater. Thats not me.

        • And my question Robert was really a question. I would like to know what others think.

        • Got it Brian. You clarified your intentions with your explanation about your “infallibility” question, which really originated because of Gale’s comment about categorically not mixing practices (which I had not read until now.) This is the shortcomings of communicating in this blog format. Sort of like crossing emails🙂

          Anyway, I thought Gayle was pretty clear in saying what she/he would do or would not do in certain auditing circumstances (basically, not mixing practices). And your question seemed to imply that LRH was fallible (by asking about infallibility, but whoever said he was?) anyway this implied that his work could use a valid correction or improvement, i.e. mixing practices or applying an improved version of something he missed or whatever. If that is what you think (more or less), then I was just suggesting you state that fact rather than apparently being critical of Gayle’s viewpoint of categorically not mixing practices. Please forgive me if I misunderstood what you were trying to say…

          Marty has very open forum here and there is no reason for anyone to hide or justify “mixing practices” by pointing out the fallibility of LRH. If mixing practices is something you want to do, go for it…. hell there are a number of Buddhists here that did the OT levels. This forum is like the old Cowboy and Indian days, except we all agree NOT to shoot each other. So you get to wear your ten gallon hat, pack a six shooter, wear war paint, etc..whatever is your pleasure! But, we all love and respect each other.🙂

          • Thanks Robert, yeah, texting can be such a source of misunderstanding.
            I appreciate Marty allowing my posts. And my questions/views.

    • 1. No. While SOP8, and “one shot clears”, for example, occasionally produced amazing results, they did not produce amazing results across the board. Gradients were necessary, and experienced C\S’es were needed to guide and correct auditors at different levels. Besides, how can symbols have “judgement”?
      2. No. The way he recalls certain things, and others often conflict. The notion of “dub-in” on overcharged cases was mentioned as early as DMSMH. This is why personal integrity is a core pre-req to “case gain”.
      Is the accuracy of your whole track memory infallable?
      I know mine isn’t. At least, not yet.😉

    • Scientology cannot be claimed to be infallible because absolutes are unattainable.

      Ron answered this question once. From my memory (which is fallible) he said that Scientology succeeded because it was right more than it was wrong.

      Besides he presented it as, “Here it is. If it is true to you, then it is true.” The way I’ve approached Scientology is to put everything I can into each piece of tech I get ahold of. And never be so committed to “believing it is true” that I can’t recognize when something hasn’t succeeded.

      I’ll give you a real example: writing up your overts and withholds. I’ve never had the wins on this that I’ve s seen others have. I’m willing to look at it again at later times if needed. But as of right now, it isn’t true to me that writing up OW’s work. Yet I can accept that it may for others.

      • Dan Koon said the LRH was not keen on O/W write ups; initially advising it be kept out of Life Orientation Course because he didn’t consider them very workable.

        • O/Ws write-ups worked very well for me. I handled a lot of things and made them vanish (as-is).
          But they worked best on a free basis.
          Mechanical O/W write-ups as done with staffs in danger condition is useless (if not harmful). Orgs should specialize in moving staff up the bridge.
          O/W write-ups won’t work for all cases (naturally).

        • “Dan Koon said the LRH was not keen on O/W write ups”
          Does it imply that it wasn’t LRH who implemented the write-up into the Danger Formula? I’m interested to know more. He didn’t wrote the references about O/W writing?

          • Dan can pipe in when he sees this, or search scientology-cult.com – he may have already written it up.

            • Thank you.
              I will look there.
              I’m courious about it.

              The only verbal mention from LRH about a O/W write-up was in the “Responsibility – State of Man (January 1960 congress)” where he said analogous “you can send in your O/Ws write-up to HCO WW…”
              But he didn’t say how to write them (time, location, form, event – axiom 38).
              Also the HCOBs of that time didn’t mention such write-ups at all (although there is lots of HCOBs about responsibility, create/confront from that time period).

              That’s why I wonder as there was plenty of Bulletins (BTBs) written in 1970’s not originated by LRH himself.

              I hope Dan sees my questions and can “pipe in”.
              Now I browse scientology-cult.com

        • Wow, that blows some charge off the case for me! Back in the mid 80’s, Class V org staff were sent to the FOLO for Athena Cramming, which I believe originated on the Apollo and was supposed to be a few days of fast clean-up to revert stats. But at the FOLO it often took weeks or even months of OW write-ups before one was released from Ethics to Cramming and then back on post. The MAA once threw a thick packet of OWs back at me and said, “Don’t even knock on my door until you have at least a full ream of paper!”

          This reeks of a DM- type order that was being rammed down the lines back then.

          • Gee,,, that happened to me too, at Folo EU the 80s, I remember she was a French girl (Marie Claire?), there was a room full of most of the EU EDs, doing O/Ws and conditions, and it was COLDDDDDDDDDddddd!!!!
            I had a great win out of the OW’s write up because I had an Italian guy who qualled my OWs and would not pass me on unless I wrote the right words🙂 took me some hours to realize that “taking it from my mom without her permission” was actually stealing ! life changing that was !

      • Well, an O/W write-up wont work if overts aren’t the source of the current problem or case phenomena. End of Story.
        The current Cof$ leadership is highly and overly enamored of this slice of tech as it accomplished two important things for them: 1) introverting their membership so they don’t look for obvious out-tech/ethics on the part of the leadership, and 2) giving leadership personal secrets which may be used for leverage against members when they attempt to leave the plantation at a later time.

    • Brian, the accuracy of Scientology written works do not translate into whether or not Ron’s track recall is accurate. Ron always differentiated between Scientology and his opinions and so should we. Scientology is about things that you can see right there where you are. What someone recalls about their track is para-Scientology and that includes what Ron says about the track. Scientology is information about the things we all hold in common and they are right here in present time.

    • Brian, I’ll take a shot at your question which actually is not hard to answer. Of course, the written materials of Scientology are not infalliable. I’m not going to write a long post here on numbers of points as this doesn’t have to be a legal brief, but there are numerous examples of LRH further looking into something and changing his mind. One of the most well known examples would be from DMSMH where Ron says that it’s not what you have done, but what has been done to you that is so highly abberative. Later on, he looked more into the subject of “responsibility” and changed his viewpoint. Similarly on the qualities of a clear as expressed in DMSMH. I don’t think too many Scientologists would defend that as an infallible point. But for myself, as I express in a later post, I’ve decided it is more in keeping with my own philosophy on life to follow LRH’s essay on personal integrity and judge for myself whether something is true or not or fallible or not.

  11. Hubbard says in Tech Dictionary:

    REALITY, 1. is, here on earth, agreement as to what is. This does not prevent barriers or time from being formidably real. It does not mean either that space, energy or time are illusions. It is as one knows it is. (COHA, p. 249) 2 . that sequence which can, we say this person is suffering from reactive conduct. He has a reactive mind. In other words, his association has become too blatantly in error for him any longer to conceive differences and we get identification: A=A=A=A. (5702C28)

    As I look at this definition closely, it seems that when reality is interpreted as agreement rather than a clear recognition.of ‘what is’ it aids reactivity.

    Buddha says (Ref: INTRODUCTION TO KHTK):

    “Observe things as they really are, not just as they seem to be.”

    We may look at
    TRUTH = Recognition of ‘what is’
    AGREEMENT = accepting what seems to be

    Buddha may be interpreted as saying:,

    SEEK TRUTH, NOT AGREEMENT.

    Agreement seems to hide the truth. An example would be everybody agreeing that the earth is flat.

    .

    • Your cherry picking emanates a dissonant wavelength.

    • vinaire,
      The truth is exactly what is, as it is. That is in the Scn Axioms. Reality is the agreed upon apparency of existence. Again, in the Scn Axioms. There is no disparate point between these and the suggestion by Gautauma Buddha to look at is-ness and work to seeing as it is.

      You seem to be comparing apples and oranges. As-isness to Is-ness. Looking at something as-is, fully, will arrive at the truth of it at which point it ceases to persist. It’s “is” will “isn’t”. If it “is” then it is agreed, from different viewpoints, to be not “as-ised” lest it “isn’t”. The reality of MEST, is a result of not seeing it exactly as it is, so that it will still “is” in order to play around with it.

      The discrepency you propose is artificial. It is. It is not “as-ised”, so it appeared on this blog.

      • Vinaire,
        Sorry, that should be “Its “is” will “isn’t” (meaning it will cease to exist. It will be spotted exactly as to its truth and poof.)

      • Good comment, Jim!.
        Also, what both Gautauma Buddha and Vinaire are missing are the implants. Doesn’t matter how much vipassana (to observe things as they really are, not just as they seem to be) they do, they won’t be able as-is heavy implants. LRH was a mystic genius!

        • Ooops. I meant: … Doesn’t matter how much vipassana (…) they try to do, they won’t be able as-is heavy implants. …

  12. It reminds me of the train of thought in Kuhn’s “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”

  13. Li'll bit of stuff

    Very interesting poser, Marty, and as Moonshot intimated above,
    differentiation between the two, could certainly measured by the
    results of each viewpoint’s respective action toward the achieve-
    ment of results / effects / goals. Also, one may use as a measure,
    the ability to postulate a reality / natural law or condition exists,
    then to determine, by thorough effectual >> causal investigation,
    that it DOES actually exist. Ie the various scales and relative
    positions of each point on that scale. The incredible genius it
    took to formulate the Prelogics, Logics, Axioms of Dn & Scn,
    could, when you think of it, (were LRH not such a forthright
    character) have been cloaked in mystic mumbo – jumbo to have
    him elevate himself as “the only one” and thus kept his aura as
    such. Again, the fact that he had the wisdom of a true sage, as
    with any others he regarded as such –all had in common — the
    belief, that wisdom should NOT be kept to oneself — but should
    be shared among one’s fellows.
    The Awareness Scale as an incrementally attained state, achieved
    through the processes of auditing and consequent realizations,
    make broader and broader realities possible, through the almost
    “mystical” capacity of a thetan to assume an almost infinite number of viewpoints, as observed by the (thetan’s) capacity to create, both subjectively AND objectively, when freed to do this.
    BTW, the other guy, the delusional fool, caught in a distorted
    web of belief, is simply incapable of achieving ANY of the above,
    by actual test, IMHO.

    • Li'll bit of stuff

      Oh, of course—let’s not overlook the obvious conclusion to
      what I assume Marty was pointing up here—there really is
      only one –“the only ONE”—delusional fool, playing himself
      OUT of this game, since he never bothered to learn the rule
      of how to stay in it! (get up The Bridge–HIMSELF!! )

  14. Troubleshooter Gail, it seems to be the case that there is a lot of misapplication of LRH tech because there are lots of people who have not gotten the results expected. If you assume his path is workable.

    I agree another workable path would be a different source and name.

    • TroubleShooter, Gayle

      Bob,

      Thank you for taking the time to say that you agree that another workable path would need to identify itself and originator as opposed to calling their discover/invention Scientology.

      I could get in to the policies regarding HCOs role in establishing an organization, putting HCO THERE to be the first and primary role of the Executive Council and what Qual has to do with it so as to deliver 100% standard tech. I could go on about how you will find very few orgs on the planet with established Quals or ANY HCOs at all…but I won’t go there at this time other than to say that there would be an interesting study to see how many OEC/FEBC graduates there were in org exec posts in the 70s compared to the 80s, 90s and 2000s. The stat does drop like a brick I do know that but it’s expected to happen when the OEC/FEBC course is eliminated for so long. You’re right I do find LRH’s work to have provided a path that is workable. I’ve got a lot of history with it to have no doubts about it. I have a strong belief in the e-meter and what it tells me is or isn’t happening in and around the person holding the cans in terms of electrical charge that is or isn’t present or has now been discharged. I’m FASCINATED by the merging of the spiritual world and science as Scientology does it. I just haven’t found the existence of another path that interests me and keeps my interest like Scientology tech does.

      Gayle

  15. I am sooooo living this right now. Great post.

  16. OMG Marty! I am on the second time through My Big Toe Trillogy and the book is dog eared with tabs which I intend to go back over when I finish this time through. From the point of view of an OT7 trained auditor I can only say the book is mind blowing. From the point of view of My Big Toe, I have a much better understanding of Scientology than I did before. LRH was right on the mark and spelled out exactly how to get to a higher consciousness and lower entropy. Lower entropy = greater ability. Every cognition increases your total consciousness.

    Campbell identifies the primary field, Consciousness or Theta. He describes how and why it created the illusion of the physical universe and and why we are here.

    All I can say is read the book if you want a greater understanding.

  17. For those so inclined, the game lab at MIT recently released a 3-D game illustrating some of the effects of relativity as one approaches the speed of light: http://gamelab.mit.edu/games/a-slower-speed-of-light/

    Also, some of the physicists recently released a paper concerning the mathematics of objects moving faster than the speed of light.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/10/einsteins-math-faster-than-light-travel_n_1951272.html

    At least it i being conceived of.

    • iRoger From Switzerland Thought

      “http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/10/einsteins-math-faster-than-light-travel_n_1951272.html”

      Seems like we’re flat earther re the speed of light !🙂

      S

  18. I wonder why people go senile after a lifetime of gaining awareness. Then, we kick the bucket and pick up a new body, forgetting everything other than perhaps a vague and misty idea that maybe we’ve existed before.

    Seems like one step forward, one step back.

    I call that a trap.

    • Bryan, I believe it is being identified with bodies and the limited five sense telephones that bring in inaccurate or incomplete data regarding the nature of existence that bring oblivion of memory and ability.

      On the other hand, just because an old sick body machine is creaking and dying doesn’t necessarily equate to a lessoning in awareness.

      The machine can be broken, but the soul can still be radiant if it has accomplished this one Supreme Fact and Unequivical Perception: I am not this body, I am an Immortal Soul, Timeless, Deathless as free as the solar winds that blow accross the cosmos! Indestructible! And able to leave this form at will, and not just by natures rude final decree of body death.

    • This is not true for everyone , some people do not get much amnesia , because talking about past lives is discouraged by society it is generally unknown that a lot of people in the world can remember past lives easily .

      • So true ealadha. Children are amazing in this regard. When children are allowed to stay in their “native state” they can be the essence of wisdom and a portal into that world.

        My family has had some incredible experiences with young ones who have blown our minds with what has come out of their little mouths. Time: what a joke!

  19. Now as to dimensional understanding, if Donald Trump walked into any of our lives and took over our finances for thirty straight days, I bet he’d have created at least a million bucks out of thin air….legally and perhaps even ethically.

    This is because he lives in a reality of billions upon billions of dollars subjectively.

    A mere million bucks would be life-changing for myself and probably many others here, but to Trump, a million dollars probably seems like loose change one would carry around in their pockets.

  20. “Consequently, a mystic could be a scientist from a higher dimension, or a delusional fool hopelessly caught in a distorted web of belief. How do you know which is which?”

    Using the Flatland example, the 3D being could appear and disappear from the view of the 2D characters (could also move the 2D beings/material in same manner). Remember him being able to see into the sealed “safe” too. This was objective and demonstrable. It wasn’t subjective. So, that would be a starting point…

  21. It’s very interesting. But who can say for definite? And who (apart from DM, in his hell-grotto of course,) has the final say over who is superior or inferior? That must mean that there is some super-superior all-judging being with ultimate authority. Or am I seeing this in too simplistic terms?

    It puts me in mind of a tale quoted to me once:- The basis of the encounter was a science lecture by either William James or – as was quoted to me – Bertrand Russell:

    He [the lecturer] described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the centre of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said:
    “What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant turtle.”
    The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, “What is the turtle standing on?”
    The old lady replied “Another turtle.” Then she was asked what that turtle stood on and she said another turtle, and finally, after a further query, the old lady declared:
    “You’re very clever, young man, very clever,” said the old lady. “But it’s turtles all the way down!”

    I guess we may never know. But as long as the bits that I, and my family and friends are standing on are OK, then I’m quite happy for the involvement of chelonians unto infinity…!

    Keep smiling!
    IEG xxx

  22. You can tell by the amount of effort or focus the person exerts on trying to convince others about the value or correctness of his (or her) thoughts and opinions. The delusional fool will assert the “rightness” of his views to anyone and everyone, condemning them to some sort of damnation if they don’t accept his brilliance. The true mystic will simply offer insights and truisms to those who have an interest in considering them, and allow for those *seekers* to come to their own conclusions, and do with it as they may. The one allows for a drawing out and expansion into the greater reality that exists; the other crams down and constricts the reality that is allowed to be considered.

  23. Side note:

    I just went to my storage facility to empty it — it was very challenging for me because a lot of the stuff there was from my Scientology experience. All the basics, lectures, congresses, course packs, etc. It took up SO MUCH SPACE and dwarfed all my other belongings.

    And to think all of that could be on a thumbnail!!!

    The management of Scientology is truly a disgrace not only for their abuses to people, but even to the ecological health of our planet. Inefficient, backward thinking, stuck, and truly incapable on perceiving and seeing future trends.

    CD’s ???? Are you f’ing kidding me?

    #2012

    • LOL I just went to BN.com to see what e-books are sold under the search terms Dianetics or, Scientology. Not a SINGLE book from the “church”. But, lots from those exposing the Church. Yep, forward, unto the 19th century.

    • CD’s ???? Are you f’ing kidding me?

      I like CDs. And books. And LPs. And paintings, and sculptures – and reel to reel tapes are way cool. I also like the hieroglyphs on ancient Egyptian monuments. Heck, I still keep paper invoices for my business going back fifteen years. I love those dusty old files. They’re a tangible testament to one of the best things I ever created this lifetime.

      I also like my computer and all my digital treasures. Don’t mess with it, if you know what’s good for you!😉

  24. Man, I am completely smokin’ the wrong shit.

    Damn it.

    BMiOkc

  25. Those words of Thomas Campbell sound good and logic.
    But the concept that something is above your reality you cannot grasp is a trap.

    Shure they are true as I do not know everything and there are beings that have a much higher reality or a much different reality than me. That is at least my education I got for years and years.
    In other words, there are millions of justifications possible why those words are good and not a trap.
    But at least they are currently popular.

    My reality is a bit different:
    1) Anything that you can think of is possible.
    2) Anything you cannot think of does not exist.
    That or who controls your think controls your environment.
    Due to point 2 you can be trapped.
    You cannot entrap yourself.
    You cannot un entrap yourself on your own.

  26. HG Wells wrote a story one time based on the saying “In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king,” This sighted guy lands in a a remote mountain valley where everyone is blind and didn’t know what sight was. He does all sorts of odd things. For example, he exposed someone’s overts and they decided he was delusional because the people in question denied it and there was no way he could have known it anyway. He was always stumbling around in the cool period (night) when everyone wanted to work and wanting to be active in the warm period (day) when everyone wanted to sleep. In the end, one of their doctors determined it was his eyes making him so aberrated and they were going to surgically remove them to “fix him.”

    My take on this story is that it all hinges on communication. The guy with the eyes or the new reality has to find a way to communicate this reality or the mob will take him down. It’s not true that denizens of one reality cannot perceive another. It is true that they can be very inaccessible though. Ron tells one anecdote where the guy who invented the wheel had to take his mate aside and tie him to a tree so he could demonstrate how easily the wheelbarrow works with it. Then they did the same with a couple of other and gradually the whole tribe. After that, they built war chariots and whupped anyone who disagreed.

    So how would you tell if someone was a scientist from another dimension or a delusional fool? Talking to him about it would be a darned good start. This is something I wish some of my erstwhile friends in the Church would pick up on soon.

  27. One thing: It looks like ill be in NYC this weekend — i think I’m going to attend the scheduled protest outside the church saturday afternoon. If any Indies in NYC want to meet up let me know! would be cool to connect. you can email me on facebook!

  28. Mystic or madman
    The Gods must be crazy deliema.

  29. Isn’t the ultimate issue being too many of us human beings have individuated as opposed to understanding each other as we were intended, spiritually speaking, and set out to be? As in one?

    What is the universal goal that LRH set out upon?

    Isn’t it ultimately a universal understanding of our true nature and its gifts as well as some tribulations to getting ‘there’?

    As spiritual beings, aren’t we clamoring for that original Ideal Scene? The broken ones, like POB, impede our path.

    Let’s continue to kick’em to the curb and in the balls. In POB’s case, though, they’re so small you’ll have trouble finding your target!

  30. This whole area of reality, both individual and within any given group has always fascinated me, especially since the first time I read “8-8008” which covers this subject. One extremely positive aspect of looking at Scientology from an INDEPENDENT viewpoint (that is, my own) is that I am freely “allowed” to judge any one of Ron’s ideas or datums and decide for MYSELF whether that datum is true or not based on my own observation and study. And so there are Scientology datums that I accept as true within my reality and Scientology datums I have rejected as very much NOT true based on my experience. Of course a person who is free in his thinking is also able to change one’s thinking depending on future information and experience (not FIXED). One cannot do this in the CHURCH of Scientology and it can be argued that it is at one’s risk to disagree with dogma/doctrine when one is fully participating in ANY church. Moving OUT of the Church of Scientology, to me, is the logical next stage in the evolution of Scientology, as is REJECTING any given LRH datum as untrue (if one is not ABLE to do that, how is one truly free in his thinking?). And of course, being able to ACCEPT an LRH datum (or any datum from any source) as true and valuable to one.

  31. There is a test that I apply to distinguish between a highly spiritual being (mystic) and a lunatic; a high reality person will understand my reality. If he can observe what I do, I could believe he can observe more than me. However, if the person looks like he is in a fog, if he cannot observe the obvious, then he is a lunatic or a pretender. Lots of those around.

  32. Here is another take on dimensions – it is P.D. Ouspensky’s construct of 6 Dimensions – 3 dimensions of Space, and 3 dimensions of Time. This results in a “multiverse” type concept of the “realization of all possiblities”, as he put it. This site describes what the 5th and 6th dimensions might be.

    What is interesting to me is that there could exist an infinite number of “multiverses”, each of 6 dimensions.

    http://www.rahul.net/raithel/otfw/dimensions.html

  33. Wow! I’m sold on that book! Thanks! You sure know how to find the treasures!

    If I were asked, How do you determine who is a Delusional Fool and who is a true Mystic/Higher Dimentional Scientist? I would answer, functionality. It doesn’t take a whole lot to be functional in this world. Farmers farm. That is functional. There is a science behind everything we see. A science to getting out of bed on time, getting a job, holding a job, creating a job, taking care of your body, putting a roof over your head, keeping your car on the road, establishing your craft, creating life around you. All of life’s basic’s have some kind of science behind it.

    I am suspicious of people who claim to be highly enlightened and aware while they operate as dysfunctionals. People that can’t get out of the house or manage their basic necessities honestly. That translates to me as being unaware of conditions and not in command of science.

    Also I have noticed you will not be able to get a straight answer to a question from someone who is delusional. Even if you manage to obtain the appearance of an answer, it will actually be an answer meant to some other question. Example:

    “Who should we call for this job?”
    “Not Joe!”

    “Who did that?”
    “The Samsung Organization.”

    It is not just a comm lag, it is an eternal comm lag as you NEVER get the answer to your question! They might “answer” in a split second! But you never got the answer to your question. The comm lag is an eternal one. That is the problem with pathological liars, an eternal comm lag. And they delusional.

    One of the most delusional people I ever knew once said, “I went into Wal Mart and the tone level was needing objects.” Boy was he in a huff about those low toned people!

    First of all, there is not a tone level called needing objects. I did not point that out to him.

    And why the hell would someone go into Wal Mart if they did not need an object? It’s a store! The purpose of a store is to be there for people when they need an object! That is functionality!

    But, he was really worked up about that insanity!

    I didn’t point it out to him. He was on such a win that he spotted those low tones at Wal Mart.

  34. Very interesting post, Marty, thank you.

    We now have Quantum Physics – where science and spirituality meet, and science is confirming much of what is contained in many spiritual teachings.

    My observation is that LRH was among the first to see that science and spirituality are not in fact in conflict, and that mainstream science, in omitting the spiritual, was making a fundamental error. Similarly, religions which omitted the scientific, were making a fundamental error too. One day, eventually, L Ron Hubbard will be recognised for this.

    My view is that dimensions yield perspectives (viewpoints) which can either seek harmony with further dimensions, thus leading to integration, resonance and expansion into further evolution of life, or they can seek to eradicate other dimensions, leading to discordance, fragmentation and shrinkage into death.

    It is a no-brainer to see which category Miscavige and Corporate Scientology fall in to – discordance, fragmentation, shrinkage, and ultimately, death..

  35. From SHSBC lecture of August 29, 1963, THE SERVICE FACSIMILE:
    (A level 4 lecture)

    “There’s the mathematician’s story about the two-dimensional worm. Two-dimensional worm, of course, he lives on a two-dimensional plane. One day, walking along on this plane and he bumps into something. And he says, “That shouldn’t be,” and looks kind of upset, his reality shattered, because how can you bump into something if there’s only two dimensions? You can’t bump into anything if there’s only two dimensions, because that requires a third dimension.

    Another worm comes along, a long time later, he’s maybe heard from this first worm there might be something over there, and he goes along and he runs into this thing, clank! And he says, what’s that? And he gradually is able to lift his eyes for a moment off his two-dimensional plane and he sees this pole up above him. And he says, “Hey! There’s a pole!” And he starts up the pole.”

    I guess a true mystic would be the one who allows us to see and to climb up the pole. A true pole, not a delusional one.

  36. Very interesting and put in a way that I had never thought about before. Thanks!

  37. One time the former DofP of the L’s explained to me what she believed were handlings for (a.) traffic jams in Los Angeles and (b.) rain (creating or stopping it). I tried both. Never really thought I had much success with ending traffic jams (which involves moving up ahead and removing the space between cars). But, since I soooooooooooo much detest being hot and sweaty in the summer, I gave it the old ‘college try’ with making it rain/be cloudy when I was home from work on the weekends. And, at least from my personal point of view, there seemed to be some results. I never told anyone about my experiments, as even most Scientologists are pretty much imbued with the belief that if it is not real to them, it is not real … my experience anyway.

    But, my point is that, “mysticism” is only “mystical” to those for whom the process involved is not “real”. And, sometimes, “mystics” are said to be crazy, looney or nuts, because those around them cannot share in the reality of what they are reporting.

    Scientology, on the other hand, is about verifiable results which can be demonstrated to others, even if only one-by-one in an auditing session. It does not matter if you can communicate your gains in auditing to anyone else through a concatenation of symbols and sounds. What matters is that EVERYONE who accepts auditing, in the style LRH indicated, will get highly
    similar results.

    Mysticism is wonderful for the mystic.

    For the rest of us, auditing is the key.

  38. Imagining Ten Dimensions – the movie

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